Nocebo misinterpreted by BiaSed "science"

[inavalan]

A report on and a scientific solution to a "nocebo effect": lie to patients who experience vaccine side effects; make them believe it is their imagination.

This seems insane. BUT ... if "we create our reality", there is a basis for their view. Excepting that they ignore how the nocebo came into manifesting in those people in the first place:
- those vaccinated took the vaccine because they were scared or forced by the establishment into taking it
- that's the cause of their negative emotions
- they experienced then side-effects, or other negative situations, that caused negative emotions in-kind with the original ones

The nocebo is caused by the scaremongering and forceful restrictive measures, not by the scare of submitting to them ...

That's where the insanity of the report's find is.

In a curious interpretation of how COVID shot adverse events, aka side effects, occur, an article in Scientific Reports and analyzed by Medical Life Sciences attempts to blame the side effects on vaccine hesitancy.

The World Health Organization defines vaccine hesitancy as "the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines," fueled by "inaccurate or exaggerated reports of vaccine side effects." In other words, a condition called the "nocebo effect" of adverse events is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy triggered by expected negative consequences.

They also say the nocebo effect is more pronounced in females. So, does this mean girls are smarter than boys when it comes to recognizing bad side effects? Or that, conversely, half the U.S. population, which declined a second COVID shot, is also smarter, too?

The most bizarre observation, though, is the nearly insane solution to vaccine hesitancy is to lie and make adverse responders think they are crazy: "Such messaging should be coupled with nocebo education conveying that these experienced side effects are just as physically real yet may not stem from treatment but from other factors."


SOURCE: Medical Life Sciences News December 5, 2022

[Deb]

Hi, another drive-by response. I'm on the road again, in Macon GA tonight after 12+ hours on the road. So this will be short.

Hmmmm, wow, gaslighting. It wouldn't be a first. It's used often and yet people continue to not recognize it for what it is.

I'm very fascinated with placebo and nocebo effects—I have taken several workshops with Joe Dispenza and have read his books. My favorite is "You Are the Placebo."

As far as I'm concerned, the WHO, CDC and Fauci can take a flying leap. But my thought about covid shot side effects is that most of the people who have taken the jab voluntarily have done so because they believe it's going to be *ahem* safe and effective. So would not result in side effects or death. But I get your explanation of fear and negative beliefs, that does make sense to me.

I do remember reading in one of the early books Seth saying that our bodies know how to use natural remedies and will sometimes react adversely to manufactured drugs. The side effects experienced are actually the body's attempt to rid itself of the chemicals. I tried to find that quote here and on the Seth search engine, to no avail.

I want to track it down and keep it handy, because it really impressed me and for some reason I've have trouble finding it before.

[inavalan]

...
I do remember reading in one of the early books Seth saying that our bodies know how to use natural remedies and will sometimes react adversely to manufactured drugs. The side effects experienced are actually the body's attempt to rid itself of the chemicals. I tried to find that quote here and on the Seth search engine, to no avail.

I want to track it down and keep it handy, because it really impressed me and for some reason I've have trouble finding it before.

This might not be the session you were thinking about, but it is quite interesting; for example:

"(10:42.) I am trying to put this simply — but without some illnesses, the body could not endure. Give us a moment... First of all, the body must be in a state of constant change, making decisions far too fast for you to follow, adjusting hormonal levels, maintaining balances between all of its systems; not only in relationship to itself — the body — but to an environment that is also in constant change. At biological levels the body often produces its own "preventative medicine," or "inoculations," by seeking out, for example, new or foreign substances in its environment [that are] due to nature, science or technology; it assimilates such properties in small doses, coming down with an "illness" which, left alone, would soon vanish as the body utilized what it could [of it], or socialized "a seeming invader."

The person might feel indisposed, but in such ways the body assimilates and uses properties that would otherwise be called alien ones. It immunizes itself through such methods. The body, however, exists with the mind to contend with — and the mind produces an inner environment of concepts. The cells that compose the body do not try to make sense of the cultural world. They rely upon your interpretation, therefore, for the existence of threats of a nonbiological nature. So they depend upon your assessment.

(Long pause.) If that assessment correlates with biological ones, you have a good working relationship with the body. It can react swiftly and clearly. When you sense threat or danger for which the body can find no biological correlation, even as through cellular communication it scans the environment physically, then it must rely upon your assessment and react to danger conditions. The body will, therefore, react to imagined dangers to some degree, as well as to those that are biologically pertinent. Its defense system often becomes overexerted as a result.

