Psychogenic death, the phenomenon of “thinking” yourself to death
salon.com
salon.com
My brother is a doctor (CMO of the largest health system in a state, he was previously head of the Veterans administration for said state, Commander of the 10th medical wing in the USAF (he's a ret. Colonel - gave up the General track) , personal flight surgeon to the joint chiefs at the dod... etc...)
I asked him recently about covid related use of the ICU rooms at his facility...
and I was stunned that he answered that "we don't keep records of that"
I had been asking about who was vaxxed and not - and he said that he had several people who were vaxxed and got covid and also died, the youngest being 30, who was vaxxed but also one of his employees at the hospital.
The point though is just how much I was surprised at the statement that they aren't keeping records....
He was a field surgeon in Iraq, but I haven't talked to him about that experience much...
And they also know who is vaccinated, so the general claim doctors were saying was that vaccinated seldom end up in ICU and very rarely die. Most in serious condition are unvaccinated.
Causes of death tend to be tracked on national level too. It might be that hospital does not care, but death certificates for all kinda of stuff should be written somewhere.
What your brother means is that he hasn't encountered a medical or financial reason to request those reports run yet. The data is 100% being collected.
by your brother?
So yeah.
because soldiers were taking survivable hits, but staying on with their buddies in the firefight while slowly bleeding out until the hit became much less survivable.
If you give up you are a gonner if you dont you may make it, and everyone who has survived had a determination to struggle on even when it looked bleak (i think the stats say something like if you are not out of the water in 5 mins you are unlikely to survive - even with a survival suit.)
They show videos of people passing out as they are airlifted out of the sea too and falling out of the sling. or passing out and drowning when they see the helicopter overhead - assuming that they dont need to fight any more.
> He remembered: "I think once I accepted there was no hope of survival, I was powerless to do anything to save myself. A quiet resignation came over me."
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetl...
Obviously take those statistics with a grain of salt.
According to some stats you can survive one minute in icy water.
Yet many people enjoy swimming in the ice, including some who can stay in the icy water for 15 minutes or more just for kicks.
Also, if you get tossed off a boat in the North Sea, chances are that the water is not very calm.
I don't mean this unkindly, but I notice in the photos that she was a bit heavy. Was that considered a factor in her ability to withstand the cold?
She's a fantastic writer too, I found this piece she wrote from the New Yorker, definitely worth a read[2]
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-body-fat-helps-this-elite-a...
[2] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/04/21/a-dip-in-the-c...
I think he collapsed on the doorstep (again having "made it") but was okay in the end.
He was not a slim guy, not sure if that helped.. but it was one of the dont give up examples. So outcomes do vary wildly.
If I remember right, the conclusion was that 50% of the time, it didn't matter what the caliber was. The person got hit, realized they'd been shot, thought they were supposed to fall down, and then did.
The other 50% did come down to the bullet caliber, lining up pretty much as you'd expect, along with some interesting stories of people who took mortal wounds from high-caliber rounds and kept fighting for a few minutes.
Something that surprised me when watching the NZ masque terrorism shooter's first-person video was how uniformly everyone shot immediately collapsed. It looked fake like a Hollywood movie, except it was real.
I have no firsthand experience with people being shot, but based on that particular footage my impression is people tend to go down hard immediately.
In the video the shooter fires repeatedly into the piles of collapsed bodies, and there's a disturbing lack of reactions. Folks survived but I suspect most of those were just lucky to be shielded by others who weren't so lucky.
Imagine a peak Mike Tyson punch to the liver / lungs / kidneys / &c. that's if it doesn't straight up break your spine
I have not watched the footage of the NZ shooting. I just wanted to speak to some considerations that might drive sudden collapse. Mechanically, there's two things I'd point at:
First, a bullet wound to the heart itself, or close enough (see next point) can effectively be an off switch, in the sense that you're blowing out the hydraulic system feeding blood to the brain. Suddenly loss of flow and pressure means no oxygen getting supplied to the brain; when that happens, willpower and mindset don't mean anything.
Secondly, a rifle round tends to be moving at least twice the speed of a pistol round, bringing with it significantly more kinetic energy and hydrostatic shock, creating a much larger wound channel, more likely blowing out a critical system and/or delivering massive shock to various organs.
