5 ms·

> Bruce Harold Lipton, is an American developmental biologist best known for promoting the idea that genes and DNA can be manipulated by a person's beliefs. He

by 1stop 11y ago

> Bruce Harold Lipton, is an American developmental biologist best known for promoting the idea that genes and DNA can be manipulated by a person's beliefs. He is a visiting fellow lecturer at the New Zealand College of Chiropractic. ... You've become convinced by this man. > Surgical oncologist David Gorski has described Lipton as a crank who misunderstands evolutionary biology. He notes that some of Lipton's ideas start out based on research from epigenetics but he twists them into a "woo-sphere". So could you cite some of the "solid scientific evidence" that you have referred to... because your appeal to authority seems to have failed you... :\

tomhoward 11y ago
Hi, first of all, I understand the combative skepticism as I used to be that way myself. I used to scoff at chiropractic and slap my knees at all the hilarious takedowns of woo-merchants by Quackwatch and SBM and it was all great fun. But a chronic auto-immune illness that became debilitating about 5 years ago, and a long, exasperating, and ultimately futile attempt to find treatment via conventional medicine forced me to consider anything in order to get well, and the method that got me well came via chiropractors and Lipton's ideas. As of now I'm almost completely recovered, whilst others I know with similar conditions who have stuck with conventional medicine continue to be sick and frustrated. So, scoff if you will, but had I not learned what I learned from Lipton, I'd have no health and possibly no life. Now I understand the physiology behind my illness and my recovery, I believe those who say the same kind of approach could be effective for cancer - at least the ones that occur downstream of auto-immune illness (colorectal cancer for example). And I believe the anecdotes of people who've used these techniques to overcome cancer, because it aligns with my own experience. (Though let me be clear: I don't believe chiropractors can "cure cancer", and I don't have much time for chiropractic at all these days, now that I've found better and cheaper alternatives.) But of course it needs more research so it stops being mere anecdotes and starts becoming hard data. That's the whole point of this thread. As for "hard science" - all I can point you to are the books by Tanzi and Lipton, and Tanzi's research papers. Tanzi is Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, and Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital. He's been a leading researcher on Alheimer's for over 15 years, and much of his research and writing is focused on the role of emotions in genetic expression and the development of illness. But he's co-authored books with Deepak Chopra and has been criticized by Jerry Coyne - so he can therefore be disregarded, right? This is exactly my point. I profoundly wish there were more hard studies (indeed I put quite a lot of thought into whether I could help facilitate some research based on my own experience). I understand that Lipton's manner and Tanzi's link to Chopra make them easy to dismiss in the way that you have. But the dismissals all seem to succumb to the "begging the question" fallacy - dismissing them because "we already know they are wrong" rather than engaging with their arguments and evidence. I may only be a sample size of one, but significant numbers of people are recovering from illness by following the principles they espouse and significant numbers of qualified medical practitioners accept and endorse their ideas and research findings. If more attention was paid to this research and if it were then to inspire further research, maybe the world would start making real progress towards overcoming the illnesses that account for most of the ballooning costs of the health systems in western countries. Update: here's a link to a recent study linking emotion-focused therapies on telemere length in cancer patients. Telemere length is believed to be relevant in cancer risk and recovery potential: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.29063/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.29063/full
- 1stop 11y ago
  So when you said "hard evidence" you meant: Opinion pieces. And some anecdotal evidence of yourself, which could well fall within the parameters of modern medicine as well, but you've built a narrative that your "belief" changed this? You don't want people to dismiss it, but you give vague descriptions of what happened, what you did, and what the result was, and why you think they were related. Seriously, if you wanted to be taken seriously, then engage the topic seriously.
  - tomhoward 11y ago
    Ok please... I wasn't, and still am not, seeking to use HN discussion threads to persuade anyone with a strongly held position on medical science to change their position. I was simply backing up others' suggestions that psychology could play a significant role in serious illnesses like cancer, by pointing out that there are prominent figures with mainstream scientific backgrounds (Lipton was a stem cell researcher and medical lecturer at Wisconsin and Stanford; Tanzi is a senior professor of medicine at Harvard) who have written books explaining and documenting some of the science behind this idea and that I and many others find their work persuasive. I wasn't seeking to win any argument with an appeal to authority (though you did, along with a straw man dismissal). I was suggesting some sources of further insight that others may have chosen to pursue if interested. Then in response to your combative reply, I explained that I have personal experience with the topic. Again, not trying to win any arguments with this, just indicating that I have cause to take this issue very seriously and research it very deeply (I've read far more broadly than just Lipton and Tanzi fwiw). But still, in response to your demand for hard evidence I linked to one academic paper on the topic and I linked to more in another (far more polite) comment in the thread. After that discussion I went searching for further journal papers on the topic and found this: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-11-129 http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7... Seriously, I have no dog in any fight other than that I was sick for a long time and now I'm making big strides towards to being very well. And I know there are many people - some I know personally - who are falling through the cracks of the medical system and it's very sad to witness. I don't care much for any wars over the validity of "mainstream" vs "alternative" medicine. I consider most non-mainstream medicine ineffective and most alternative practitioners (including chiros) to be quacks. But as a startup guy I'm comfortable with the idea that the most transformative ideas will often come from the fringes, and may well be sitting there already, just waiting to be explored. The fact that one of this year's Nobel Prize winners for medicine was for a discovery that came from traditional Chinese medicine should serve as an important reminder of that. On the topic at hand: it's uncontroversial that psychology plays a role in the development and healing of physiological illness. The only questions are on the mechanics of how it works, the specifics of how it manifests in particular illnesses, and what techniques may exist or may be developed that could be effective in clinical settings. In all sincerity, if you genuinely care about this topic and want to discuss it further, I'd be most willing to do so. I'd be happy to share more details about my own illness and recovery, and other sources of evidence that I've found useful. You can find my details in my profile. Like I said, I understand the skepticism as I was exactly that way inclined myself not so long ago. But I'm also familiar with the kind of person who is more interested in picking and winning petty battles than learning about a topic through a good-spirited discussion. So I'll finish by saying that while I accept my comments could have been more convincing with links to hard evidence (if convincing was what I'd set out to do), your rhetorical style is not of the kind that helps make HN a productive place to discuss interesting ideas, and thus seems contrary to the spirit of participation we try to cultivate here. That said, I'm still happy to hear from you if you sincerely want to explore the topic further.

