Dr. Piero Calvi-Parisetti, near-death experience science counters grief |319|

#22
Alex's questions at the end of the podcast:

What do you make of Dr. Piero Calvi-Parisetti's claim that education about near death experience science and after death communication can help the bereaved in a measurable way? Can it actually be a treatment that would rival drugs or conventional psychotherapy?
Yes, it does help.

I met a couple a few years back who had just suffered the loss of a child. They were sure that they were having experiences that suggested their son was still with them... but they kept dismissing those experiences because they knew that "was crazy". They wanted to believe their own experience, but knew mainstream science didn't support such a thing.

I suggested they read Hello From Heaven. They said it helped to know many people have such experiences and that it was an area being researched.
 
#23
I think there is certainly a grain of truth in what Alex said (together with some exaggeration)!
I don't think that claiming that materialism is beneficial to all sorts of industries is an exaggeration.

1- It keeps those that are miserable, but too afraid of oblivion, away from taking the "fast way out" (suicide) by emphasizing that "there is nothing more".

2- Thus, those people are kept in the system; they work for a living and at the very least invest in the essentials (I disagree that materialism by de facto means that people will engage in insatiable consumerism, but even the basics keep the economy moving), which means that the corresponding industries are benefited for years. Capitalism needs a healthy population to run smoothly and a *lot* of people are miserable, so its better safe than sorry.

3- As they age, their health will decline and the very fear that kept them away from suicide during their youth will throw them into the arms of our health system (which is, unfortunately, seen more as a business than a service) and -consequently- into Big Pharma (this is, excluding those that are diagnosed with some mental condition, they enter this phase much earlier).
 
#24
I don't think that claiming that materialism is beneficial to all sorts of industries is an exaggeration.

1- It keeps those that are miserable, but too afraid of oblivion, away from taking the "fast way out" (suicide) by emphasizing that "there is nothing more".

2- Thus, those people are kept in the system; they work for a living and at the very least invest in the essentials (I disagree that materialism by de facto means that people will engage in insatiable consumerism, but even the basics keep the economy moving), which means that the corresponding industries are benefited for years. Capitalism needs a healthy population to run smoothly and a *lot* of people are miserable, so its better safe than sorry.

3- As they age, their health will decline and the very fear that kept them away from suicide during their youth will throw them into the arms of our health system (which is, unfortunately, seen more as a business than a service) and -consequently- into Big Pharma (this is, excluding those that are diagnosed with some mental condition, they enter this phase much earlier).
Wait, your argument is that materialism aims to convince people not to kill themselves in order that they continue to buy stuff, and live to a ripe old age and so will purchase more health related services?
 
#25
Wait, your argument is that materialism aims to convince people not to kill themselves in order that they continue to buy stuff, and live to a ripe old age and so will purchase more health related services?
Read Alex comment about materialism helping people make money. Then David's comment saying that at least part of it may be an exaggeration and then my reply. The point is that it is not an exaggeration to say that it does help industries, as it certainly manipulates what they believe in leading to all sorts of ramifications. Anything that you may infer beyond that (i.e. that it aims to) is an extrapolation on your behalf.
 
#26
I think there is certainly a grain of truth in what Alex said (together with some exaggeration)!

When you read Irreducible Mind, I think it will make you wonder just how much we really understand of the human body, because it would seem that in extreme (but well documented) cases the mind can control the body in amazing ways.

David
Yes. Take the case of multiple personality. A friend of mine who is a psychologist has a patient like this. BTW, this same psychologist friend was fascinated (not dismissive) when I told her I had had one NDE and several OBE's. She was very curious about the phenomenon and wanted to know everything I could tell her. Also, two days before my husband passed he woke up in the AM and wanted to know "who are those people over there"...he pointed to the patio doors. I told him they were probably there to help him and perhaps he should go towards them.
 
Last edited:
#27
Although I agree that the subject of NDE's should be helpful to those close to death, or to their loved ones, I don't think it always is.

A friend of mine had to endure the protracted death of his wife from cancer. While she was still alive, I decided to talk to him (on his own) about NDE's, and what they presumably mean. Unfortunately, it was a huge mistake, and he got quite upset about the subject - so I said I would not mention the subject again unless he did, and so far he hasn't.

I may, of course, simply not be good at such conversations.

David
This simply tells you that dealing with real patients in real life is different from posting ideas on Internet forums. Clinical medicine and its numerous aspects is slightly more complicated from armchair research.

That's why I find Alex''s rant about Barking dogs and money hungry mainstream medicine unfortunate (as well as unnecessary).

I find it amusing too though. Whenever something serious happens all doctor bashers, withi virtually no exceptions, come to us, mainstream medicine that's apparently only interested in making money. Not homeopaths, herbalists or mind-body healers.
 
Last edited:
#28
This simply tells you that dealing with real patients in real life is different from posting ideas on Internet forums. Clinical medicine and its numerous aspects is slightly more complicated from armchair research.

That's why I find Alex''s rant about Barking dogs and money hungry mainstream medicine unfortunate (as well as unnecessary).

