(Close Window)
Topic: How does this happen?
Message: Posted by: Muzz (Sep 19, 2010 01:22PM)
When hypnotists give certain suggestions they say something like "The coin will get hot, but it won't blister your hand" etc. Does this mean that without this suggestion blisters could actually form on the hand? Doesn't this suggest then that all physical events are mental events? How does that actually work? I know that some people can under go operations without pain relief due to hypnosis but can actual physical manifestations of pain ie/scars, cuts etc be caused by hypnosis? That's mind blowing...
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 19, 2010 01:34PM)
I don't think you could get a real blister forming.

Just an adverse reaction if they thought it was blistering that is being sidestepped with that suggestion.

But hey, you never know... ;)
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 19, 2010 01:39PM)
I don't know about performing an effect but blistering has been created in clinical research.

Blistering is physiolgical response to being burnt to protect the damaged area. In theory all these responses are controlled by the unconscious. Therefore if it accepts the suggestion it will respond as if the body has been burnt.
Message: Posted by: Pakar Ilusi (Sep 19, 2010 03:41PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-19 14:39, mindpunisher wrote:
I don't know about performing an effect but blistering has been created in clinical research.

Blistering is physiolgical response to being burnt to protect the damaged area. In theory all these responses are controlled by the unconscious. Therefore if it accepts the suggestion it will respond as if the body has been burnt.
[/quote]

Wow! :wow:
Message: Posted by: jesselewis (Sep 19, 2010 08:12PM)
Actually in very deep levels of trance a person could blister it has been well documented that hypnosis works to control bleeding heart rate even things like blood pressure.
We are using a powerful tool the mind controls our reality.
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Sep 20, 2010 12:22AM)
Minpunisher can you point me to the 'clinical research' where blistering was created with hypnosis?

Thanks

Anthony
Message: Posted by: Anthony Jacquin (Sep 20, 2010 12:41AM)
I had only read anecdotal reports hence my question. Some fishing found this paper.

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/25/3/233.pdf

Enjoy

Anthony
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 20, 2010 07:30AM)
Was many years ago I read about it in a medical book. Can't remember the name of it. And also was mentioned hypnotherapy courses I attended.

Personally I don't go too deep into the research side (academia)I personally find it boring. I mainly use hypnosis for peformance enhancement which has more to do with creativity than heavy research.

I did go through a phase of research I just can't be bothered these days.
Message: Posted by: Owen Mc Ginty (Sep 20, 2010 08:19AM)
I read somewhere that blisters can produced with hypnosis, can´t for the life of me remember where though. Could it be in Ormond McGills "new enyclopedia of stage hypnotism" ? I only have a few books, but maybe I read it after trawling through loads of internet sites whilst trying to find info on hypnosis.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 20, 2010 10:39AM)
I think theoretically it could be possible to mentally induce a physical blister. If one can get a skin rash purely from stress or other mental pressure, surely one can mentally induce a physical blister.

As usual, better to be safe than sorry so it's your responsibility to build in safety measures regardless if it's really necessary for such measures.
Message: Posted by: Anansi (Sep 20, 2010 11:29AM)
How about this:


Dr. Albert Moll (1862-1939)

The Symptoms of Hypnosis Part 20


Jendrassik and Krafft-Ebing obtained marks like burns on one of their subjects by means of suggestion. If some object, such as a match-box, a pair of scissors, a snuff-box, a linen stamp, etc., was pressed upon the skin "in the morning, and the subject was at the same time told that his skin was being burned, a blister in the form of the object resulted in the afternoon. The marks remained a long time visible. If the object was pressed on the left side of a patient who was anaesthetic on the right, the burn appeared symmetrically on the right almost as if reflected in a glass, as could be especially seen if letters were used. Jendrassik maintains that deception was absolutely excluded in these cases of suggested burns; and a dermatologist, Lipp, at one of the experiments, declared that it would be impossible to cause the suggested lesion by any artificial means, either mechanical or chemical. Burns by suggestion have often been observed in the Salpetriere. Pierre Janet experi-mented on a patient who showed wounds like those of Christ. Schrenck-Notzing also observed that a wound which this same patient had in the cardiac region bled on Good Friday. In one case Janet suggested stigmatization of the right instep; the skin turned red at the spot suggested, and a blister followed which healed by scabbing.

Der Hypnotismus (German Edition) by Albert Moll (available on Amazon in English, though originally published around 1889.

and contrary to that, there are a few threads on the Randi forums where no one can find any modern controlled experiments giving instances of this phenomena.


I am now working on a stigmata routine!
If, as it suggests ;) that the blister takes a few hours to form but will take on the shape of whatever you place on the subject's arm, think of the possibilities for pre-show!
"and your selected card is the four of diamonds- that's curious- look on your left forearm"....
:devilish:
What d'ya think Ant? Something for Kev to try?

Ian.
Message: Posted by: catweazle (Sep 20, 2010 01:41PM)
I think the main reason hypnotists state that it wont burn, is to reassure the subject,so that they will actually hold the coin etc.

It wouldn't be that hard to try out, its only a small blister so there must be a hypnotist and subject somewhere that's willing to give it a go!

C'mon guy's, what's the worst that could happen, get accused of assault by a willing volunteer? (just don't try it in the public domain)

Maybe Chris Harding from Alakazam would be up for it, he's certainly a somnambulist.

one of the things Hypnotism is often 'written off' as is as a placebo, which to me seems strange - placebo's are so powerful they are used as a comparison in clinical trails of new drugs to prove their efficacy, and on that basis I believe the mind does control the body to a certain degree, I can certainly think of times where the placebo effect has worked on me though I'm not so sure about blisters without some sort of physical trauma.

The more I think about it the more I can reason that it would be possible, I'm just not sure how much of the body's response is due to the subconcious as opposed to say localised physiological response such as trauma.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 20, 2010 01:53PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-20 14:41, catweazle wrote:
I'm just not sure how much of the body's response is due to the subconcious as opposed to say localised physiological response such as trauma.
[/quote]

The simplest demonstration of this is having a rash appear out of nowhere due to stress. That's as direct a demonstration of the mind creating a genuine physical reaction that would have otherwise needed physical irritants to produce. Let's for argument sake say that through pure psychological means, a blister/boil is impossible to produce. How about a localized rash or something akin to hives? Right there (even though much more minor compared to an actual blister) if your subject ends up having such a reaction shortly after and you did not include in your script something along the lines of "it's going to get warmer than you think so as soon as you feel it, drop it as I do not want your burning yourself" or "it's going to get burning hot but while you will feel the sensation, it will not actually burn you," you're in a world of liability issues. Better safe than sorry.

This is similar reasoning behind proper wake ups. If you've put them under and did not openly bring them back out and use specific wording, any adverse affect they may feel later on they can easily come back and point the finger at you even if in reality you actually had nothing to do with it.

So, in the end, a legit blister/boil may not be possible (or it may be) but some sort of physiological outbreak can very possibly occur due to chemicals which may be released through psychological means.
Message: Posted by: Zerububle (Sep 20, 2010 02:51PM)
Blistering is not possible as the reaction is only partially created by the subconscious. The sub reacts to the burn. It cannot create the burn in the sense of how excessive heat alters the skin on a cellular level. Rashes etc are a result of blood flow and/or burst capillaries.

Mindpunisher may have misread or misremembered this info

Bubble
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 20, 2010 03:14PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-20 15:51, Zerububle wrote:
Rashes etc are a result of blood flow and/or burst capillaries.
[/quote]

There's also other causes for rashes and hives such as release of histamine which can be psychologically induced without the presence of physical irritants (thus hives and rashes which sometimes present themselves when one is stressed).
Message: Posted by: Zerububle (Sep 20, 2010 05:11PM)
Agreed. And well corrected :)

My point being that you still need actual heat (I.e a flame) to burn flesh to cause blistering, or indeed chemicals. Although the body creates some quite excellent acids for the digestive system, it can't ferry said acids up to the surface.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 20, 2010 05:14PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-20 15:51, Zerububle wrote:
Blistering is not possible as the reaction is only partially created by the subconscious. The sub reacts to the burn. It cannot create the burn in the sense of how excessive heat alters the skin on a cellular level. Rashes etc are a result of blood flow and/or burst capillaries.

Mindpunisher may have misread or misremembered this info

Bubble
[/quote]

I do remember that it stated blisters can be caused with hypnosis. I have no idea if its true or not since I haven't tried it. I have read of hypnosis curing warts and stopping periods for performing female ballet dancers. It was all in this thick book on medical hypnosis.

Burning or damaging the skin doesn't cause blisters. Its the "reaction" to it. Heart beat, blood flow are all regulated by the unconscious so at least in theory its possible. Healing its self is an unconscious response.Healing can be accelerated after invasive surgery using hypnosis. I knew someone many years ago who worked with surgeons in hospital and they were so impressed the doctors trained in hypnotherapy.