The body is, therefore, quite well equipped to deal with its physical stance in the physical world, and its defense systems are unerring in that respect. Your conscious mind, however, directs your temporal perception and interprets that perception, organizing it into mental patterns. The body, again, must depend upon those interpretations. The biological basis of all life is a loving, divine and cooperative one, and presupposes a safe physical stance from which any member of any species feels actively free to seek out its needs and to communicate with others of its kind."

—NoME Part One: Chapter 1: Session 804, May 9, 1977

"Left alone, the body can defend itself against any disease, but it cannot defend itself appropriately against an exaggerated general fear of disease on the individual's part. It must mirror your own feelings and assessments. Usually, now, your entire medical systems literally generate as much disease as is cured — for you are everywhere hounded by the symptoms of various diseases, and filled with the fear of disease, overwhelmed by what seems to be the body's propensity toward illness — and nowhere is the body's vitality or natural defense system stressed.
—NoME Part One: Chapter 1: Session 804, May 9, 1977

[inavalan]

Hi, another drive-by response. I'm on the road again, in Macon GA tonight after 12+ hours on the road. So this will be short.

Hmmmm, wow, gaslighting. It wouldn't be a first. It's used often and yet people continue to not recognize it for what it is.

I'm very fascinated with placebo and nocebo effects ...

Placebo / nocebo actual data, Rasmussen poll!

They point out that vaccine effectiveness varies depending on your political party. Apparently the vaccine isn't working very well for Republicans but it works great for Democrats. This means if you want to get the best protection from getting a COVID vaccine, you'll want to switch parties. ok, just kidding. But isn't this stunning?

Link

[LarryH]

[/quote]

They point out that vaccine effectiveness varies depending on your political party. Apparently the vaccine isn't working very well for Republicans but it works great for Democrats. This means if you want to get the best protection from getting a COVID vaccine, you'll want to switch parties. ok, just kidding. But isn't this stunning?

The poll does not measure effectiveness of the vaccine - it measures what people believe about the vaccine's ability to prevent the illness. Differences in actual effectiveness might be uncovered if the experiences of vaccinated republicans were compared to those of vaccinated democrats. This would more clearly expose the extent to which belief played a role. Another problem with this poll is that nobody is saying anymore that these vaccines prevent the disease. Many who are against the vaccine argue that they don't work because they don't prevent the disease. They miss the point that the claim is that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death.
 

[inavalan]

They point out that vaccine effectiveness varies depending on your political party. Apparently the vaccine isn't working very well for Republicans but it works great for Democrats. This means if you want to get the best protection from getting a COVID vaccine, you'll want to switch parties. ok, just kidding. But isn't this stunning?

The poll does not measure effectiveness of the vaccine - it measures what people believe about the vaccine's ability to prevent the illness. Differences in actual effectiveness might be uncovered if the experiences of vaccinated republicans were compared to those of vaccinated democrats. This would more clearly expose the extent to which belief played a role. Another problem with this poll is that nobody is saying anymore that these vaccines prevent the disease. Many who are against the vaccine argue that they don't work because they don't prevent the disease. They miss the point that the claim is that the vaccines reduce the likelihood of severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death.

My post wasn't about the vaccine, but about people's experience with whatever treatment, and about the discrepancy between their experiences with a widely used, highly publicized treatment, with strong emotional overtones, over a very long period, two years: 2021, 2022.

You seem to make a distinction between what people experienced and how they answered / what they believe. You seem to assume that respondents lied. I don't think so.

The way I read that chart, people who have one kind of beliefs created for themselves a reality in which the treatment proved to be effective, while people with another kind of beliefs created for themselves a different reality in which the treatment was significantly less effective.

This is placebo / nocebo.

I understand that you sympathize with one of those groups, but my post wasn't about the vaccine. And, again, I believe that the respondents weren't lying about their experience. That wasn't a poll about a hypothetical, but about their experience based on all the info they have now (after two years).

That wasn't a social-media poll, but a poll made by polling-professionals.

===========
EDIT: You see ... We two read the same graph, and honestly interpret it differently. The question is straightforward; the data too: 80% vs 40% (very+somewhat effective); the D group's "very" is 47% !

[LarryH]

inavalan, there is nothing in the chart to indicate that the responses were based on the respondents' experiences beyond what they believe. And based on my interpretation that the responses were based more on belief, how can you accuse me of assuming that they were lying? If they are saying what they believe, they are not lying. You even admit that the poll measures belief. Our only difference is that for me, the subjects' reality may not have fully manifested at the time of their responses. I get how their beliefs influence their experience, but those beliefs need a little time to manifest into experience, and there is nothing presented in the chart that suggests experiences beyond what news channels, politicians, or health professionals they give credence to.