The Somatic Awareness Rapid Hypnosis Induction

I have been reading a paper by Selig Finkelstein from 2003 in the International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis entitled ‘Rapid Hypnotic Inductions and Therapeutic Suggestions in the Dental Setting’ which I have found to be extremely interesting as it charts a number of evidence based rapid hypnosis inductions. Though the article is aimed at benefiting dentists wanting to induce hypnosis rapidly, I thought I’d point out one of the ways that Finkelstein suggests inducing hypnosis rapidly.

It is called the Somatic Awareness Induction and the paper itself has a full script for such an induction process which you can go and read for yourself (if you subscribe to the journal).

Somatic awareness has its roots in mindfulness and other related fields, though there is a Somatic Psychology field all of it’s own in existence today. The main principle (and I realise how tough and unsatisfying it is to put an entire field into a media-friendly soundbite on a blog!!) is to examine the individual’s relationship with their own felt body. The awareness of how the body is experienced physiologically is examined.

Anyhow, the hypnosis induction suggested by Finkelstein uses somatic awareness by asking the client a number of questions that heighten their awareness accordingly. For example, “Can you notice how your relaxation increases when you exhale?” Or you might also ask “does the right hand feel as if it is lying on your leg or does it feel as if it is supported by the leg?” It can be developed into increasingly more sophisticated and complex questions also, such as “do your right and left legs feel the weight of your hands equally or is there a difference?” Even building up to “is it time for you to go to your special place, changing it whenever you want, with the people you want and only those, changing them whenever you wish, or would you prefer being by yourself?”

The script is longer, but I particularly like this hypnosis induction because it elicits absorption, internal focus and hypnotic responsiveness within the client in a rapid fashion whilst retaining a fairly permissive tone and style, so is not as direct as many rapid inductions tend to be.

I really rather like that. There are many versions of this same thing out there in script books, but it is always good to see these things in peer reviewed journals.

Reference: Finkelstein, Selig(2003) ‘Rapid Hypnotic Inductions and Therapeutic Suggestions in the Dental Setting’, International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 51: 1, 77 – 85

Learn About Propolis in Only 5 Minutes!

Have you heard of propolis? Have you heard about all the claims that this substance can cure a lot of diseases currently suffered by many people in the modern world. Do you know anything about it at all?

This article will equip you with the truth about propolis in only 5 short minutes.

What Is Propolis?

To make things simple, you can think of propolis as bee’s medicine. If we use all sorts of drugs for our ailment, bees use propolis for theirs. The only difference is bees took propolis from trees and use it as an internal coat for their hives. Once their bodies brush against the hive’s wall, they become immunized and sterilized.

Why Do People Use Propolis?

Actually people have been using propolis not only as a way of treatment but also for their daily lives. In Africa, it is used as to patch holes in boats or roofs. Master violin makers have also used it as a sort of varnish for their premium violins.

However, one of the most famous use of propolis is as medicine. It is used to treat all sorts of medical condition up to the stage propolis is hailed as some sort of wonder drug.

The truth is, propolis extract is an effective substance against viruses, germs and bacteria. However that does not mean it can cure all health problems as many propolis loyalist would suggest.

Does It Work?

At the moment, we can safely say yes, it works. However, it has only been shown and proven effective as a dental treatment and to improve body’s immune system.

Studies have also been done on the effect of propolis on cancer, fertility, HIV and as a complement to antibiotics. Although the results have been promising, the number of studies done on the subject is too small to suggest a direct positive relationship of propolis and the diseases being studied.

Who Should Use Propolis?

Propolis is a safe substance for most people. Those who are looking for a safe substance to improve their immune system should try propolis as a natural alternative to modern drugs.

However, one should always consult a doctor before using this bee substance. The reason is simple – allergies.

Some people may be allergic to propolis and other bee products. The best bet is to consult your doctor and check if you are allergic against it. Failure to do so will result in swollen faces, rashes and other unwanted side effects.