So I think its plausable but I can't say for sure.
Message: Posted by: catweazle (Sep 20, 2010 05:21PM)
Blisters just contain plasma, so if the mind can fool the body into creating histamine, why not localised plasma???
Message: Posted by: catweazle (Sep 20, 2010 05:22PM)
Try it!!!

In the name of science of course!
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 20, 2010 05:37PM)
Its not something that really interests me. However I used to suffer from hayfever very badly. I tried all the antihistamines going for years. None worked they made me ill and I still had the symptoms.

The only thing that gave me relief was self hypnosis and NLP anchoring for allergies.

My doctor told me it was impossible and kept prattling on about antihistamines which never ever worked for me.

I don't know if there is clinical evidence that hypnosis can aleviate hayfever only that it helped me while clinically "proven" drugs made me worse.

Hypnosis isn't a science its an art.
Message: Posted by: catweazle (Sep 20, 2010 05:40PM)
Smoking cured my hayfever, and just mentally ignoring it, seemed to work for me.
Message: Posted by: dmkraig (Sep 20, 2010 06:08PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-20 15:51, Zerububle wrote:
Blistering is not possible as the reaction is only partially created by the subconscious. The sub reacts to the burn. It cannot create the burn in the sense of how excessive heat alters the skin on a cellular level. Rashes etc are a result of blood flow and/or burst capillaries.
[/quote]

That's an interesting limiting belief you have.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (Sep 20, 2010 06:12PM)
The reason why we give the suggestion that no blister will appear is not to prevent blistering, but to appear caring and sympathetic to our audience. No other purpose in phrasing the suggestion in that way.
Whether or not blisters can be caused (or hayfever relieved) through psychological processes is an entirely different matter - and an interesting one.
Message: Posted by: Owen Mc Ginty (Sep 21, 2010 02:38AM)
Careful with that stigmata routine ;)
you might get more than you bargain for and start your own religion.
Message: Posted by: Jay Mack (Sep 21, 2010 03:32AM)
I really like the idea, obviously having no medical training and rather little experience in hypnosis (learning away) I can safely say I believe its possible =)

Ok at the very least I like to think that it would be possible.

Im not to keen on the idea of it being a blister (seen some of those things turn nasty) but I'm certainly up for the idea of being able to produce a mark of some sorts, as Anansi said think of the possibilities (ill be honest I really like the idea of being able to produce the mark of a card some where on the unsuspecting participant, I think the effect it could have would be amazing (but that's just me)

If anyone here was to start a religion, I wouldn't be overly worried, its not as though the ones we have are making a change for good (apologise to the religious few) in fact I reckon a modern day messiah would be able to conjure up some unbelievable miracles.
Message: Posted by: Anansi (Sep 21, 2010 08:44AM)
It would put a whole new spin on PK touches. Like the work of Jerome Finley but with 'physical' evidence to accompany the sensations.
Imagine, you could pre-show and get a spec's pin number and do a routine about them not being able to lie to you and tell them that the body always surrenders the truth (and if they don't blister-you have the no. anyway). Maybe something similar with Kurotsuke.
Bizzarist's could do a whole routine on Witchfinders and witches marks and spin a yarn about some witches able to transfer witches marks to another person temporarily.

Oh, and I was joshing about the stigmata routine, maybe something less offensive like a 'Saint Sebastian' routine.....
Message: Posted by: bobser (Sep 21, 2010 11:01AM)
Although I'd be delighted to be proved wrong I don't think this is possible, despite all the clinical claims.
Catweazle's correct of course. Someone needs to out there and burn someone. Someone not too nice obviously. Where's mindpunisher by the way? Helloooooo?
Message: Posted by: Anansi (Sep 21, 2010 11:10AM)
He's enjoying a 'session' at the gym.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 21, 2010 11:49AM)
Bob- why would you burn me? You still have years ahead to learn from me ;-)


Actually I am indeed off to the gym in about 20 mins...great place.
Message: Posted by: catweazle (Sep 22, 2010 02:35PM)
Well, so much for the great blister challenge, not one taker from all the hypnotists around the world!
where has the sense of pioneering adventure gone??

I could never find a willing subject(i lost my mojo and no longer indulge), its a tricky one. I think if it had any chance of working the subject would need to have total belief in the power of hypnosis to the point that they would be almost petrified, these people are unlikely to want to try it due to fear, so its a catch 22

Bobser hit it I think with ..."Although I'd be delighted to be proved wrong I don't think this is possible, despite all the clinical claims"
Message: Posted by: dmkraig (Sep 22, 2010 04:09PM)
When I was a kid performing magic, I often tried to prove that the box was empty before I showed something in it. After a time, I realized that some people would never believe. So I ignored them.

When I did mentalism I often tried to prove some effect wasn't a trick the way some person figured it was. Eventually, I put them off with what I called the "Who the F... are you?" response. When some unknown, self-centered little dweeb came up and said, "If you can't do X, I've proven that you can't do it and therefore nobody can," my response was, "You're an unimportant little dwarf and I wouldn't waste my time with you. You're nothing now, you'll be nothing tomorrow, and 100 years from now nobody will have cared that you ever lived. I have no reason to waste my time now or ever proving anything to you. Now, go back to the bridge you live under and leave the adults alone." It worked very nicely on know-it-all pseudo-skeptics.

Now, as a hypnotist, when I see people every day doing things they couldn't do when not in trance, I realize that those who doubt the phenomena the mind can produce are really just showing their own lack of knowledge or fear that their limited understanding of the nature of the universe might be threatened. For example, I'm sure they'd never look at:

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/25/3/233.pdf
Ullman & Dudek, 1960, "On the psyche and warts: II. Hypnotic suggestion and warts," Psychosomatic Medicine, 22:68-76
Rulison, 1942, "Warts, A statistical study of nine hundred and twenty one cases," Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology, 46:66-81.
Asher, 1956, "Respectable Hypnosis," British Medical Journal, 1: 309-312.
R.F.Q. Johnson and T.X. Barber, 1976, "Hypnotic suggestions for blister formation: Subjective and physiological effects," American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 18: 172-181.
Mason, 1955, "Icthyosis and hypnosis," British Medical Journal, 2: 57-58.
http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_13_3_margnelli.pdf
M. Ullman, 1947, "Herpes Simplex and second degree burn induced under hypnosis, American Journal of Psychiatry, 103: 828-830.
Clawson and Swade, 1975, "The hypnotic control of blood flow and pain: The cure of warts and the potential for the use of hypnosis in the treatment of cancer," American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, 17: 160-169.

Since the people here are avid researchers and investigators, I'm sure none of them would fit into the "Who the F... are you?" category or the fear of their limitations category.
Message: Posted by: catweazle (Sep 22, 2010 04:18PM)
Fantastic work sir!
Message: Posted by: JonChase (Sep 23, 2010 06:04AM)
No, it's bloody stupid.

There isn't a living hypnotist alive that can do more than cause slight blushing. The subconscious mind is powerful. It isn't that powerful.

Okay so it can be taught to ignore pain, maybe even to reduce blood flow by keeping the blood pressure down. That's what happens when people stick pins through their arms, they still bloody bleed and it still hurts. Or rather the nerves fire, the pain signal however is ignored. I'd lie to see the pain reduction and stop bleeding hypnotists do it when a major artery has been pierced.

A blister is a product of the exchange of heat melting the skin and producing protective mucus. IF it could be produced by suggestion I for one would **** loads of videos everywhere doing it. But there isn't one. Likewise there isn't a genuine video of the reverse happening.

It's a myth, however it is great to include the line in your suggestion as it adds drama, and hypnosis should be dramatic.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 27, 2010 10:32AM)
I don't know some of my skits can cause very severe blushing.

I can't say one way or the other. If there is academic research claiming it can be do we just ignore it?

I remember on the news many years ago there was a gang war with the chinese in glasgow I think it was Glasgow? One guy had been seriously slashed by a meat clever. They said on the news the only reason he survived was because he slowed down the bleeding using his mind. Otherwise he would've been dead before arriving at the hospital. Was on the news.
Message: Posted by: bobser (Sep 27, 2010 01:00PM)
I thought stigmatism was a proven fact, no?
My beliefs were that it happens all over the world. The interesting thing being the personal belief of the individual as to how Christ was penetrated, ie: through the hands or the wrists. If the stigmartyr believed it was the hands then they had it in their hands also and if the wrists then the wrists.
Does anyone know if there is particularly strong evidence on this?
If it can be totally scientifically proven (then that would mean it is based on the individual's beliefs) then hypnosis would be able to play a part in this.
BUT... whilst I know that under hypnosis the individual can control pain (to the degree where they don't even believe it's there) making holes in flesh is...... BIG!
Message: Posted by: dmkraig (Sep 27, 2010 02:03PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-23 07:04, JonChase wrote:
No, it's bloody stupid.