It does not belong on YouTube, but absolutely belongs in some sort of publicly accessible archive behind the digital wall of possibly a free signup form and definitely some reminders of just what you’re about to look at. And before anyone suggests some variation of right to be forgotten, I’d counter-argue that right ends when what happens to you is a national tragedy that significantly changes the society you lived in.
Ten minutes later I was the point man while pushing upstairs and must have been hit about 10 times and I ignored it like Superman.
The hearing can work even if no other senses work they told us and if I understood it correctly they meant these words could make the wounded person give up.
We think we are being kind but it's the kindness of talking someone into jumping off a cliff instead of trying to climb back down.
If you want your family members to have the best chance of coming home, tell them that you are not ready for them to go and that you still need them.
Wouldn’t that be because people are unlikely to say that except in the most dire circumstances?
This is a risky state, as multiple concurrent issues increases fatalities. They already have their age, the surgery to heal from, and then throw a common infection on top of it all? You're in a red zone for survival at that point, but it's common enough and the fatalities are very low at that point unless you add in the secret ingredient.
That ingredient being a beloved family member that doesn't tend to make histrionics out of small crises, the calm and caring one of the family, you know? When that person tells you how they want you to stay but "if you need to go then go", tearfully bidding you adieu?
That's a straight up death sentence.
If your elderly family member is in a tight spot but has a decent life waiting on them to recover? Don't tell them it's okay to go. Tell them to fight like they're the third monkey on the ramp of Noah's Ark and it's starting to rain.
Then again, if they have severe issues, will never be outside of the institution again, they only have Jello night on Tuesdays to look forward to for the rest of their drooling, senile, smelly, miserable, and unfathomably uncomfortable lives, then that is when you tell them it's okay to go because literally nothing is better than where they will be if they survive.
This omits important context.
Many of these people are suffering, and will continue to suffer as long as they live. Dementia, cancer, stroke, COPD, intubation. Even though "you still need them", keeping them alive through the miracle of modern medicine may be the wrong thing to do.
I hope, when I'm ready to go, that my family follows my wishes and does not push invasive and ultimately futile interventions on me.
She let go, they installed a feeding tube and ensured she couldn't die with what little dignity remained at the time.
She came back, in body, but rapidly lost what little of her self that remained. But now she lies in bed her life forcibly extended each day; completely devoid of a life, and hopefully devoid of cognition.
Frankly, it is inhumane.
My grandpa has been clinging to life for the past couple of years for the benefit of his son despite the fact that he clearly doesn't fully exist on this plane anymore, and it's hard for me to watch. When I'm his age, I hope I'm surrounded by people that understand me enough to let me go when the time comes.
An example that comes to my mind is that of Marcel Proust, who was sickly and suffered declining health for years. In the last three years of his life, we worked relentlessly on La Recherche, his life work. He managed to finish the last volume and died shortly after.
I'm sure there are many others.
It's like your mind finally allows your body (and mind?) to relax, and it finally processes a lot of things it's been saving up. This isn't a very scientific comment, very anecdotal, but I believe it's not uncommon.
"Among 5,422 individuals in the study, those who had retired were 40% more likely to have had a heart attack or stroke than those who were still working. The increase was more pronounced during the first year after retirement, and leveled off after that."
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-retirement-good-for-h...
Perhaps weaning off of work would be better than cold turkey retiring?
My first thought - many retirees' daily routines suddenly included far more / longer periods of inactivity. Which changed their potential health issues related to blood clots into very real health issues related to blood clots.
I'm reasonably certain that when one of my parents dies, the other will soon follow.
https://www.webmd.com/balance/stress-management/news/2001030...
Your biology delays the illness until you are more ready to handle it.
This was discussed just couple of weeks ago in this thread:
Accomplished people are almost always accomplishing things, even into late life. By definition, the last thing they accomplish is their final accomplishment. Even if deaths were randomly distributed, you’d expect to find a lot of these people dying shortly after finishing their last accomplishment.
I don't find it too hard to believe that someone with a reason to live will actually live longer than someone without one...
I think it's a bit like ego thing and positive feedback loop. She takes pride in her longevity.
Sounds like she has a mission.