Where Can You Find More Information.

The best source of information are medical journals. These are the best, unbiased and most trusted source you could ever find on propolis. In the internet, I would suggest you go to Google Scholar to find such papers.

Periodontal Disease and Bad Breath

The link between periodontal disease and bad breath has been recognized for many years – though not all people with bad breath have gum disease, many people with gum disease suffer from bad breath. The connection between the two is bacteria. A whole group of bacteria that live in the mouth are known to break down proteins in their environment and produce volatile sulfur compounds (VSC) that have a very unpleasant smell. The bacteria involved are predominantly anaerobic – they live in environments where there is little or no oxygen – and they are found in gum pockets, in the grooves and crevices on the back of the tongue, and around the tonsillar crypts.

Scientific studies have explored the relationship between the periodontal bacteria that are thought to cause much of the tissue destruction in gum disease, and the presence of breath odor in patients suffering from gum disease. A study by S. Awano and others, “The Relationship between the Presence of Periodontopathogenic Bacteria in Saliva and Halitosis,” (International Dental Journal: 2002 Jun;Suppl 3:212-6) looked for four species of bacteria in patients with both periodontal disease and bad breath. Researchers also measured levels of volatile sulfur compounds – hydrogen sulfide and methyl mercaptan. The results indicated that Bacteroides forsythus, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Prevotella intermedia were all associated with VSC production, with B. forsythus being the most significant producer of all.

Other studies investigating the habitats of periodontal bacteria have shown that B. forsythus lives on the lining of the mouth in locations other than infected gum pockets in healthy people as well as those with gum disease, and P. intermedia is frequently found living on the surface of the tongue. Thus, while there is a clear association between periodontal disease and bad breath, there is also good evidence to support the claim that periodontal bacteria can be the source of bad breath, even in the absence of gum disease.

Scientific study of both periodontal disease and bad breath continue to reveal information that is helpful to those who suffer from these conditions. These studies suggest that remedies for bad breath that target periodontal bacteria are likely to bring positive results, and that achieving a permanent change in the bacterial microflora of the mouth might cure bad breath.

How Is The Understanding Of The “Inherited Lens” Affect Health and Illness in Singapore

Singapore is a cosmopolitan country and its population comprises the Chinese, Malays, Indians, and others such as the Eurasians. In this heterogeneous, multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural society, perceptions towards illness, medical treatment and health beliefs are expected to be varied. The fact that such diversity of the population as the various ethnic groups continue to celebrate their own cultures while they intermingle with one another, between people from different backgrounds and different genders. According to Helman (1994), the rules that underpin the organization of a society in the way it symbolized and transmitted, are all part of that society’s culture.Helman (1994) also observed that culture, to a certain extent, can be seen as an “inherited lens” through which the individual perceives and understands the world in which he or she lives and learns to live within. The “inherited lens” has given us different perspectives of how individuals view their health and illness, and affects the way they respond to symptoms. It is also via this “inherited lens” that a patient determines how he seeks out health care.

A Singapore Minister, Mr Yeo, G. (2001) had distinctly highlighted that cultures evolve continuously, and are constantly in competition with each other. Although political correctness required us to view that all cultures are equal, but in reality, to achieve equality in cultures is an absurd proposition. Both cultural understanding and structure of health care, therefore, play an important part in determining health and illness. With the understanding of relevant health belief systems, we will enable the development of culturally sensitive health promotion programmes (Lee et al., 1993).

While culture can be influenced by other social variables like gender, class and age, other personal past experiences may also affect a person’s responses to health beliefs. As a health care professional, we must take care to ensure that patients from certain cultural backgrounds are not stereotyped.

Chinese settlement has taken place in Singapore from the mid 19th century, with most people coming from southeast China (Singapore Chinese Physicians’ Association, n.d.). Early migrants left China because of wars, floods, famine and poverty, and found work at the Singapore harbours.