I find it amusing too though. Whenever something serious happens all doctor bathers, withi virtually no exceptions, come to us, mainstream medicine that's apparently only interested in making money. Not homeopaths, herbalists or mind-body healers.
Well, unfortunately there is another side to medicine. For example, I was given Simvastatin on a purely preventative basis. I was very positive about the idea - it seemed like a good way to keep healthy and live longer. After 3 years I got really nasty muscle problems that nearly stopped me walking (at least out doors). I was extraordinarily lucky to discover that despite the delay, this was a reaction to the statin. I will tell you more details by PM if you are interested. What amazed me, was that despite the fact that there were researchers claiming that statin side effects were probably placebo effects, I found numbers of people of about my age who had had nasty problems with these drugs - simply by chatting to people, not using the internet. There is a whole movement, lead by dissident doctors, pushing to limit the use of those drugs but they are a multi-billion dollar money spinner.

This lead me to a book - written by one of those dissident doctors - that spills the beans about a lot of medical research. It fully references the medical literature:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Doctoring-...qid=1466061109&sr=1-1&keywords=doctoring+data

This isn't a typical layman's medical book, I can guarantee you will find it interesting, but disturbing.

David
 
Last edited:
#29
Well, unfortunately there is another side to medicine.
Indeed. Three years ago a marathon running friend suspected himself of having a hernia. He presented himself to the doctor who assured him he hadn't and was suffering from a severe infection of the water works and put him on a course of antibiotics. Cut a long story short he began to feel very ill, which the doctor insisted was absolutely in line with his diagnosis and to keep taking the prescribed pills. Four months later he couldn't lift his arms above his waist and was reduced to getting about on a child's scooter as walking was impossible.

He began to suspect the medication was the problem and Googled the antibiotics, to find they were the subject of numerous lawsuits and the internet was full of pictures of wheelchair bound individuals who'd taken a weekly course of the same. He'd been put on them for Four Months. The treatment meant his body was drowning in yeast and after demanding an independent test, found his gut had been wiped of good and bad bacteria and was in the final stages before complete shut down. After almost two years of being fobbed off as a hypochondriac pest his doctor submitted to his demand and sent him for a scan. He'd had a hernia after all.

If it wasn't for an "alternative therapist" he found on the internet who'd cured herself after intense medical research when she found herself with the same condition in the 1980s, he's in no doubt he'd have been confined to a chair. Her alternatives were based on eliminating the cause of the problem, candida, and replacing the antibodies. Rather than sue everyone's arses and become bitter, he's preparing a detailed report for the medical profession underlining his findings in the hope it'll have some effect on doctors. He's convinced many diseases with degenerative diagnoses, ME and some new ones medics have made up when they have no idea of a cause, are the result of incorrectly prescribed antibiotics, which are routinely handed out to children for simple rashes, and similar conditions. His health is a shadow of what it was, certainly no running never mind marathons, nor sugar or carbs of any kind, but he can walk and talk and his body doesn't twitch like Frankenstein's monster.

So much for the sunlit uplands of medical progress.
 
#30
His health is a shadow of what it was, certainly no running never mind marathons
Fortunately in my case I recovered completely over about 9 months, but I gather there are people who don't recover properly from statin side effects.

I think all these problems will only get solved from below - I mean getting medical advice over the internet sounds utterly reckless, but in some cases it is all that is left!

I used to be very orthodox about medical matters - do what the doctor says! This experience really changed my approach!

David
 
#31
I find it amusing too though. Whenever something serious happens all doctor bathers, withi virtually no exceptions, come to us, mainstream medicine that's apparently only interested in making money. Not homeopaths, herbalists or mind-body healers.
I'd call cancer pretty serious, and somebody correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there a survey where a large majority of oncologists said they would not prescribe their own conventional lines of treatment to their own family and loved ones.

I think the "virtually no exceptions" is a bit of an exaggeration as there are many alternative cancer treatments that are treating (and curing) larger numbers of folks all the time. Likewise, for other ailments.

In my own opinion, I think the wisest thing to do is combine the best of both worlds - there's a place for allopathic medicine and there's a place for "alternative medicine". It also pays to be cautious and vigilant, because really stupid stuff is done by both camps.
 
Last edited:
#33
Ethan, what alternative cancer treatments are you talking about?
They all seem to come back to the metabolic theories of Warburg way back in the 20's. As James Watson (co-discover of DNA) said:

“If we’re ever going to cure cancer, we’re clearly going to have to go back to the days of Otto Warburg and focus on the metabolism to make any real progress.”

Whatever you think of HoneyColony, I thought this was a decent read that came out quite recently and covered all this, as well as alternative therapies, IIRC.

http://www.honeycolony.com/article/breaking-dogma-to-cure-cancer/
 
#34
correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there a survey where a large majority of oncologists said they would not prescribe their own conventional lines of treatment to their own family and loved ones.
A friend is a member of the Johnson and Johnson family and has been tangentially associated with their cancer research section. She asked one of the older researchers what he would do if diagnosed with cancer...his response...."I would get the best pain meds"....and that was all.
 