At 34, if I get rich enough in the next 30 years, it may in fact become optional. That would be cool
I'd like this material existence I am currently experiencing to have no end (i.e., I hope I never die), so this comes as a shock. I can understand not wanting yourself to live forever, but wanting everyone to die?
We humans sometimes forget we're a part of Life, but we are, and we benefit from death just as much as the rest of Life.
With an immortal life -- assuming physical decay is arrested with immortality -- you have endless time to reconsider your ideas and expand on them using your wealth of knowledge and experience.
I don't see Planck's principle as inevitable, but an aberration that we can cure.
Would you tell a society of immortals living in an idyllic and peaceful village that they need to die "for science?"
Societal issues can be solved without science. Once you tackle scarcity and long+healthy lives, science becomes much less important.
Anyways, the pace of scientific progress is irrelevant if you live forever. You would experience infinitely more net progress if you were immortal.
I'd also challenge the idea that innovation happens outside of death and birth. It often takes a new pair of eyes to see a new solution to a problem.
> It often takes a new pair of eyes to see a new solution to a problem.
Why does this require death of current people and not simply more eyes that already exist?
If confronted with a society of people that live forever, but are relatively stagnant, would you propose to them that they all kill themselves every 80 years or so, so they "adapt?"
Why is adaptation more important than a life? A life is incredibly precious. Evolutionary adaptation barely works anymore and the cost in blood is immeasurable. Otherwise, adaptation can be achieved easily with technology, without costing so many people their hopes, dreams, and existence.
In the interest of the future of humanity, I hope we don't figure out extreme longevity anytime soon. A few more years or even decades, okay, any more and you have even more old people at the top of society with even more power.
Next time we come across a fundamental social issue, should we just kill everyone involved?
We can give people long, happy lives - as long as they want - while solving societal issues on a separate track. There is no reason to use death as a sledgehammer for an issue that is not more valuable than life.
It is, actually, kind of insulting to imply that people on the opposite spectrum of the rich don't want to live long, don't want to spend time with their family, hopes and loves - that they are expendable in the name of crudely brute-forcing some arbitrary wealth equation which is apparently more important to you than their very lives.
I would be quite happy being poor and getting to spend as long as I want with the loves of my life. Being poor barely even registers compared to the upside. No amount of money can compensate for time spent with loved ones, as anyone that has experienced the death of a loved one can attest to.
1. If immortality is a reality, the health issues that come with the disease of aging are likely going to make it so your 'prime' lasts forever.
2. I neither have nor want children
(Edit: Removed bits on my personal beliefs. I don't want to get into them right now. I do have views on the soul that aren't based in materialism and they result in different conclusions than yours.)
GP said nothing about how or when they wish everyone to die. It's as banal a statement as "I wish the earth will keep spinning". If GP is in a death cult, so are the overwhelming majority of known organisms.
> Death should be a personal choice.
This almost sounds like a satire of Western toxic individualism taken to a supernatural extreme. To me, the pursuit of immortality looks a lot more like a death cult than the acceptance of our finitude does.
I'd be surprised if people didn't have some sort of instinct to die under the right circumstances just like they have an instinct to procreate under the right circumstances.
In fact I'm positive of it because people kill themselves sometimes. What a strange phenomenon that is if you think about it. I've never understood it and can't imagine wanting to end my own life but apparently the tendency exists given the right set of circumstances.
He was Gladwell before people talked about Gladwell, so expect science-y conjecture, not science.
https://www.dailycartoonist.com/index.php/2020/02/12/first-a...
He had Cancer, but I think he picked the timing.
Same happens in economics. Economists often model things based on the idea that people make only rational decisions based on their own gains and nothing else. The fact that people make decisions based on many other factors gets iginredd.
You know, it all being the same.
The more I learn, the less I seem to know.
For example:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026265X2...
What staggers me, because maybe it makes it see more real, is that biophotons are increasingly being witnessed as local and non-local information carriers. In humans, but not just in humans. (https://www.nature.com/articles/srep36508, http://www.u.arizona.edu/~kcreath/pdf/pubs/2005_KC_GES_SPIE_..., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30381897/, http://www.rrp.infim.ro/2008_60_3/43-885-898.pdf —probably a lot of crossover between these, I haven't read them through)
I'm ultimately ignorant, but when you put that information beside some of the other weirdness we see in frontier physics or start to consider what that kind of thing means on various time scales and the questions that start to arise are eye opening.