Over the past 20 years, Chinese immigrants have arrived from Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam and elsewhere in Indochina. More recently, they have arrived from People’s Republic of China (PRC), and these immigrants speak Mandarin and other Chinese dialects. They bring with them their own culture, and now have to integrate into a new culture. Prior to 1965, most Chinese immigrants were working class (Chang, 1999) and recently, we have seen more professionals immigrating into Singapore.

Reference:

Chang, K. (1999). Chinese Americans. In J.N. Giger & R.E. Davidhizer (Eds.), Transcultural nursing: Assessment & intervention (pp. 385-401). St. Louis: Mosby.

Helman, C. G. (1994). Culture, health and illness: The scope of medical anthropology (3rd ed). Oxford. Butterworth – Heinemann.

Lee, K. L., Schwarz, E. and Mak, K. Y. K. (1993) Improving oral health through understanding the meaning of health and disease in a Chinese culture. International Dental Journal, 43, 2-8.

Yeo, G. (2001, May 17). Interview with BG (NS) George Yeo, Minister for Trade and Industry by Dr Albert Bressand and Catherine Distler of Promethee in Paris. Retrieved January 05, 2007, from https://app.mti.gov.sg/default.asp?id=148&articleID=333&intViewCat=1&intCategory=3&txtKeyword=&txtStart=
&txtEnd=&intOrderBy=1&intYear=&intQuarter=0

Reporting Dangers of Fluoride – And Mass Medication

Mass medication through water systems of the world began in 1951 with fluoridation. The optimum level was originally set at the rate of 1 part per million (1ppm) and considered safe.Fluoridation of the public drinking water however has many risks and dangers.

The most obvious question we must ask in trying to assess the purpose of this unusual action taken to medicate the public water supplies, is to enquire as to its real purpose. Health authorities approved fluoridation ostensibly is for the improvement of the teeth of the people. The assumption is that fluoride will improve tooth enamel and that all people will require the same amount of this chemical regardless of their age.

Firstly there is irrefutable evidence from prominent medical researchers, showing this chemical that is sufficiently toxic as to have asserted its place as a rat poison, is also harmful to humans when ingested.

In spite of this, fluoride not only continues to be used in many chemical and even pharmaceutical products but has for decades been deliberately pumped into our Australian public water supplies in spite of extensive demonstrations of objection by groups and individuals. This has left a situation where those members of the community who do not wish to have the quality of their drinking water downgraded in this way must purchase water filters in their home, laboratories, factories and hospitals. Food processing and therapeutic products and industries have been particularly affected. It would be difficult to assess the negative damage to the health of the whole community.

Logical arguments have had no influence in changing the decisions of health departments and medical authorities on a national scale in Australia and will have not the power to do so as long as state governments retain the authority on health issues. Over the years, many scientists and individuals from many countries in the world have put forward their objections. These include the following points as a basis for their argument…..

Regarding the claimed benefit to dental health:
Firstly why should it be seen to be a priority over any other health issues prevalent in the community, such as heart trouble, cancer, diabetes and other diseases? Only a minute percentage of public water will be consumed by children in the suggested time frame when there is potential benefit to their developing teeth. In fact, over-dosing of fluoride produces irregularities in the enamel of children. Appreciating that the recommended safe dose is 1ppm but difficult to guarantee that pumping stations produce an accurate dilution of the toxin in amounts that are totally safe……and that a tube of toothpaste contains up to 1500 ppm and a can of commercial fruit juice contains about 2.8 ppm and mouth rinses from 230-900 ppm we can only conclude that the majority of people in western countries are probably over the toxic limit of ingestion of fluoride prior to any water content analysis. This factor alone leaves commercial enterprises open to exhaustive litigation as the councils and water authorities and even dentists. Gum irritations and allergies are common, not only in those using fluoride toothpaste but in drinking water and medical drugs that are fluorinated.
African American children are shown to be more susceptible to fluorosis or tooth mottling than whites. This demonstrates a need to consider racial constitution as a factor in mass medicine. Those who choose to medicate with fluoride and are persuaded it is to their dental benefit are free to do so through controlled tablet intake.