#35
Ethan, let's consider this hypothetical scenario. Say, you have a colonoscopy and get diagnosed with the early colon cancer. Will you go to the surgeon to cut it out or Honey Kingdom for their treatments? Just curious.
 
#36
....belief in survival is the only one consistent with human nature. We cannot imagine not existing at all, therefore we can only surmise some variety of continuity. Countering such a belief relies on intellectual complexity at the expense of other human traits, which at times of grief are immensely more rewarding, and that's before we look at the evidence of NDEs, crisis apparitions and other testimony in more measured circumstances.
I agree.

What was different with my mother(I should have stated this more clearly in the original post, sorry) was that she didn't need a sign of continued existence; she believed/knew that was the case already.
Her problem was, at least in part, her beliefs about what happened to people after death--people who weren't Catholic, or even Christian at all.

Essentially, she thought everyone except maybe her mother, would be headed downstairs. For Ever.

The recurring "self judgement" theme/scene described in many NDEs rearranged her entire picture of judgement.
 
#37
Ethan, let's consider this hypothetical scenario. Say, you have a colonoscopy and get diagnosed with the early colon cancer. Will you go to the surgeon to cut it out or Honey Kingdom for their treatments? Just curious.
I don't think that is a fair way to argue. Obviously anyone in that position would be torn all sorts of ways. For what it is worth, I gave up all screening tests a few years back (there are a fair few on offer when you get into your 60's), because there are increasing reports that these do more harm than good. If I remember right, this problem is discussed in the "Doctoring Data" book I recommended to you.

How can a screening test do harm?

Well it may result in unnecessary invasive procedures, or in some cases actual operations, with their attendant risks. Screening tests can be extraordinarily stressful, just anticipating the test and waiting for the results.

Older people need to realise that nothing the doctors will do will stop them dying eventually, so there really is benefit in taking life as it comes rather than getting into a perpetual state of low-level hypochondria. There are people writing on statin related forums, describing how they or their loved ones are torn between taking the statins prescribed by their doctors, and feeling physically awful, or stopping them and feeling really anxious.

There are a lot of allegations about medical science whirling around, but the one that I feel most confident of, is that statins cause a fair proportion of people really nasty problems. The two main side effects, are muscle problems and memory problems/ brain fog. Obviously these are also problems of later life,, and can easily be miss-interpreted - particularly if, as in my case, the side effects start years after starting the drug. This means, almost inevitably, that there are people (who would otherwise be well) who are confused and semi-crippled by statins, ending up in care homes, where the carers feed the patients their statins every day, thinking they are doing them good.

I know all the reasons not to believe my story - maybe people are aware of statins' reputation and this produces a psychosomatic effects, people are getting older, and sometimes joint/muscle/memory problems come and go, the evidence is anecdotal, etc etc, but I'll go into more details with you if you wish by PM.

David
 
Last edited:
#38
This simply tells you that dealing with real patients in real life is different from posting ideas on Internet forums. Clinical medicine and its numerous aspects is slightly more complicated from armchair research.

That's why I find Alex''s rant about Barking dogs and money hungry mainstream medicine unfortunate (as well as unnecessary).

I find it amusing too though. Whenever something serious happens all doctor bathers, withi virtually no exceptions, come to us, mainstream medicine that's apparently only interested in making money. Not homeopaths, herbalists or mind-body healers.
http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2016/06/story-man-not-feel-well.html
 
#39
Ethan, let's consider this hypothetical scenario. Say, you have a colonoscopy and get diagnosed with the early colon cancer. Will you go to the surgeon to cut it out or Honey Kingdom for their treatments? Just curious.
As David said, it's complicated and also people can say all sorts of things, but you don't really know what you're going to do until you're in that position.

First complication is I never plan to get colonoscopies for different reasons. So, we're already hypothetical, but let's say I did get one and what you said happened. The article mentioned the conventional slash/burn/poison approach. I will never opt for the burn/poison approach if I can help it. However, like I said above, I think this takes guts. Would I really do it if it came down to it? I can't guarantee one way or the other, but I would like to say I'd be courageous enough to not bend to pressure and do what I think is right, which is not use chemo/radiation. Could there be a scenario where I would think some chemo/radiation might make sense? Maybe, but I think they would be very, very few in number. Now, I never really got the objection to the slash approach. I understand that surgical removal can often spread the cancer, but the risk of that sounded specific to the type/stage/location of the cancer/tumor. So, I would have to look into it and if it seemed safe/reasonable I would possibly opt for the slash option.

So, like I said above, "best of both worlds", while trying to avoid the "worst of both worlds"

By the way, did you read the article?
 
#40
While doing research on my husband's cancer, I found information that cancer cells are very smart and will quickly disburse if they feel threatened. This has caused me to conclude that even biopsies can be harmful. Modern medical treatments are not necessarily the best. For instance, when I contracted ring worm of the scalp at the age of 4 or 5 (in the late l940's), the treatment was to xray my head (and all my hair fell out). My Dad was an MD, so this was the "latest" treatment. When I was in my 40's, I got a large basal cell carcinoma on my scalp..... Had it removed and no recurrence.
 
Top