There isn't a living hypnotist alive that can do more than cause slight blushing.
[/quote]

That's an interesting limiting belief you have.
Blessings on your for having your set of beliefs.
I wonder why you feel it's necessary to infect others with your own limitations?
Well, that's your business, I suppose.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 28, 2010 05:42PM)
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2010-09-23 07:04, JonChase wrote:
No, it's bloody stupid.

There isn't a living hypnotist alive that can do more than cause slight blushing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I thought you told us you broke somebody's leg?
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 28, 2010 05:56PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-28 18:42, mindpunisher wrote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2010-09-23 07:04, JonChase wrote:
No, it's bloody stupid.

There isn't a living hypnotist alive that can do more than cause slight blushing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I thought you told us you broke somebody's leg?
[/quote]

I'm pretty sure the incident Jon mentioned was a stage management issue as opposed to an issue with the hypnosis/suggestion.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 28, 2010 07:15PM)
Its still hypnosis. You can't separate it it. It's all part of the the same activity.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 28, 2010 09:22PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-28 20:15, mindpunisher wrote:
Its still hypnosis. You can't separate it it. It's all part of the the same activity.
[/quote]

Not at all. Jon's example is more akin of forgetting to have the stage/spot light shined onto the stage steps on a very dark stage and then having the spectator accidentally trip on the steps, causing a fall, and voila, broken leg/hip/whatever. It's like forgetting to suggest "sleep and stand, sleep and stand" along with being ready to catch the person, and instead just commanding sleep without anticipating a subject who slumps/falls like a sack of potatoes, yes they took the command sleep and followed it but it's entirely the hypnotitst's carelessness for not being acutely aware and anticipating such a normal occurrence. Can't blame the hypnosis as being dangerous, it's basically an example of horrible stage and audience management. It's like if I was to do a card trick, like Jim Pace's the Web, but perform it with the spectators right at the edge of a curb. Now, the effect makes a lot of people jump and accidentally a spectator jumps into oncoming traffic, can't really blame the effect since I already know the possibility of spectators jumping and running off as being a normal reaction to that trick but I was stupid enough to perform it right on the edge of the curb with active traffic. Bad audience management.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 04:43AM)
I never cease to be surprised on this forum. If you are a stage hypnotist then everything associated with the task of doing stage hypnosis is your responsabity. If you invite members of the public to take part then there are risks involved. All of which come under the activity of doing stage hypnosis.

You can't pick and choose which ones are part of hypnosis and ones that aren't. Its absurd. Its like saying it wasn't the gun that killed him your honour it was the bullet.

Absolutely crazy.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 04:50AM)
Here is a link to a report on dangers of hypnosis.

I don't agree with all of it And much of it may not be my point of view but there are some references and info that's worth looking at.

http://tinyurl.com/3y938sd
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 08:40AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-29 05:43, mindpunisher wrote:
I never cease to be surprised on this forum. If you are a stage hypnotist then everything associated with the task of doing stage hypnosis is your responsabity. If you invite members of the public to take part then there are risks involved. All of which come under the activity of doing stage hypnosis.

You can't pick and choose which ones are part of hypnosis and ones that aren't. Its absurd. Its like saying it wasn't the gun that killed him your honour it was the bullet.

Absolutely crazy.
[/quote]

I'm astounded by how you are incapable of differentiating between the hypnotic phenomena and the process of engaging the phenomena, which is called hypnosis and proper stage management. The discussion has been about blisters and other injuries caused by the phenomena itself, it has NOT been a discussion about carelessness of hypnotists on stage with lack of stage and audience management skills. If you can't tell the difference between the two, that's on you, don't reverse things and try to make it look and sound as if those who do not agree with you is on the wrong side of the fence by default.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 08:42AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-29 05:43, mindpunisher wrote:
I never cease to be surprised on this forum. If you are a stage hypnotist then everything associated with the task of doing stage hypnosis is your responsabity. If you invite members of the public to take part then there are risks involved. All of which come under the activity of doing stage hypnosis.

You can't pick and choose which ones are part of hypnosis and ones that aren't. Its absurd. Its like saying it wasn't the gun that killed him your honour it was the bullet.

Absolutely crazy.
[/quote]

I'm astounded by how you are incapable of differentiating between the hypnotic phenomena and the process of engaging the phenomena, which is called hypnosis and proper stage management. The discussion has been about blisters and other injuries caused by the phenomena itself, it has NOT been a discussion about carelessness of hypnotists on stage with lack of stage and audience management skills. If you can't tell the difference between the two, that's on you, don't reverse things and try to make it look and sound as if those who do not agree with you is on the wrong side of the fence by default.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 08:42AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-29 05:43, mindpunisher wrote:
I never cease to be surprised on this forum. If you are a stage hypnotist then everything associated with the task of doing stage hypnosis is your responsabity. If you invite members of the public to take part then there are risks involved. All of which come under the activity of doing stage hypnosis.

You can't pick and choose which ones are part of hypnosis and ones that aren't. Its absurd. Its like saying it wasn't the gun that killed him your honour it was the bullet.

Absolutely crazy.
[/quote]

I'm astounded by how you are incapable of differentiating between the hypnotic phenomena and the process of engaging the phenomena, which is called hypnosis and proper stage management. The discussion has been about blisters and other injuries caused by the phenomena itself, it has NOT been a discussion about carelessness of hypnotists on stage with lack of stage and audience management skills. If you can't tell the difference between the two, that's on you, don't reverse things and try to make it look and sound as if those who do not agree with you is on the wrong side of the fence by default.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 09:25AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-29 10:00, mindpunisher wrote:
I give up...

Try telling that to the lawyer that prosucutes you due to the fact you aren't licensed or insured or follow guidlelins here in the UK.

All this Sh%&*£ is about selling products and courses trying make hypnosis sound completely safe therefore justified for selling incomplete products and courses to kids and magicians.

You only have dig to find that there are cases that have been prosicuted for neglegence due to physical injuries and that there are a large number of experts who believe hypnisis can be dangerous if abused with certain types of vulnerable people.

If you can't see that then or are happy with the real agenda behind these moronic threads then I am wasting my time.
[/quote]

Even if it is about selling product (the intent of this thread that is), the way you speak about it will easily scare off and misinform the MANY folks who actually read this thread to learn about hypnosis, the phenomena and the process.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 09:34AM)
If they are scared off then I think its a good thing. If the thought of causing injury or being prosecuted because you aren't prepared properly then I think its a good thing.

you shouldn't be screwing around with something like hypnosis unless you know what you are doing. Unfortunately many of those that sell products on here gloss over and either hide or don't know about some of references posted on here recently.

If they are scared off its because I am taking away the misinformation. If you do hypnosis in public without a license OR INSURANCE you are breaking the law in the UK. If you have an accident you are liable to be prosecuted for neglegence.

If you do hypnosis in public - then audience and environment management is a BIG
Part of it. You cannot separate it.

Again if you actually read the posts and referenes posted you will in fact see people are MORE informed not less. There have been prosecutions and people have paid out a lot of money. And there ARE genuine risks to screwing around with hypnosis for those that practice and those that recieve.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 09:50AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-29 10:34, mindpunisher wrote:
If they are scared off its because I am taking away the misinformation. If you do hypnosis in public without a license OR INSURANCE you are breaking the law in the UK.
[/quote]

The ironic thing about this statement is that you ARE misinforming. The broken leg example was due to stage management. It could have easily happened if one was a mentalist performing a mentalism act or a magician performing a magic act. The without a license part of the UK law you speak of does NOT mention needing a license for hypnosis in the sense of needing hypnosis certification, it EXPLICITLY states that one can not perform in an area NOT zoned for performances UNLESS getting permission from the venue operator. The Hypnotism Act is right here: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1952/cukpga_19520046_en_1

Please point out to me where it explicitly states that one needs a hypnosis license (mind you, needing permission to perform at a venue is COMPLETELY different from needing a hypnosis certification, in other words, if the venue operator gives you permission, you are now legally free to do a hypnosis show at that venue bearing the terms of agreement to use the facility). Now, getting a performer's liability insurance is a completely different matter. The requirement for a hypnosis certificate in order to get insurance is wholly of the discretion of the insurance company and the insurance company is an independent NON-GOVERNMENT party. Mind you, all this is purely in the context of HYPNOSIS IN AN ENTERTAINMENT CONTEXT, hypnotherapy is something else entirely.

Also, when you reply to this post MP, please refrain from ignoring the VERY SPECIFIC wordings of my post and going off with gross generalizations and being selective as to which parts of my post you respond to. If you do so, it should be noted that you are not responding to my post since it's out of context and instead, you're picking bits and pieces to serve only for whatever odd personal agenda you need it to serve.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 10:16AM)
First of all this is a stage hypnosis forum, Secondly I mentioned license not certificate two totally completely different things. You don't seem to knw the difference. And I can't be arsed explaining do a search on here or google.

And you want me to do your work for you yet again? just ASK ANY UK LOCAL COUNCIL AUTHORITY and they will tell you - YOU NEED A LICENSE TO PERFORM ANY PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION.