It's the realm of philosophy that takes the range of information into account that really thrills me, but understanding some of the mechanics will open up new possibilities that are really exciting (if its a bit early to get that excited). Whatever. I find it exciting, and sometimes I'm amazed more people don't find it more exciting.
I've heard doctors say things like "she lost the will to live after her husband died". And most actual life scientists I know have a healthy regard for the limits of our knowledge.
Some of my fellow software engineers, on the other hand...
Individual doctors may say it, but as an industry, it is largely ignored.
They'll say it, but they'll rarely act on it in any meaningful way.
I think plenty of physicians have personal opinions and hypotheses about the impact of the brain on the body, but it's something incredibly difficult to validate or refute, experiments are very hard to carry out on this subject, and consequently the responsible thing for a scientist to do is to avoid making conclusions or coming to a consensus on the basis of how nice or appealing something sounds.
If you want to hold a personal opinion on the subject, go for it... if that opinion inspires you to pursue an interest and develop a testable theory... wonderful do it. Until then, from a professional point of view it's best to avoid perpetuating an idea, no matter how strongly you believe it to be, as a well established scientific fact.
Don’t let double-blind, placebo controlled, peer reviewed studies with sufficient n limit your understanding of reality. There are aspects of reality which have not been and never will be tested with the scientific method.
The fact that they are rejected does not mean that they don't work or have been proven to be ineffective, it means that they are not established scientific facts and as such it's absolutely dangerous to have physicians or other scientists promoting ideas as scientific fact or using said ideas as the basis for their professional practice.
But your mind cannot perform miracles. Most of the examples in this article and others are likely coincidences. There are many people who desperately wanted to kill themselves but couldn’t, and people who by all means should have wanted to live but unexpectedly passed away.
Kind of like how the mind is inseparable from the body, science is inseparable from human bias and fallacies.
Just take the first case, girl goes to a doctor because she is out of breath and chest pains, tells him a tale about witchcraft, dies. What reason is there to believe that the fear of witchcraft made that happen and not all the other symptoms that point to an undiagnosed medical condition? Or maybe we should just believe witchcraft is real and can make car accidents and gun shots happen?
There is no shortage of people who want to die. And no shortage of people that do die. Every day. If this would be a real thing, it should be possible to come up with some better example than stuff that happened many decades or even centuries ago.
I guess you are correct and I agree with your reasoning, but one thing I'd like to add to the discussion as a point is that it's difficult to measure in a scientific way the proportion of people that 'state' they want to die that actually want to die for real.
Depression and anxiety are very crippling illnesses and there are times that people that are burdened by these illnesses really feel like they want to die or just disappear or stop "ticking", but when faced with a real life chance of that happening (inside an airplane with lots of turbulence going on), they shudder in terror. Sadly, scientifically measuring that intent vs statement to the point we would be able to discern if the actual intent alone could trigger bodily changes that would enable us to just 'lay down and die' is nigh on impossible, unless we find a way around our consciousness (like an out-of-ego debug "port") to measure stuff without warning our ego that we are measuring stuff. Complicated :-)For the record, I'm doing very well now, thanks SSRIs...
People will gloss over this, as this is the common western view, but it should be noted that this is not how it is.
Your body is contained in your mind. Your universe is contained within your mind. All of this is simply the contents of your mind.
There is no mind. There is no body. Any separation and categorization of groups of ever swapped-out atoms is arbitrary.
To a krill living in the ocean, there is no mind, or body, or any such nonsense about thought. There is simply food and not food.
To the universe, there is none but itself. And itself is all there is.
Our language divides the world into discrete regions of spacetime which we assume are unchanging "things" rather than ever-changing aspects of a single unified process. And any phenomenon you could ever possibly identify could only ever be another aspect of that process.
It’s interesting you say this stance may actually be more ‘scientific’. My grandmother had a large part in my upbringing, and she was a life long Christian Scientist (not to be confused with Scientology). She raised me on its principals. They are hard to articulate concisely, but your words are pretty close.
