| Funnily enough I'm normally the one casting doubt on medical science research on HN. So, I somewhat agree with you, though my issue with the mainstream academic funding and peer review system is that it too often sidelines research that may be promising but may threaten the status quo and its beneficiaries (most commonly pharmaceutical companies), or cannot attract sufficient funding because it offers no path to large profits. With that said, it's the best system we currently have, and where someone doubts the validity of the results of an accepted study, the onus is on them to explain why they should be questioned. > The research they linked does not provide evidence for hypnotherapy as an effective solution, and itself states it as needing more research. See the top comment above. Wikipedia is a notoriously unreliable and biased source of information on medical topics even slightly outside the establishment, and those statements mentioned in that top comment do not disprove efficacy, just point to the need for more research, which is always true for this field. > So, I think for some people Hypnotherapy may work. Great! So do I. No treatment like this works for 100% of people who try it, but for those for whom it does work, we should be very pleased. > But it may be risky to pay a lot of money upfront for the therapy. That's why this company's apps are great; they cost very little, compared to 1:1 professional hypnotherapy or other forms of therapy, and are paid monthly or quarterly and can be discontinued any time. There's even a 7-day free trial and a money-back guarantee if you pay via their website. |