Why ask me? However there is info around from someone that's already done that with many councils with replies in writing. And they all stated you need permision/license.

I'm sorry if I seem generalized but I find it difficult to keep up with every word you post. Why don't you take it upon yourself to actually do some research and find out the truth for yourself instead of buying into some of the REAL misinformation on here?
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 10:32AM)
Again, the I've pointed out the actual Hypnotism Act from YOUR COUNTRY and you've blatantly disregarded it and again you just generalize and misinform. Difficult to keep up with every word? So in other words, you basically just do not care about what I wrote, did not think about it, and you are only concerned with your own personal agenda whatever that may be. I DID THE RESEARCH! I've pointed out that what you claim DOES NOT HOLD UP because IT IS NOT IN THE BRITISH HYPNOTISM ACT. YOU are the one that is NOT doing the research. The only reason I asked that you point out what I asked you to point out is for one reason and purpose one. That reason being the following:

YOUR STATEMENT DOES NOT HOLD UP AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE BRITISH HYPNOTISM ACT.

You want to prove me wrong? Then prove to me how the British Hypnotism Act supports your arguments. The fact is that you can not.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 10:39AM)
Im not going to argue with you. I work in the industry here in the UK. Ive already told you ASK ANY COUNCIL AUTHORITY.

There has been some clamp down in a few areas already. But the big one will be when there is an accident. Lets test your theory in court.

You don't even live here or work here you didn't even know the difference between a license and a certificate. And you are telling me! No wonder there is so much misinformation being thrown around.

Im not going to waste anymore time you obviously know everything. And your right I can't be arsed replying to half of what you say. You don't listen to a word I say so why should I?

last post on this..
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 10:44AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-29 11:39, mindpunisher wrote:
you don't even live here or work here you didn't even know the difference between a license and a certificate. And you are telling me! No wonder there is so much misinformation being thrown around.
[/quote]

No sir, the misinformation is from you. You don't know the difference between "places licensed for public entertainment" (direct quote from the British Hypnotism Act, available to read right here: ( http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1952/cukpga_19520046_en_1 ) and licensed to hypnotize. How sad is that? The law is more or less about getting a permit to use a venue. It is the same as getting a permit to perform as a mime at the venue. Do you need to be a licensed mime? I'm not aware that there were mime licenses to be attained! How about those folks who stand there like statues and act like robots? Oh no, now you're going to tell me there's a license to do that too. How about clowns? Oh my goodness, now you need to be a licensed clown. Elvis impersonator? Whoa, now you need a licensed Elvis impersonator.

Again, the British Hypnotism Act is a statute from your own national law. You want to argue with me? First argue with your government and demand from them why the actual laws run contrary to your beliefs and understanding of the law. I shed a tear for you and your complete lack of understanding of the laws of your country. How is it that an American is able to understand it yet you are oblivious to it?

As to my mention of hypnosis certificates? YOU VERY WELL UNDERSTAND that I was referring to becoming a certified hypnotist in order to attain things like insurance coverage. You chose to play coy here and twist my words but even the dimmest of the dim would have fully understood what I had meant.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 10:58AM)
You are so way off you have no idea. When apply for the license you get a full police check carried out on you. Any offences and you wil not get the license. You must have public liability specifically for hypnosis. Which is very difficult to get if you have no experience of doing professional shows plus very expensive.

You have a very rigid list of specific giudlines that you must follow stating what you can and can't do with hypnosis. They come check the venue your insurance before they grant it.

The deal with the insurance I got from equity requires you record every show and keep it for 6 years in case of any lawsuit to prove you stick by the guidelines and therefore cannot be sued for neglegence.

Just typical of an ignorant know it all who has no clue. once again just ask in writing most councils if they need a license including insurance/ permission to perform in any street. Just ask. And as I have already stated some councils have made it clear they will be clamping down on impromtu hypnosis in bars or streets.

In fact indeed it has already started.

try applying for the license . You are a complete idiot. Save your tears for your therapist. You need one.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 11:09AM)
Again, I love how you just ignore the fact that there is a statute and it's there in your national law. It's quite fine, you can continue on pumping your chest and giving us the he said she said baloney but it still comes down to what is written there in plain english in your laws.

It's very simple, all you have to do is prove me wrong by pointing to the statutes in the laws of your country for reference. Telling me the "I heard this and I heard that" without ever pointing to any official documentation supportable in a court of law is exactly that, a bunch of "I heard this and I heard that." I have heard that the moon is made from cheese, since I heard it, it must be true then right? Surely it has to be according to your logic.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 11:18AM)
And you ignore the fact I am working in the industry. Ive told you ASK WHAT YOU NEED AND THEN APPLY.

You just ignored my last post. Why should I waste my time on you? You are obviously an expert. And most people on here have not worked through the media witch hunts during the 90s. If they had they might be thinking twice about what they do. It will only take one bad accident to make the news and it will all flare up again. And the anti brigade will think its xmas with the ammo they will have.

The problem with the overall wording applying to venues is that there wasn't a growing number of hypnotists performing in the street. So really its a play on words but many councils have made it clear that you need a hypnotic license for the street. FOR ANY PUBLIC DEMONSRATION.

If you want to test in court go ahead. But Its most likely that won't happen until there is a bad injury.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 11:28AM)
Again, you're not an official source, show me proof from an official source that can be used in a court of law. After all, we are talking about the law are we not? Should I be trusting you just because you are a hypnotist or should I be going by the actual statutes of the law? Most definitely the latter. But then again, the moon is made of cheese because that's what I've heard and according to you, what one hears through word of mouth must be true. I didn't ignore your last post, you've just never actually answered my initial posts and instead went off on a "I heard this and I heard that" tangent.

So what is it then MP? Are you going to support your statements with statutes of the law (in which you will have to point us to the statutes) or are you going to continue to support your statements with "I heard this happened to so and so and that happened to so and so." Maybe you would care to twist my words and take things out of context again? So, what is it? Pick your poison. At the end of the day, the law is the law and one can find the law in official print from the government.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 11:53AM)
Here we go again...

I tell you what put £30 into my paypal account and I will give you as much info as you want. The £30 will cover my time researching it for you. It seems everything ive p ut up so far isn't being valued . So put your money where your mouth is and I will be happy to show you official sources. If I can't I will give you your money back and pay you!

How about it?

Or you can write to a dozen coucil athorities yourself and ask them if you need a hypnotic license to perform in the street. You are basicall;y callimg me a liar now. Either do the work ourself or pay me for the research which I am happy to get for you. But I am not wasting anymore time posting up evidence that's not valued.

Just to satisfy some armchair expert on uk law.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 12:24PM)
Sir, I'm going by what is readily available for view and is official UK government law. If you can disprove me using similarly credible sources then fine. So far, you have not. I'm not saying that I'm 100% correct but from the source I've repeatedly pointed to (a statute in UK law, the link is also a government link), so far I'm on point. You on the other hand have not provided a single iota of supporting documentation that is comparable to that of which I've referenced.

Here's the situation, thus far my comments are supported by facts which I've referenced. Your comments are supported by what you claim you've heard and from you're "experience" but the problem is that nobody knows where you heard what you heard from and your "experience" is more or less your personal views, both of which you have been unable to support with official government statutes. At the minimum, I at least have a credible source, you on the other hand, nada. Right now you have ZERO, ZILCH, NADA official documentation to support your argument and thus, what you say can NOT be in any way, shape, or form, be considered facts. Right now, I can be completely talking out of my rear but thus far, what I've stated are supported by official documentation and thus can be considered factual.

I may very well be a armchair expert but I at least have factual official sources to reference, you on the other hand, I'm still waiting for any kind of official sources to support your claims. We are after all talking about the law, the law is the law, it is factual, it can be referred back to, it is what it is. If talking about something being legal or illegal, one can only really reference back to the law, saying "I heard this and I heard that" or "this is the way it is because this is what I know" means absolutely diddly squat in an argument about legality.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 12:31PM)
I just told you the local authorities will tell you you need a license. The acct was created to protect the public from abusive hypnotists. Its about hypnosis not venues.

Mckenna was prosecuted for neglegence which they couldn't make stick because he abides by all the guidelines.

Halpern on the other hand didn't he got sued for £20k and the venue £90k

It seems to me any hypnotist that don't abide by the guidelines will be sued for neglegence if there is an accident.

Most councils will tell you - you need a hypnotic licence for street or impromtu bars. There is no doubt about that. Some are already stating they are ready to clamp down.