It’s almost like scientists want to ignore Mind, and try to describe the world only in terms of matter. They believe matter, all on its own, contains all the answers and all the Intelligence of the universe.
A Christian Scientist on the other hand, believes Mind is everything and matter is nothing. Love, Wisdom, Intelligence are all properties of Mind. So no wonder others are surprised or confused when it’s power over the material world is clearly demonstrated.
Sometimes I wonder if modern science has actually proven that matter is ‘nothing’. Think about it, if you look at an atom close enough under a powerful microscope, it becomes clear that it’s actually almost 100% open space!
It's not a matter of scientists wanting that, and plenty of scientists have quite overt beliefs about non-material truth.
However, science, in the modern, systematic sense is about a process which is entirely concerned with testable predictive models of the relation of observable material facts. Non-material potential truth that is not materializable in the form of testable material predictions may or may not exist, and may or may not be interesting to a particular scientist, but is outside the domain of science.
> Think about it, if you look at an atom close enough under a powerful microscope, it becomes clear that it’s actually almost 100% open space!
No, it doesn't. The highest-resolution (new-as-in-this-year) electron microscopy techniques are sufficient to see atoms as somewhat more than point objects, but not enough to see that they are mostly empty, That they are mostly empty is part of the model produced by modern physics, and you've probably seen popularization that talked about what you would see if it was possible to see at certain granularity, but that's not the same thing as what you actually can see with the most powerful microscopes that actually exist.
Also, scientists are human - they are allowed to have opinions and ideas that aren't yet backed by evidence, as long as they do not present them as scientific ideas. Science isn't a religion where you take some sort of oath.
What is the concrete mechanism? For instance in the opening anecdote in the article, what did the girl die of?
Also I’m put off by statements like “this ability to construct a meaningful (or even possible) path into the future is related to our dopamine circuits”. This has the patina of science, but “is related to” is pretty nebulous and “dopamine circuits” are constructs of the scientists model rather than physical processes in the brain.
Learning this has allowed me to significantly reduce pain medication intake and increase physical activity. Measured and steady physical activity is often the solution for chronic pain, when convention and intuition dictates that rest is the solution. This leads to a cycle of increased stiffness and lack of mobility. Pain isn't "just in your head" but understanding that the pain experience can be mediated in more ways than solely just medication (thankful as I am for it) is empowering and hope inducing.
So all that is to say that I am not surprised if it turns out our mind can affect our body in the ways stated in this article.
My father died in this way, but I do not know how.
My mother died suddenly due to a stroke. My father obviously became very sad and he said that he had always wished to die simultaneously with her. After less than a week he was dead too.
At that time he had a form of cancer and it was expected that he will live less than a year, but there was no sign that he might die so quickly.
He did not change any of his habits, e.g. he ate exactly like before. During the last 3 days he was hospitalized and apparently he was well taken care of, but that did not help.
Nevertheless, a week was enough for his wish to become true. It seems that he had some sort of renal failure and he died during the night, but how that happened is unknown.
In any case, after this personal experience I have no doubt that people can die when they are convinced that they should.
Had your father not died shortly after your mother he wouldn’t be a data point against the hypothesis, he simply wouldn’t have been included in the dataset.
So if we only are including those who die shortly after an event, what might otherwise have been dismissed as coincidental now looks conclusive.
Nevertheless, as a witness of how that happened, I find it hard to believe otherwise.
Even if he was already ill, until that week the evolution of the cancer had been extremely slow during a couple of years and there had been no signs that the previous forecasts about his remaining lifetime might need any revision.
His condition has deteriorated abruptly in his last 4 days, without any apparent external causes, besides his sadness and wish to die, so I cannot see any other plausible explanation.
While a temporal coincidence cannot be excluded, the circumstances were such that I consider this as extremely unlikely.
Maybe if he had not been already ill, a death wish might not have been able to result in actual death and a weakened body is necessary for the mental state to have a such great influence.
I'm completely demoralized at work and have mostly stopped caring about it. But I find enjoyment in many things outside of work. Basically, I've become a terrible employee now that I see that the company (really all companies) will not stop lying and now focus most of my energy on hobbies outside of work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schoenberg#Superstition...
When a husband or wife of 40 to 50 years dies, many times it seems the surviving spouse dies within the year, even when they were healthy at the time of death of the first spouse.
