Are we true or pseudo-scientists?

On 3 May 2025, an article by Dr Sue Ieraci, appeared in the online Medical Observer with the following headline: Are you an expert or just a doctor with a platform?

Here is a summary by ChatGPT:

Dr. Sue Ieraci explores the boundaries between free speech and professional responsibility for doctors commenting on specialized medical topics. She questions whether doctors without direct experience or research in areas like immunology or vaccine development should publicly express opinions as "experts." While acknowledging everyone's right to ask questions and hold opinions, she stresses the need for those in the medical profession to base public commentary on valid, evidence-based knowledge and to stay within their scope of expertise.

Ieraci highlights the dangers of misinformation — such as doctors inaccurately calling mRNA vaccines "gene therapy" — and urges reliance on credible sources like the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia for accurate scientific understanding. She emphasizes that the authority doctors carry in public discourse means their words can significantly influence public health decisions and patient behavior.

She clarifies that regulatory codes don't "gag" doctors but require them to consider how their public statements reflect on the profession. Ultimately, Ieraci calls for accountability, transparency, and a commitment to evidence-based practice when medical professionals participate in public debate.

Since I am critical of the way the medical profession treats the subject of hypnosis, I made the following comment:

"Thank you, Sue, for an enlightening article. When it comes to mental health, evidence-based medicine is a joke to the medical profession. They ignore the evidence before them and do not want to look at their egos. How can one understand mental illness without understanding how the ego operates in the mind? When I say that our thinking process is hypnotic, and when we think we are hypnotizing ourselves, I get comments like "unhelpful, repetitive statements" and "unreadable gibberish". That is undoubtedly not a scientific approach. The significance of my observations can change the whole approach to mental illness. But doctors do not want to admit they are already hypnotized. They shy away from the word "hypnosis". Yet the very existence of their ego is dependent on self-hypnosis. Remember, it is unethical, unprofessional, unscientific and cowardly to attack the messenger when you do not like the message."

Not a single psychiatrist or psychologist followed up on this comment. But one doctor had this to say:

"Mal, given the theme of Sue's article, do you not think that your response – from your second sentence onwards – ought be prefaced "In my opinion"…"

To which I replied:

"Does it make any difference?"

He replied, saying:

"Yes, Mal. I reckon it does.

You've ripped into our Mental Health colleagues and made some bold statements without any solid evidence to support them.

They are just your opinions and you're entitled to them.

However, they are not facts.

As Sue discussed, there's a difference."

My reply to this was:

"Are you a psychiatrist or a psychologist? Do you understand anything about hypnosis? You have addressed the messenger, not the message. I write from my personal observations and knowledge. They can be verified or disproved if you are a true scientist."

After this dialogue, I conclude that the medical profession does not understand hypnosis and is in the same boat as the rest of the population, whose knowledge is based on stage performances of hypnosis. We practice pseudoscience, not evidence-based medicine. In pseudoscience, we accept the evidence that suits us and ignore that which does not.

Please let me help you understand hypnosis. I will let you verify or disprove these statements in your mind, whether they are true or false. They are not my opinion. They are my observations.

You will need to understand Pavlov's conditioned reflex. Also, you must realise that our subconscious mind is a neutral field of energy, full of conditioned reflexes. Hypnosis is the conditioned reflex of words we use in our thinking process to make ourselves feel negative or positive when we are thinking. When we use words, the words hypnotize us.

We live in a hypnotic world, constantly thinking and using words. So when we think, we verbalize and this hypnotizes us. Verbalizing activates our thinking and feelings. If one stops verbalizing, our thoughts and emotions have no substance. It is verbalizing that creates the hypnotic effect.

The picture of reality that you see before you is timeless and eternal. It is a dimension of its own. When we think, the words take us away from this timeless dimension. The time dimension we live in is a hypnotic phenomenon. Words make us travel in time. So what we do is create a world of our own, a delusional world.

The ego in the mind is a product of self-hypnosis. It means it can only appear in our conscious mind by thinking (using words). Try to stop thinking and see what happens. You will find yourself unable to stop thinking. Thinking for the ego, in most people, is an obsession because the ego always wants to be in control. It is an ego-centric world we have created, a world of delusions.

Our mental health depends on the way we think. If we use a lot of negative words, we will feel negative. If we use a lot of positive words, we will feel positive. Negative words reflexively produce harmful chemicals in the brain, and positive words produce positive chemicals. So my advice to anyone is to learn to hypnotize yourself positively, no matter who you are or your belief system. If you are feeling negative, it means you are stimulating your subconscious mind negatively. Become aware of your thinking process, replace negative words with positive ones, and see what happens.

I trust the above explanation will help you understand your mind better and may help you add to my understanding of reality. Please read my online articles to wake up from self-hypnosis. Remember, it is unethical, unprofessional, unscientific, and cowardly to shoot the messenger and not address the message when one dislikes it. Be a true scientist by acquiring self-knowledge.