You sir are a complete waste of time. And one of the reasons the hypnosis industry in this country is under threat.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 12:36PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-29 13:31, mindpunisher wrote:
It seems to me any hypnotist that don't abide by the guidelines will be sued for neglegence if there is an accident.
[/quote]

HA HA HA HA. Again you pick and choose things to support your argument and take it all out of context. We were discussing if it is illegal or legal to hypnotize without a hypnotic license and NOW it's clear that you're talking about negligence. Negligence is one thing and only comes into question when an accident occurs. This has nothing to do with the legality of being able to hypnotize without being a licensed hypnotist. Very soon you're going to run out of things to twist around and argue about because you've jumped around different subjects at least 3 times now and hilariously, you have yet to support any of your arguments with official documentation. Look, I can be wrong, you can be totally right, all you have to do is point us to the official documentation to support your argument!
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 12:44PM)
Ive just realised I am talking to a 14 year old.

licensed means insurance means abiding by the guidelines. First thing a lawyer will go for if there is litigation.

You obviously haven't read my posts or looked into the cases. Halpern had no insurance didn't go by the guidelines and the venus was also sued for 90k. Otherwise the venue would have not been sued.

All bars that allow impromtu hypnosis to go on without licensed hypnotists also run the risk of losing their license and being sued should an accident happen. That is simply a fact.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 12:47PM)
I did look into the Halpern case and the McKenna case. Both cases are about being sued for negligence but this is an entirely different subject from the legality of being able to perform or not with and without a license. Would you like me to do the legwork for you and link to the news article (I have one for McKenna from the BBC, you're going to have to find one for Halpern because the only mention of it was on online message forums). Here's the McKenna article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/150850.stm

Also, in relation to the McKenna case. Guess what? Thanks to the McKenna case, arguments like yours in regards to hypnosis causing mental or physical issues has even LESS credit. The McKenna case sets a precedent and the precedent, at the minimum, shows that hypnosis can not cause aggressive schizophrenia. I shed a tear for you again MP because there goes one less round of ammunition under your belt for you silly arguments.

For example, a non-certified/un-licensed doctor CAN NOT be held accountable for negligence because it was illegal for them to practice in the first place. Being able to legally do something is a different subject from following guidelines of a practice.

A non-certified/un-licensed hypnotist being sued for negligence implies that they were legally able to hypnotize. If they were not legally able to hypnotize, they would not be sued for negligence, they would just go straight to jail or pay whatever fine needs to be paid because it is in conflict with the law.

Heck, forget all the other stuff, what the heck is your actual argument? Are you talking about the legality of performing without a license? Are you talking about negligence and how that is affected by having insurance? Are you talking about if burn blisters can be created using just hypnosis? Which one is it? These are three pretty much unrelated issues with the only similarity being that it involves hypnotists but other than that, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ISSUES. Are you now going to go off on a tangent and prove to me the moon is made of cheese? That mimes need a mimes license? Dinosaurs never roamed the Earth? I don't know, you've jumped around completely different topics so many times that it's hard to guess what other odd directions you're going to jump in next!
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 01:03PM)
Have you been drinking? There are no formal qualificationsfor hypnotists so a comparisin with a doctor isn't really worth much.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 01:07PM)
Sober as sober can be. Have you been conducting weird self-hypnosis experiments on yourself? Because not only can you settle on a single argument but you can't support any of those that you have made thus far. Again, you argued about it being legal or not to hypnotize without being a licensed hypnotist, then you talk about negligence (a different matter altogether), and it all spawned from talking about hypnotically induced blisters. Tisk tisk, if I don't keep track of you tangents, who else would eh?

Do you need a lawyer to explain all this to you? I do work in a international firm and we do have a UK office. I can refer you to one of our attorneys but the time spent with them is going to be considerably higher than 30 pounds and we charge by the quarter hour. Are you going to make a snide remark about how incompetent our lawyers are? That's totally fine because I don't expect someone with your lack of knowledge (and the bare minimum of logical sense) to be a good judge of what is or is not a good lawyer.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 01:11PM)
I think they have been well suported. Which part don't you understand? You last comparison with doctors doesn't really make sense since hypnotists have no formal qualifications but still get sued for neglect. This means anyone who practices hypnosis without the proper elements in place can be sued for neglegence.

I just put a price of £30s because I don't think you could afford any more.
Plus if I get you the info which you can't find on google you will just leap to something else.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 01:54PM)
Well supported? How so? Where are the articles or statutes or precedents or any documentation? My comparison with doctors had a point. A good point. It shows the difference between legally requiring a license to do something from not requiring a license to do something. We are talking about legality, this is a subject that YOU brought up as a tangent to stage and audience management which in turn is a tangent to the initial issue of if a burn blister is possible through hypnosis alone. So what can we conclude from this? That to perform in most venues one needs to be insured but this would be the same for a magician or a mentalist or any other performance art that includes active audience participation on stage and what not. This does not make hypnosis more dangerous than those performance arts. The opportunity to get sued is pretty much equal amongst them. Also, this is at the discretion of the venue as opposed to something one much abide by due to legality.

So, again, what is your argument? Are you going to go back talking about blisters? Are you going to argue about the legality of being able to hypnotize or not? Are you going to talk about insurance matters? Are you going to talk about issues of negligence and malpractice? Also, how are you interchanging license with insurance? They are two separate things even according to the Oxford dictionary ( here you go: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/license ). Insurance is not the same thing as being granted the right or permission to do something. If anything, having insurance could be a prerequisite to receiving a license to perform at the venue but this is at the discretion of the venue operator. If the venue requires you to have insurance then of course you need insurance. If they told you that one of the prerequisites was that you had to wear yellow from top to bottom, of course you will have to oblige. Wholly up to the discretion of the venue operator.

Long story short, stop trying to muddle up the fact that one does not need a license to have the legal right to hypnotize (because there isn't one) with the fact that one needs a license/permit/permission to perform at a certain venue and that it may require a prerequisite of the performer having liability insurance (but this is at the discretion of the venue operator).

By the way, you priced your services at 30 pounds because obviously with your failure to settle and support a single argument, your services and knowledge is questionable at best. As for googling information, at least I've done my due diligence in finding supporting documents and what not to support my statements, this is something that you have not done so.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 29, 2010 06:50PM)
Here is a link to a report on dangers of hypnosis.

I Ididn't write it but it covers EVERYTHING we have spoke about. You will find everything here including links to Halpern and Paul Mckenna and the fact that the court ruled that hypnosis DID trigger Schizophrenia

http://tinyurl.com/3y938sd

For those that have face book you can see a number of examples of replies from uk councils however there are many more available..They all say exactly the same thing...


http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/topic.php?uid=114103275276649&topic=51

And this letter from government may be of interest:

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/topic.php?uid=114103275276649&topic=56
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 29, 2010 07:46PM)
Thank you, finally, some sources :) Let me read and digest.

Alright, so I've figured it out from that letter you referred to. Basically the Hypnotism Act of 1952 really has no limitations on who can be a hypnotist and perform. The limitations actually come from the Licensing Act of 2003 which is actually independent of the Hypnotism Act. So one needs a site license to perform at a public venue and that license requires liability insurance (the kind of insurance one takes out in case the venue burns down, etc.). This basically goes the same for any kind of performer performing in a public space. You should've pointed out the Licensing Act 2003 earlier instead of all this back and forth.
Message: Posted by: Zerububle (Sep 30, 2010 01:35AM)
The licensing act doesn't seem to include magic or hypnosis in any form and also creates exceptions for things education etc

Btw. There are considerably more 'biscuit related incidents' per annum than there are hypnosis related ones. Thankfully the people at McVities don't feel the need to scaremonger.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Sep 30, 2010 09:06AM)
LoL. That's the conclusion I came to Zeruble. The only group that really seems to care if you are a hypnotist or not appears to be the insurance company. The government could care less (which is evident how there is very little limitations noted in the Hypnotism Act). The government just needs you to acquire a site license to use the venue but they expect the same thing from anybody or any group who wishes to perform at a venue. They don't really care about what kind of performer you are (unless you are planning on a triple X rated pornographic show, etc.).
Message: Posted by: Owen Mc Ginty (Sep 30, 2010 09:25AM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-28 18:42, mindpunisher wrote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


On 2010-09-23 07:04, JonChase wrote:
No, it's bloody stupid.

There isn't a living hypnotist alive that can do more than cause slight blushing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I thought you told us you broke somebody's leg?
[/quote]

I thought this was a joke, and I laughed quite hard.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Sep 30, 2010 10:28AM)
Let's Make This As Simple As Possible For Everyone..

(Especially for the Readers of this thread - http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=381835&forum=22&68 and also this thread:

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=383196&forum=22&4 and finally this thread:

http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=382650&forum=22&43


I'd love to see them try and wiggle out of this info:

Let's Make This As Simple As Possible For Everyone..

01) The 1952 Hypnotism Act - http://www.opsi.gov.uk/RevisedStatutes/Acts/ukpga/1952/cukpga_19520046_en_1 this still stands as LAW in England and to Legally Perform any Hypnotist must obtain a License/Permission for a Demonstration of Hypnosis to take place at any “Public Venue” – this essentially meant any Pub, Theatre, and other venue except for Private Members Clubs until the Licensing Act 2003 Came into Play in England.