REGARDING GENERAL HEALTH ISSUES:
Need for Pure Water

It has always been acknowledged that pure water is the basis of good health so accent should be directed by responsible community guardians towards extracting any untoward elements in the water rather than injecting toxic substances into it, even at 1ppm. There is no way to demonstrate that there is any scientific way to control the amount of fluoride any individual will ingest through their water intake because of personal differences in habit, thus making it, along with any other proposed mass medication, an offence against medical principles.

Compulsory Medication is Unethical
To endure compulsory medication through water, the most essential element for health represents a pollution that offends both our aims to good health and is a crime against our democratic principles of personal freedom of choice.

Proven Dangers and Risks
Excessive fluoride or fluorine components in the body that can occur with certain medical drugs produce mild to extreme symptoms and even fatal consequences. The dangers are not only physical such as interfering with thyroid function but include extreme mental and emotional irregularities. This has been a line of research following outbreaks of violent and irrational behavior of young teenagers that have been demonstrated over the last years.

Obesity – Heart Disease – Kidney problems- Cancer –
Obesity is now reaching epidemic proportions in western countries. The toxic affect of fluoride upon the function of the thyroid gland is considered to be a causative factor. As aluminium cookware was last century considered a serious cause of cancer and dementia, fluoride toxicity is suspected of being a factor in this as in many other diseases such as bone deformation, premature aging and nerve and brain diseases. Seemingly co-incidental with fluoridation of water supplies in the twentieth century has been the explosion of cancer and other serious health issues.

Brain and Mental Disease
Many generally prescribed medications and drugs in western countries contain fluoride in considerable amount to make them questionable negative factors and suspected of being the cause of many allergies and conditions as serious as psychotic behavior, depression, and inhibited mental abilities. Warnings include many specific drugs such as Prozac, Luvoc, Lescol, Lipitor, Crestor, Baycol with the last having been removed from the American market after fatalities from adverse reactions.

Pregnancy
Pregnant Women are advised to take no fluoride as it can damage brain function and hormones in the foetus.

Elderly
Elderly are at equal risk as fluoridated water is indicated as a possible main cause of Alzheimer’s and dementia.

Children
Children have been harmed by fluoridation and medications containing flurorine and derivatives to the extent that the numerous cases have led to parents forming support groups to lobby for changes. Most recent research shows the link between fluoride and Asperger’s disease and autism because of the accumulative lead component involved.

Political Tarnish:
Motivation for the introduction of tons of fluoride into public water supplies is tarnished by considerations that are politically rather than therapeutic in their aims. This is a subject that has been explored by some who seek a reason for such an extreme and illogical action such as fluoridation. Some go further to claim that the practice violates the Nuremberg code regarding restriction on human experimentation.

Industrial Pollution:
The practice is claimed as a convenient dumping ground for industrial wastes. Some believe that the aluminium and fertilizer industries that produce fluoride as a by-product found a convenient and profitable disposal of toxic waste in the public water supply. Fluoride buried in the earth kills plant life. In the air kills stock. In the water…?

SCIENTIFIC OBJECTION:
There is an almost overwhelming amount of evidence accumulating in scientific journals and forums warning of the dangers and risks of our present water fluoridation system upon health. It is widely accepted that it is unsafe a method and entirely uncontrollable in dosage. The factor of chemical allergy and damage to physiological function also give cause for great concern. On these issues there are many doctors and scientists adding their voice and is best said by Dr Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize winner for Medicine (2000). “I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history…Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication – of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day – to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy.”
Dr Peter Mansfield physician from UK and member of the advisory board to the government review of fluoridation (2000) states…

“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.’ It is a preposterous notion.” The very existence of an organization ‘Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children’, founded by Andreas Schuld, a recognized leading expert on fluorides, says enough.