by 1stop 11y ago

tomhoward 11y ago

Hi, first of all, I understand the combative skepticism as I used to be that way myself. I used to scoff at chiropractic and slap my knees at all the hilarious takedowns of woo-merchants by Quackwatch and SBM and it was all great fun. But a chronic auto-immune illness that became debilitating about 5 years ago, and a long, exasperating, and ultimately futile attempt to find treatment via conventional medicine forced me to consider anything in order to get well, and the method that got me well came via chiropractors and Lipton's ideas. As of now I'm almost completely recovered, whilst others I know with similar conditions who have stuck with conventional medicine continue to be sick and frustrated. So, scoff if you will, but had I not learned what I learned from Lipton, I'd have no health and possibly no life. Now I understand the physiology behind my illness and my recovery, I believe those who say the same kind of approach could be effective for cancer - at least the ones that occur downstream of auto-immune illness (colorectal cancer for example). And I believe the anecdotes of people who've used these techniques to overcome cancer, because it aligns with my own experience. (Though let me be clear: I don't believe chiropractors can "cure cancer", and I don't have much time for chiropractic at all these days, now that I've found better and cheaper alternatives.) But of course it needs more research so it stops being mere anecdotes and starts becoming hard data. That's the whole point of this thread. As for "hard science" - all I can point you to are the books by Tanzi and Lipton, and Tanzi's research papers. Tanzi is Professor of Neurology at Harvard University, and Director of the Genetics and Aging Research Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital. He's been a leading researcher on Alheimer's for over 15 years, and much of his research and writing is focused on the role of emotions in genetic expression and the development of illness. But he's co-authored books with Deepak Chopra and has been criticized by Jerry Coyne - so he can therefore be disregarded, right? This is exactly my point. I profoundly wish there were more hard studies (indeed I put quite a lot of thought into whether I could help facilitate some research based on my own experience). I understand that Lipton's manner and Tanzi's link to Chopra make them easy to dismiss in the way that you have. But the dismissals all seem to succumb to the "begging the question" fallacy - dismissing them because "we already know they are wrong" rather than engaging with their arguments and evidence. I may only be a sample size of one, but significant numbers of people are recovering from illness by following the principles they espouse and significant numbers of qualified medical practitioners accept and endorse their ideas and research findings. If more attention was paid to this research and if it were then to inspire further research, maybe the world would start making real progress towards overcoming the illnesses that account for most of the ballooning costs of the health systems in western countries. Update: here's a link to a recent study linking emotion-focused therapies on telemere length in cancer patients. Telemere length is believed to be relevant in cancer risk and recovery potential: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.29063/full http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.29063/full