02) In 1989 “Model Conditions” were introduced which any UK Council Authority were encouraged and allowed to attach as conditions of granting a Performance/demonstration of Hypnotism License and then in 1995 there was a Government Review on Hypnosis Safety and this led to the updated 1996 Model Conditions which basically all UK Councils attach to the conditions of your performance being legal when they grant your license/permission under the 1952 Hypnotism act and these are detailed in the document at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs2/hoc9639.html

03) However the Licensing Act 2003 has in UK Law enlarged the meaning of “Public Venue” and its legalise interpretation so that as confirmed by most all of the 450+ UK Legal Licensing Enforcement Units, this now also covers (in their legal opinion) Private Members Clubs and also outdoor venues, town centres and also the Streets, thus making so called Impromptu Street Hypnosis ILLEGAL without the correct Licenses being applied for and in place. For those who are members of Facebook There are some very useful examples of UK Councils opinions on this at - http://www.facebook.com/?sk=messages#!/topic.php?uid=114103275276649&topic=51 and you can also see what Central Government have to say on the issue at this link: http://www.facebook.com/?sk=messages#!/topic.php?uid=114103275276649&topic=56

04) As you will notice from the above NO UK Council District will grant such permission/license to perform Hypnosis without the Hypnotist having in place the correct Public Liability & Professional Indemnity Insurance Cover which covers for whilst the volunteers are “In Trance” and such insurance cover costs anywhere from £700 up to £1,000 per year even if you’re a member of The Federation of Ethical Stage Hypnotists and/or Equity. Hence so many UK Stage Hypnotists and Most all Street Hypnotists do not have such insurance and as such are BREAKING THE LAW.

05) IN England (UK) and many other places it is Compulsory and LAW to have Public Liability and in certain cases Professional Indemnity Insurance in Place for ANY KIND OF BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY WHICH INVOLVES THE PUBLIC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liability_insurance and also check - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance - the bottom line means that any Stage or Street Hypnotist or Magician & Mentalist who uses even just a bit of hypnosis in their act is BREAKING THE LAW and committing a CRIMINAL Offence if they do not have such insurance cover in place.

06) Also to not have such insurance cover will make it IMPOSSIBLE for them to get a Legal License and Permission granted by any UK Council to perform any demonstration of Hypnosis in any Public Place (which as explained above now includes in many areas Private Members Clubs and Most all Areas also includes Town Centres, Streets and Outdoor Locations thus making Street and Impromtu hypnosis ILLEGAL without such under the 1952 Hypnotism Act and also under the affects of the Licensing Act 2003 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/17/contents

07) Further it is LAW IN ENGLAND that all businesses need a Written Health & Safety Risk Assessment in place http://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/health/general/healthsafetywork.htm - The fine point of law to consider here is that “employees” in legalise and UK Law can be paid or unpaid. In otherwords the Legalise (the language of UK Law which gives different meaning than the usual dictionary - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_writing ) means that even Volunteers who participate for no payment during A Stage/Street Hypnosis Show can in Legalise (UK LAW) be defined as being integral to that performance and therefore classed as employees even if they receive no payment. As such and because the Law dictates that if more than 5 Employees are being used (eg more than 5 volunteers in one stage show or one outing of Street Hypnosis which is more than likely in most all cases) then in UK Law A full detailed written Health & Safety Executive Approved Written Risk Assessment of the activities must have been completed in advance, and also at arrival at each venue a venue specific written risk assessment must be completed and these legal dated documents must be kept on file for several years as per the Legal Legislation. TO NOT DO SO IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE.

08) The failure of any Hypnotist to have any of these elements in place before they conduct any form of Hypnosis demonstration in any location in England means that they will either be breaking Health & Safety Laws, Insurance Laws (duty of care etc) and/or the Hypnotism Act 1952 and Licensing Act 2003. And basically if anything were ever to go wrong, whether they were responsible for it or not the chances are they would still be found guilty of NEGLIGENCE and possibly also as stated already other CRIMINAL offences as well.

09) Indeed Street Hypnotists in UK would never be granted a License by most UK Councils as has been confirmed by them in writing from their Legal Departments, many of whom have confirmed that they deem Hypnosis on The Streets to BE TOO GREAT A RISK - http://www.facebook.com/?sk=messages#!/topic.php?uid=114103275276649&topic=51

10) Ironically the correct nature of Insurance Cover is now available for members of The Professional Organisation of Stage & Street Hypnotists (POSH) who have studied “The Transparency Template” Safety & Legal Training Course for just £150 Sterling a Year as per - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH7xyqp8oiI

11) Anyone who has studied this Comprehensive Course will have learnt in-depth all of the following - http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=252506921&blogId=536692407

12) And perhaps most importantly they will learn this from an experienced Ex-Health and Safety Officer of high profile indoor and outdoor entertainments events, and also several highly experienced working professional Stage/Street Hypnotists all of whom always have and always have had the correct Licenses (where needed by law) in place, the correct insurances, risk assessments and all other elements in place. Watch this for more details - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJd1b_hojeg

13) All of the above is indeed relevant and LAW in England (UK) whether you choose to believe that Hypnosis is completely safe or you choose to examine the evidence and realise that Hypnosis indeed has many potential dangers both of a Physical and also Psychological and/or Emotional Nature.

14) The fact is HYPNOSIS IS DANGEROUS and there is very real evidence to suggest (and ins some cases prove beyond reasonable legal doubt) that Hypnosis can trigger off Schizophrenia and other mental conditions which may be lying dormant and indeed could even be a contributory factor to someone’s death. All of the easily checkable and easily researched sources can be found in the 27 Page report which can be instantly downloaded here - http://tinyurl.com/3y938sd

15) You’ll also find at the link of http://tinyurl.com/3y938sd details and proof of Legal Precedents (eg cases that have been won against UK Hypnotists) for not abiding by some, or all of the above things.

16) The bottom line is if your not abiding by all of the above and getting the correct documents and stuff in place THEN YOUR BREAKING THE LAW IN ENGLAND on many levels.

17) Indeed the areas such as Negligence and Potential Criminal Charges being taken against a Hypnotist for CRIMINAL ASSAULT apply to most all countries in the world and are explained in depth in the excellent book “Practising Safe Hypnosis” by Roger Hambleton http://www.amazon.co.uk/Practising-Safe-Hypnosis-Management-Guide/dp/1899836942 - this book also details how the MCKENNA case concluded that HYPNOSIS DID MOST LIKELY TRIGGER THE SCHIZOPHRENIA.

18) Bottom Line – Whether you like it or not it’s a LEGAL REQUIREMENT (on many levels) for all of these elements to be in place in England and for most all of them to also be in place wherever you are located in the World otherwise YOU WILL BE BREAKING VARIOUS LAWS and not just those which are hypnosis and/or entertainment specific.

19) And there is only one course which truly goes into great depth and teaches all you need to know about UK Laws and Legislation and also how the Legal Ground Lies for most other places in the world and that’s THE TRANSPARENCY TEMPLATE – Which is currently available exclusively only from Russell Hall’s “Magick Enterprises” in Sheffield as per: http://magickwords.wordpress.com/about/

20) Finally for more documents, facts, evidence and discussion of the topics mentioned above those of you who have a facebook account may wish to join this facebook group - http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=298&uid=114103275276649#!/group.php?gid=114103275276649&ref=ts
Message: Posted by: bobser (Sep 30, 2010 11:39AM)
I've started self harming again. Hey it's not the worst option.
Message: Posted by: dmkraig (Sep 30, 2010 12:01PM)
[quote]
On 2010-09-30 11:28, mindpunisher wrote:
14) The fact is HYPNOSIS IS DANGEROUS and there is very real evidence to suggest (and ins some cases prove beyond reasonable legal doubt) that Hypnosis can trigger off Schizophrenia and other mental conditions which may be lying dormant and indeed could even be a contributory factor to someone’s death. All of the easily checkable and easily researched sources can be found in the 27 Page report which can be instantly downloaded here - http://tinyurl.com/3y938sd
[/quote]



I started to read the article, but it was so incredibly poorly written I finally gave up. It seemed to follow the old "If you can't convince them with facts, baffle them with BS" credo.

Be that as it may, I find that what I read of it was an amazing bit of attempted terrorism rather than a factual analysis, a study that replaced systematic proof with undocumented (except for second-hand anecdotal stories) including one of the sources admitting that "These reports all come from papers consciously, industriously and mayhap deviously constructing “sick sex porno-hypno show” articles." (http://magonia.haaan.com/2009/blue/). Indeed, in today's style of "journalism" via the internet, it would probably be possible to prove that Hitler was a gay Jewish man with one testicle.

In looking the article, the most obvious thing to be noted is that instances of harm attributed to public hypnosis shows seem to appear at rate of about one per decade. This implies that either problems in shows are rare or that there are few hypnosis shows. In either case, claiming in all caps that "Hypnosis is Dangerous" is highly overblown.