And I did not noticed this pattern in cemetery either.
It’s still a processes — there’s a period of grief and adjustment but I’ve seen it happen a few times.
I'm sorry to get off-topic, but what kind of midwife would do such a thing? Other than "a character in a made-up story", that is.
I am skeptical. Did they write down this hex before the deaths happened?
Senescence is not a disease or a result of disease, although diseases can also be a symptom of it. Both males and females go through a senescent stage before dying-the males after mating, the females while brooding eggs and after the eggs hatch.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7545324_Octopus_Sen...
This oppressively nihilistic atmosphere has given many players solace during difficult times.
Gur svany svtug vf ntnvafg Tnry, gung'f orra frnepuvat sbe "gur oybbq bs gur qnex fbhy" fb gur tvey gung ur cebgrpgf pna cnvag n arj jbeyq. Ur jrag gb gur evatrq pvgl, sbhaq gur cltzvrf gung ner fhccbfrq gb pneel gung oybbq, naq sbhaq bhg gung gurve oybbq unq eha qel. Fb ur ngr gurz. Jura lbh ernpu unys bs uvf UC one, n phgfprar cynlf va juvpu ur oyrrqf ba uvf fjbeq, naq fnlf "Vf guvf gur oybbq? Gur oybbq bs gur qnex fbhyf?". Gur svtugf fgnegf ntnva, guvf gvzr jvgu Tnry svtugvat abg yvxr na raentrq ornfg ohg yvxr n zna ng uvf crnx. Ng guvf cbvag, ur nyfb orpbzrf ubyybj. Ur unf nppbzcyvfurq uvf tbny, naq gur ynfg guvat gb qb vf gb chg hc n tbbq svtug orsber qlvat sbe gur arj jbeyq naq gur tvey.
That was, to me, one of the most touching moment in the series.
I'm not even sure that's their intention -- maybe it is. But it's certainly the result.
Also there's a review of the second book in the series, Agency, which convincingly argues the theme of the latter book is, given increasing human social complexity, we need an A.I. to tell us what to do. I think it was this review that I read which argues it:
https://www.lareviewofbooks.org/article/how-i-learned-to-sto...
"What we lack in the present moment is what Fredric Jameson called a cognitive map of the world. Such a map would be a guide to our world’s vast, ever-increasing complexity, so that reality might again be grasped and understood. This is what Eunice provides. She supplements human consciousness with the ability to understand our immense world and thus act intelligently within it. Finally, here is someone who knows what she’s doing. In this sense, superintelligent AI is a huge relief."
Also, per the second book kleptocrats aren't really running things, the A.I. enhanced "post human" character Lowbeer is the only one keeping things stable. She can expand her lifespan through technology for a while but not indefinitely. When she's gone one day things are bound to get ugly.
Even in the first book The Peripheral it's pretty clear the Kleptocrats are using predictive A.I. to prevent any threats to their power.
This is the basis for all anxiety disorders. Fear of fear. You get into loop where you're literally scared of fear itself.
The solution is simple, death is scary. So what?
She will need to force herself to sit with that fear and become indifferent about it or even learn to like it in some way if possible. Similar to exposure with phobic people, or ignoring behaviors with OCD.
I'd recommend reading Claire Weeks Hope and Help for Your Nerves.
Also, I'd recommend not playing this game of convincing her she won't die. She's probably habituated some sort of compulsive behavior of trying to release the fear by asking you to sooth it (pretty similar to OCD handwashing when you think about it). You're only reinforcing her behavior.
They're not without risks, but if you really think the alternative is that she dies in five years...
This fact is a two-sided coin. On the one side... Brilliant! We can change our minds! There is nothing, physically, preventing us from becoming our most fearless selves and adapting mentally to any circumstance the universe can throw at us.
... And by the same token, we can become physiologically terrified (a fear response with actual hormonal fight or flight triggers) over things like open spaces or empty chairs because an inconvenient coincidence in the past caused our brains to burn a path from sensory input to survival instinct that (once established) can be incredibly hard to reset.
The downside to a general purpose computer is you can crash it.
The other questions that came to mind ... at the risk of starting up something controversial:
- How much, if any, of the covid-19 deaths are co-morbid with dysexistential syndrome?