1stop 11y ago
So when you said "hard evidence" you meant: Opinion pieces. And some anecdotal evidence of yourself, which could well fall within the parameters of modern medicine as well, but you've built a narrative that your "belief" changed this? You don't want people to dismiss it, but you give vague descriptions of what happened, what you did, and what the result was, and why you think they were related. Seriously, if you wanted to be taken seriously, then engage the topic seriously.
- tomhoward 11y ago
  Ok please... I wasn't, and still am not, seeking to use HN discussion threads to persuade anyone with a strongly held position on medical science to change their position. I was simply backing up others' suggestions that psychology could play a significant role in serious illnesses like cancer, by pointing out that there are prominent figures with mainstream scientific backgrounds (Lipton was a stem cell researcher and medical lecturer at Wisconsin and Stanford; Tanzi is a senior professor of medicine at Harvard) who have written books explaining and documenting some of the science behind this idea and that I and many others find their work persuasive. I wasn't seeking to win any argument with an appeal to authority (though you did, along with a straw man dismissal). I was suggesting some sources of further insight that others may have chosen to pursue if interested. Then in response to your combative reply, I explained that I have personal experience with the topic. Again, not trying to win any arguments with this, just indicating that I have cause to take this issue very seriously and research it very deeply (I've read far more broadly than just Lipton and Tanzi fwiw). But still, in response to your demand for hard evidence I linked to one academic paper on the topic and I linked to more in another (far more polite) comment in the thread. After that discussion I went searching for further journal papers on the topic and found this: http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-11-129 http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7... Seriously, I have no dog in any fight other than that I was sick for a long time and now I'm making big strides towards to being very well. And I know there are many people - some I know personally - who are falling through the cracks of the medical system and it's very sad to witness. I don't care much for any wars over the validity of "mainstream" vs "alternative" medicine. I consider most non-mainstream medicine ineffective and most alternative practitioners (including chiros) to be quacks. But as a startup guy I'm comfortable with the idea that the most transformative ideas will often come from the fringes, and may well be sitting there already, just waiting to be explored. The fact that one of this year's Nobel Prize winners for medicine was for a discovery that came from traditional Chinese medicine should serve as an important reminder of that. On the topic at hand: it's uncontroversial that psychology plays a role in the development and healing of physiological illness. The only questions are on the mechanics of how it works, the specifics of how it manifests in particular illnesses, and what techniques may exist or may be developed that could be effective in clinical settings. In all sincerity, if you genuinely care about this topic and want to discuss it further, I'd be most willing to do so. I'd be happy to share more details about my own illness and recovery, and other sources of evidence that I've found useful. You can find my details in my profile. Like I said, I understand the skepticism as I was exactly that way inclined myself not so long ago. But I'm also familiar with the kind of person who is more interested in picking and winning petty battles than learning about a topic through a good-spirited discussion. So I'll finish by saying that while I accept my comments could have been more convincing with links to hard evidence (if convincing was what I'd set out to do), your rhetorical style is not of the kind that helps make HN a productive place to discuss interesting ideas, and thus seems contrary to the spirit of participation we try to cultivate here. That said, I'm still happy to hear from you if you sincerely want to explore the topic further.