You claim above that there is "very real evidence" but that it would only "suggest" that hypnosis is dangerous. Sorry, MP, but "very real evidence" does not "suggest" (or imply or insinuate or hint at or intimate or give the impression). "Very real evidence" is quite direct.

Courts do NOT determine whether something is the cause of another thing except for legal situations. Ten thousand courts could rule that hypnosis "can trigger off Schizophrenia and other mental conditions," but that does not make it so any more than the rulings of the Catholic church that the planets orbited the Earth made it so. Courts can determine if someone can be held liable for certain actions, but it is scientific investigation, not the courts, that will determine if hypnosis can trigger schizophrenia or any other of your unnamed "mental conditions."

You made your claim, so please provide some SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support it. Specifically, what is the EXACT MECHANISM by which hypnosis triggers schizophrenia. No guesses or weasel words (might, could, may, etc.) but the specific mechanisms. Then please provide at least one peer-reviewed medical or psychological journal supporting this evidence. Do so and I will certainly agree with you.

Not living in England I have neither the time nor the desire to examine all of your other claims. I will say that it is foolish to give a performance in the U.S. whether either the venue or the performer is not fully covered by liability insurance. I will also say that there are performers who are either ill-trained, are caught up in the excitement of a performance, or who are just idiots who do not watch out for the safety of their performers. However, that has NOTHING to do with hypnosis being dangerous, it has to do with people being stupid.

Even if it could be shown--and I would contend that scientifically it cannot--that hypnosis "can" (I note that you refuse to use the word "does") trigger schizophrenia (a very non-medical description; certain stimuli can trigger schizophrenic episodes, but not schizophrenia), and it can be shown that every stage hypnotist is an idiot, the numbers simply do NOT support your claim of hypnosis being dangerous.

Each year in the U.S. there are 40,000 injuries due to toilets.
Each year in the U.S. there are currently 500,000 aspirin poisonings.

Are you going to outlaw toilets and aspirin? They are far more dangerous than any supposed problem with hypnosis.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 1, 2010 04:47AM)
I am not outlawing anything. Are you qualified to to say hypnosis is totally safe? I know I am not qualified to say it is one way or another. There are far more qualified people who believe it is dangerous. The fact is it can't be proved one way or another. Having said that I have had numerous experiences that throw doubt in my mind that hypnosis is totally safe. Im very surprised that any hypnotist who has done enough shows hasn't had them.

I have enough respect for my volunters to er of the side of caution.

As for terrorizing? Give me a break Craig... Its called information facts. Of course you are entitled to come to your own conclusions. I am pleased you feel qualified to dismiss the conclusions in those links because after nearly 20 years as a professional hypnotist I know I am not.

As for asprins I am not qualified to comment one way or another and my business is hypnosis not pharmaceuticals what a rediculous thing to say.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 1, 2010 07:36AM)
I said >>>>Having said that I have had numerous experiences that throw doubt in my mind that hypnosis is totally safe<<<

Of course I mean hypnosis ISN'T totally safe. I am not saying it is or not only stating I have my own doubts due to my own experience.
Message: Posted by: dmkraig (Oct 1, 2010 11:35AM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-01 05:47, mindpunisher wrote:
I am not outlawing anything. Are you qualified to to say hypnosis is totally safe? I know I am not qualified to say it is one way or another. [/quote]

And yet you chose to post that claim. You posted, "The fact is HYPNOSIS IS DANGEROUS." That means you're either a terrorist or a liar. Which is it?

I have never said that "hypnosis is totally safe." Once again you attempt to manipulate words. If I had made that claim then even one instance of hypnosis causing something would prove me wrong. Walking down the street isn't "totally" safe. But what I CAN say is that hypnosis is safer than taking aspirin. What I CAN say is that hypnosis is safer than using a toilet. What I CAN say is that hypnosis is safer than allopathic medicine. What I CAN say is that hypnosis is safer than going to the hospital.


[quote]There are far more qualified people who believe it is dangerous. [/quote]

Apparently, you either didn't read or didn't understand what I posted. So let me try again so that even you can understand it: IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO BELIEVES HYPNOSIS IS DANGEROUS. What matters is scientific proof. Not implications. Not suggestions. But actual scientific data that reveals the EXACT mechanism of how hypnosis is dangerous.

YOU posted a link to a horribly written article claiming that hypnosis "can" trigger schizophrenia (not "does" cause, but "can" trigger). Unless you're a hypocrite and don't believe what you post, you're supporting this conclusion. I asked above and I ask again: What is the exact mechanism by which hypnosis triggers schizophrenia and include proof with a peer-reviewed article from a medical or psychological journal. If you can't do that STOP SPREADING LIES IN AN ATTEMPT TO TERRORIZE PEOPLE.

I have never accused you of trying to outlaw anything. Nice try to turn the attention to a straw many argument. EPIC FAIL. Deal with the issues.


[quote]The fact is it can't be proved one way or another. Having said that I have had numerous experiences that throw doubt in my mind that hypnosis is totally safe. Im very surprised that any hypnotist who has done enough shows hasn't had them.[/quote]

Once again you're totally wrong. It absolutely CAN be shown that hypnosis is safe. How? It's called "statistics." In the long, poorly-written article that you are so hot for it seems to show that only one person per decade is legally (if not factually) harmed by hypnosis. More people are harmed watching football games every MONTH. Statistically, hypnosis is one of the safest things in the world.

As I wrote, there are ill-trained, excited, or idiot hypnotists who don't watch out for the safety of their performers. That has NOTHING to do with hypnosis. It has EVERYTHING to do with incompetence. Put someone into hypnosis and they're not going to walk off a stage. Give them an unthinking suggestion and they might do that. People do stupid things every day and hurt themselves without being hypnotized.

[quote]I have enough respect for my volunters to er of the side of caution.[/quote]
But according to your claims of having problems, you don't "er" enough.

[quote]As for terrorizing? Give me a break Craig... Its called information facts. [/quote]

No, you're not spreading "facts." Your spreading opinions and beliefs as if they were facts. Saying that other people believe it (a typical trick of Fox News and their frequent use of "Some say...") does not eliminate your responsibility for trying to terrorize people into a state of fear (You're going to be sued for thousands! You'll lose everything! 'HYPNOSIS IS DANGEROUS!") over either hypnotizing or being hypnotized.

JUST FREAKIN' STOP TRYING TO TERRORIZE PEOPLE! STOP SPREADING BELIEFS AND MISINFORMATION AND CLAIMING IT IS "FACT!" Man up and take responsibility for what you're doing.

{quote]Of course you are entitled to come to your own conclusions. I am pleased you feel qualified to dismiss the conclusions in those links because after nearly 20 years as a professional hypnotist I know I am not.[/quote]

Then you don't know the difference between law and science, belief and fact. You're like the prelates who condemned Galileo because he stated scientific fact while they followed all the religious links (metaphorically speaking) showing that their beliefs, based on their interpretation of a law book (i.e., the Bible) were scientific facts.

[quote]As for asprins I am not qualified to comment one way or another and my business is hypnosis not pharmaceuticals what a rediculous thing to say.
[/quote]

Yeah. It would seem that science does get in the way of your belief system. You seem to be whining "Believe me! I know what I'm talking about." Well, when it comes to aspirin, I say "Don't believe me." Check it out for yourself. You seem intelligent enough to be able to clink on a link because you post them enough and believe them. Go into that box at the top of your browser and do a web search for "number of deaths from aspirin" and see whether or not I'm accurate.
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Oct 1, 2010 11:37AM)
Dmkraig, MP obviously can't acceptably answer your questions. Experience has shown that he will rebut with either a tangent or circle back to some absurd earlier point just to change the subject.
Message: Posted by: dmkraig (Oct 2, 2010 12:30AM)
Thank you, kisssdadookie.

In reality, however, my post was not just for MP. This is a public forum. My comments were as much for others as they were to him.

Sometimes, much to my surprise, MP does make some absolutely great and insightful posts. In this case he is not, and he's using bullying tactics to convince people otherwise. Standing up with truth to bullies may result in a bruise or two, but it is a good thing.
Message: Posted by: mindpunisher (Oct 2, 2010 11:30AM)
Craig its strange how you can blow with the wind in different directions. It was only a few weeks ago you were ranting on how my mp3s for stage fright are potentially dangerous. ( I've never ever heard or read of any recording being potentially dangerous) Which to me was very irrational and most likely a knee jerk reaction to the fact someone was actually getting benefit from them.

Yet when a serious topic comes up that has respected experts doubting the safety in real life cases you dismiss it as terrorism?

at least your consistently irrational. I merely point out facts and let everyone come to their own conclusions. Yet the knee jerk reactions of the "mob" on here are very telling about their ability to actually have a rational discussion about the subject.

The fact is there are prominent members of the medical world who do believe hypnosis can be dangerous for certain individuals. That is a fact. You may not agree with them but it doesn't change the fact that it is indded a fact.