International Consent/Dissent:
The International Dental Federation (FDI) first recommended water fluoridation in 1951. In Europe, since that date it is estimated that more than 53 million people who endured water fluoridation for years are now free of its pollution. Many countries have now ceased the practice. There are now only 6 countries where the people are still compelled to drink fluoridated water: USA, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Columbia and Singapore.

Australia – fluoridation, in spite of hot protest and many public demonstrations is now in many states. At one time the Tasmanian government sought to pass a Bill to “Prohibit public meetings on fluoridation.” Our Australian Constitution allows ‘the provision of..medical and dental services, but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription.’ On this basis in time fluoridation and any further attempt at mass medication will be banned.

Austria – Some report fluoride has never been added to the water supply but others say in 1956. and that caries in children decreased after stopping in 1973.

Belgium -on the basis that drinking water is not the place to deliver medicinal treatment to people fluoridation was never accepted

Canada -The Green Party of Canada seeks to end water fluoridation in Canada by introducing legislation that will ban fluoridation in Canada at the federal level, effectively overriding any and all local mandates that say otherwise. At present fluoridation of water is in current use but remains a highly controversial issue.

Japan introduced in 1952, stopped 1972 with subsequent rejection of artificial fluoridation. Sweden introduced in 1952 and withdrawn 1971 Sweden banned fluorides in drinking water, toothpaste and food.

Norway – In the later 1990’s decision was taken against ever fluoridating the water

Finland introduced 1959 in one town stopped 1993 for the right of individual freedom to enjoy pure water.

Netherlands introduced 1953 withdrawn 1976 after legal ruling of the Supreme Court that there was no legal basis for fluoridation.

China- Fluoridation is banned

Czech Republic – since 1993 no treatment with fluoride has taken place on the basis of it being uneconomical, against ecological patterns, unethical, and its toxicological influence debatable.

Denmark – No Danish city has ever been fluoridated

European Union Less than 2% of the drinking water in Europe is fluoridated.

France – Fluoride is not added to treatment of water for ethical as well as medical reasons.

Germany introduced 1952 and withdrawn in 1971. It is now banned as unethical. German Democratic Republic introduced in 1959 and withdrawn 1990.

Greece – has never fluoridated water, perhaps in order to retain democratic freedom?

Hungary – once fluoridated but ceased in 1960’s and now chooses to remain so.

India – has been working hard to eliminate naturally occurring fluorides from drinking water that is high in the natural groundwater. 17 of its 32 states are afflicted with people suffering crippling skeletal fluorosis without adding more toxic material.

Israel – after serious study and recent suspension of mandatory fluoridation in 2006, it is now rejected.

Italy -has strict laws against adding fluorides to drinking water.

New Zealand – is in two minds and is recently urging promotion of fluoridation.

Northern Ireland – for a short period only fluoridation in two localities but later ceased.

Scotland – never had fluoridation been introduced and in 2004 plans to add fluoride to the country’s water system continued to be rejected.

Spain- a few areas practiced fluoridation of the water supplies

Switzerland in 2003 the country voted to cease Basel’s water fluoridation program that had been functioning for about 40 years.

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics introduced 1960 stopped 1990

United States of America 60% of the States fluoridate their water but 200 cities have withdrawn it.

UK- fluoridation is considered by many who are fighting for its ban, to be illegal medical research. They argue that its implementation is against freedom and constitutional rights of the individual. Against all opposition, efforts of health agencies continue to push for further fluoridation of Britain, with the same power as occurred at a critical time before decision to join the European Union and surrender of the national will to its dictates.

From the information which is available to us all on the internet, the problems are considerable and cannot be commented on in detail enough to satisfy our enquiry here. There are about 202,000 postings on the dangers of fluoridation and 432,000 and 727 videos on the subject on the side effects of fluoridation, presenting us with a considerable amount of data to consider if we wish to explore this controversial matter for ourselves and assess without bias the reports of professionals.