I believe I have come across the same CBS news article that Elise found in class:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hypnosis-no-anesthetic-for-mans-surgery/

Alex Lenkei not only used hypnosis for a hernia surgery in 1996, but also an 83-minute hand surgery in 2008. He claims to have been aware throughout the entire process along with “tugging and pulling” sensations, but felt no pain. A more recent article from the U.K. in 2010 also addresses this alternative to anesthesia, which is apparently called “hypnosedation.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1269903/Would-knife-hypnotist-numb-pain.html

The article makes it sound like an appealing option for individuals for whom anesthesia gives severe and unwelcome side effects and gives a very simplified version for the concept of pain.

A surprising number of cases have utilized hypnosedation, with 5,000 being cited in a Belgian hospital. For individuals who have adverse reactions to traditionally trusted anesthesia, it could be a viable last resort. These sensationalized news pieces for the general public are hardly official clinical trials that can prove the efficacy of the procedure and the very idea still begs the question as to whether or not all individuals can be susceptible to the hypnosis, and what exactly are the criteria for a hypnotist to be qualified to assist in a medical procedure. It seems to require a sense of faith and absence of skepticism, of which everyone should have a healthy dose; otherwise, it could potentially cause a nocebo effect.

There is an article that supports the use and advantages of hypnosedation in thyroid and parathyroid procedures. Despite my own skepticism, I would like to believe in this possible alternative. Monks are famous for their control over mechanisms such as body temperature and pulse, it may not be too far-fetched for a hypnotist to help guide an individual to temporarily separate themselves from the sensation of pain.

In the Greatrakes article, he addresses various criticisms and questions asked of him. One question posed was “why some are cured and not all, and if this work were of God all would be cured?”, to which he answers that “God may please to make use of such means by [him] as shall operate according to the disposition of the Patient; and therefore cannot be expected to be like effectual in all” (Greatrakes 31). He is also asked to explain “why some are cured at once coming and not all; and why the pains should flye immediately out of some, and take such ambages in others…” (Greatrakes 31). He offers that if those questions “could have a plain and rational account given them, then would there be no reason to account them strange” (Greatrakes 32). What do you make of these explanations? Say you were back in the 17th century and found yourself ill; would you trust in his healing powers despite the lack of “scientific” backing in his explanations? Considering that Greatrakes was active during the Age of Enlightenment, do you think that his explanations using God as the ultimate answer holds to the skeptical (sometimes deistic) views that many prominent theologians of the time held when evaluating “traditional” modes of religious worship, doctrine, and socio-political structure?

“Memories can be passed down to later generations through genetic switches that allow offspring to inherit the experience of their ancestors, according to new research that may explain how phobias can develop.”

This article explores a study performed on rats that sought to investigate the ability for a species to inherit certain dispositions towards environmental compounds based off the isolated experiences of their parents:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/10486479/Phobias-may-be-memories-passed-down-in-genes-from-ancestors.html

A link to the study itself:

http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/Fetcho/NBBjournalclub/manella.pdf

The study divided mice into two groups, for which each was measured the “odor-potential startle” (OPS) induced by either acetophenone or propanol, compounds for which mice have olfactory receptors. In addition, these groups were given “shock training” during administration of these compounds. Basically, it concludes that the offspring of mice that were conditioned to one of these compounds exhibited a more pronounced reaction (measured by OPS) to that compound, but not to the other.

The authors hypothesize that this phenomenon occurs via a mutation in a particular gene in the DNA that codes for the concerned sensory receptor, thus increasing the offspring’s sensitivity to it.

What this demonstrates conclusively, then, is that environmental stimuli can induce microevolutionary mutations in the quick span of a single generation, in what is a remarkable ability for a species to adapt to a changing environment. However, since the study did not use control groups that were subject to a compound but not to shock training, we cannot conclude to what extent fear was constitutive of the offspring’s reaction to the stimuli.

In light of this, the quote from the news article seems overly optimistic and incorrectly translates the results of the study. Memory itself is a very difficult concept, epistemologically. Heightened perception of an environmental stimulus may be indicative of a sort of trauma, but this is not provable because of the lack of control groups in the study.

Is this indicative of a larger problem of sensational journalism on the part of those responsible for creating publicly digestible presentations of scientific research? Is there indeed something in this study that vindicates the journalist?