It seems to me that you are incabable of an intelligent and rational debate on the subject. Like many on here you have kneejerk emotional reaction to what is common sense to consider.

Not a very professional approach to the "profession" I say that lightly because the growing majority on here are amatuer dabblers and are the least qualified to give an opinion.

I remember all the times you called me a liar and asked to see videos. I backed up what I said and have since uploaded videos of me performing in front of crowds and in venues I claimed.

Now I think its your turn. let us see your videos of you performing? Or do you have something to hide. Becuase as you nce said to me until we see who we are talking to your input on here has no credibility.

So come on Craig where are your videos? Lets see them?

I don't need to see the majority of others on here because they have no credibility.
Message: Posted by: dmkraig (Oct 3, 2010 11:37AM)
[quote]
On 2010-10-02 12:30, mindpunisher wrote:
Craig its strange how you can blow with the wind in different directions. It was only a few weeks ago you were ranting on how my mp3s for stage fright are potentially dangerous. ( I've never ever heard or read of any recording being potentially dangerous) Which to me was very irrational and most likely a knee jerk reaction to the fact someone was actually getting benefit from them.[/quote]

Please quote me saying that ANY MP3s were "potentially dangerous." Otherwise, just admit that you're a liar.


[quote]Yet when a serious topic comes up that has respected experts doubting the safety in real life cases you dismiss it as terrorism? [/quote]

Please show where I've dismissed ANY "respected expert's" comments as "terrorism." What I have stated is that YOU have attempted to terrorize people by quoting people who are not scientists, who are trying to sell their own products, or who are looking for legal issues and not scientific ones. You have STILL REFUSED to support your claim with so much as a whit of evidence that "hypnosis can trigger schizophrenia." What, exactly is this triggering mechanism? Where, exactly, are the peer-reviewed, scientific journals saying that this is valid?


[quote]at least your consistently irrational. I merely point out facts and let everyone come to their own conclusions. Yet the knee jerk reactions of the "mob" on here are very telling about their ability to actually have a rational discussion about the subject.[/quote]

No, you have NOT pointed out any "facts." You have presented the opinions and beliefs of some people and claimed they are facts. There are people who believe in the existence of leprechauns and bigfoot. Such beliefs does not make them real. Just provide the evidence and I'll admit you were right. Just provide the evidence and I'll admit I'm wrong.

There. Now you have it. Simply provide a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal showing that hypnosis can trigger schizophrenia and I'm on record saying that I'll admit I'm wrong. What could be easier for you. You could get at the guy with a name someone put a hypnotic block on you making you incapable of spelling correctly (And you, the great hypnotist, can't overcome it! It shows just how you don't know what you're talking about.) and make him admit he was wrong.

[quote]The fact is there are prominent members of the medical world who do believe hypnosis can be dangerous for certain individuals. That is a fact. You may not agree with them but it doesn't change the fact that it is indded a fact.[/quote]

Fine. Where's the peer-reviewed scientific journal with the proof of their claims?

What you don't seem to understand, MP, is that just because a "prominent member of the medical world" believes something is true does not make it so. In the past, prominent members of the medical world didn't believe in the need for sterilization, didn't believe in the concept of germs, and did believe in the concept of "humours" and the value of bleeding people. Beliefs, even those held by prominent members of the medical world, are only beliefs. They are NOT science. They are NOT facts. And until they can scientifically present evidence to support their ideas they are only beliefs, not facts.

It's a shame that you don't let science and reality get in the way of your personal opinions, but that's your loss.

[quote]It seems to me that you are incabable of an intelligent and rational debate on the subject. Like many on here you have kneejerk emotional reaction to what is common sense to consider.[/quote]

Please note that the ancient Roman orator Cicero stated, "When you have no case, abuse the plaintiff." 2000 years later, this is the best that MP can do. He has no science backing his opinions. He has no proof backing his opinions. He only has the personal beliefs of some people who are experts in OTHER FIELDS to support his claims. So rather than find any real proof, and rather than using real science, and rather than actually acknowledging he could be wrong and having a mind open enough to change, he simply abuses the plaintiff.

[quote]Not a very professional approach to the "profession" I say that lightly because the growing majority on here are amatuer dabblers and are the least qualified to give an opinion.[/quote]

Actually, I agree that a growing majority here are amateur dabblers. However, that does not make their opinions and more wrong or right than do the opinions of experts. They're still just opinions. Without real proof, that's all they are. However, the unprofessional approach is MP's not mine.

I have consistently stated there are untrained people doing hypnosis and they could cause problems by not being aware of the need for safety for their actors.

I have consistently stated that some hypnotists can get caught up in the excitement of an act and forget about the safety of their actors.

I have consistently stated that there are some hypnotists who are just idiots who don't care about the safety of their actors.

I have consistently stated that even though hypnosis has never been shown to be factually dangerous, it still can be held legally dangerous as courts work with laws and not scientific facts.

I have consistently stated that the best way to learn hypnosis--contrary to some of those who sell books and videos--is through in-person training where people will learn about safety.

However, I have also stated that, contrary to your unproven claims, there is NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT HYPNOSIS is dangerous. There is NO legitimate explanation ever given describing a mechanism that causes a danger. When some idiot (when it comes to hypnosis) does give a spurious explanation, they NEVER provide any evidence that such an imagined mechanism exists. There is, to my knowledge, no instance of a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal that provides real proof of such a mechanism. This is now the third time I've asked you to provide such information and you have consistently ignored it.

Come on, MP! You can prove I'm wrong. Just provide the scientific evidence. Not opinions. Facts.

[quote]I remember all the times you called me a liar and asked to see videos. I backed up what I said and have since uploaded videos of me performing in front of crowds and in venues I claimed.[/quote[

Yes. I think you are a liar. However, I've NEVER asked for you to back up your claims of you performing in front of crowds. In fact, in previous posts I've stated that I'll take you at your word for that. However, I could be misremembering. Just show ONCE where I asked you to back up your claims of performing in front of crowds and I'll apologize. That's easy. You're thinking of others who may have asked you for such videos. I HAVE pointed out that you, yourself, claimed that you had not given any shows for years.

However, to those people who are wasting their time on MP by reading this far, please note that he is TRYING TO CHANGE THE SUBJECT. This thread is NOT about whether or not he has performed in front of crowds or whether I've justifiably called him a liar. IT IS about his false claims concerning the "danger" of hypnosis. It IS about his dependency upon the opinions of people and not scientific facts.

[quote[Now I think its your turn. let us see your videos of you performing? Or do you have something to hide. Becuase as you nce said to me until we see who we are talking to your input on here has no credibility.[/quote]

LOL! MP, you're a little nothing posting on a forum. You're an unimportant bully-boy trying to force people to agree with your opinions, living in terror that someone might disagree and people will think you're wrong. I have no need or desire to show you anything. I'm responding only to show that there are people who care about science and facts out here and so that the increasing number of amateurs who come here will get a counter to your perverse opinions.

But let's get back to the point of this thread. Yes, you are a terrorist trying to spread the lie that hypnosis is dangerous.

Now. PROVE I'M WRONG. What evidence do I want for such proof? In your posts and articles you have stated through quotation that hypnosis can trigger schizophrenia. The only proof I want is an article in a peer-reviewed scientific journal showing the mechanism by which hypnosis can trigger schizophrenia.

YOU POSTED THE TERRORISTIC STATEMENT THAT HYPNOSIS CAN TRIGGER SCHIZOPHRENIA. You're trying to terrorize people into believing that if they hypnotize someone that person is going to have mental problem.

Prove that it's true and I'll apologize and admit I was wrong and you are absolutely correct. Wouldn't you like that, MP? The guy who has the audacity to stand up to your bully-boy tactics by asking for logic and scientific proof can be shut up if you just provide evidence to support your claims. You could pull out that horrible thorn in your side.

However, if you can't provide real evidence, not opinions, to support your claims, do yourself and everyone a favor: just be quiet.

Unfortunately, I tire responding to your desperate proof for people to believe your incorrect opinions in this matter. So this is the THIRD TIME I've asked you to support your claims with a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal. I've got far better things to do than replace your fantasies with logic and bring the topic back to the subject when you try to dodge the issues by changing the subject. So from now on I'll just respond by to you in this thread by counting the times I've asked for evidence from you to support your claims.

We're at three times now. How many more times will it be before you either provide proof of your claims or shut up about them?
Message: Posted by: kissdadookie (Oct 3, 2010 10:25PM)
Yeah, I didn't quite understand where the whole terrorist angle was coming from in MPs posts. Made no sense. Either he is lacking in reading comprehension or he's purposely twisting words around. Regardless, the whole terrorist thing made no sense.
Message: Posted by: Nongard1 (Oct 4, 2010 07:10PM)
Back to the original video-
A bit of googleing will reveal the original host to be a company specializing in viral videos. It has many reposts on youtube. As to the original and FIRST post in this thread: I doubt its authenticity....