- And how much of the perceived risks to vaccination and boosters with covid-19 lead to psychogenic death?
- How much does the will to survive play in both effects from covid-19 and taking vaccines?If I inject harmless saline into your veins and tell you it's poison and will slowly kill you, you will have a physiological negative reaction if you believe me, even though the saline does nothing to change your biochemistry except some minor dilution. Your firm belief will trigger (via poorly understood subconscious processes) autonomous responses that will fight an attack on your system that isn't there. It's extremely unlikely you'll die from something like that, but we've known about the placebo effect for a while now, and the nocibo effect (a negative reaction because the patient believes the treatment causes harm) is also demonstrated in the literature.
I don't doubt that some of the public reports of negative effects from the vaccine are psychosomatic nocebo effect. This is exactly why raw VAERS statistics are a terrible source of information about the actual biological effect of a vaccine intervention... Without further information, you can't disambiguate negative or positive outcomes caused biologically by the vaccine contents from negative or positive outcomes caused by psychosomatic reaction.
As far as those outcomes goes, I don't think we are adequately tracking this, for covid-19 or for other health concerns. I have zero idea how much of this influences things with covid-19, which is why I am raising these questions. I'm more interested in seeing that these questions are asked, and whatever answers we find, they are what they are.
My own personal experience is that "psychosomatic" as a term has been used to dismiss or handwave those poorly understood mechanisms -- not necessarily with covid-19 specifically, but more in general. I'm similar to other DIY body hackers, but I work more along the lines of working with consciousness rather than something like DIY gene therapy. Some of my personal experiments yielded some results, and some have not. It's part of why these questions came up for me.
She was ok until the moment tests confirmed it was covid. She developed shortness of breath and other symptoms.
All of those disappeared after reading to her the probabilities of hosp. and dying in her age/condition range.
They lose hope, and inhibit their dopamine production to a point where it cannot be restarted.
Seems exactly like what Aaron Swartz described here: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/hospitalbabies
We still live in barbaric times.
If telling someone of their diagnosis is a substantial risk to their health, should they be told? Should doctors always communicate a poor prognosis?
Patient benefit should never be a singular goal to the exclusion of all else.
Even if it were, there are significant downstream effects to reducing the trust in medical professionals
HTTP/2 200 OK
cache-control: private, s-maxage=0, max-age=0, must-revalidate, no-store
content-encoding: gzip
content-type: text/html; charset=utf-8
accept-ranges: bytes
date: Thu, 06 Jan 2022 13:56:21 GMT
via: 1.1 varnish
vary: Accept-Encoding
set-cookie: session_tracker=hiqqrhdfgaolpkerpj.0.1641477381482.Z0FBQUFBQmgxdlVGQjFmdmhTaU1QdnlBbzdIaUllQ2tMR2daQ2VpVm0tdjlNWWJLNklqWFFlc0sweFE4TjE2cmJvZVY3d284MFdaYUhLZl8ydzcwRjdVZERpdGlFU2RSclhiZE9vdkFSSzFMZ0NBN0hmQzBPUDJHS1lnZjVhWndaQWhQajlJdk1ySi0; path=/; domain=.reddit.com; secure; SameSite=None; Secure
strict-transport-security: max-age=31536000; includeSubdomains
x-content-type-options: nosniff
x-frame-options: SAMEORIGIN
x-xss-protection: 1; mode=block
server: snooserv
x-clacks-overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett
X-Firefox-Spdy: h2
(Response to GET request from https://www.reddit.com/)Not sure whether to be disappointed or to assume that's like, completely unofficial.
http://www.gnuterrypratchett.com/
https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/qoqm4x/til_reddi...
https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/2yt9j6/gnu_terry...
https://www.reddit.com/r/ideasfortheadmins/comments/2z0eic/a...
https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/6rls1z/curious_a...
https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/en9eka/i_dont_un...
all good for those who don't understand
Science statisticians tend to balk at the placebo effect, and use it as kind of a “zero effect”. But, I can’t help but notice how sometimes a placebo (or more generally a positive attitude) can actually help a patient overcome an illness.
I’ve met enough people suffering from terrible bacterial infections, and from my eye, the most positive people tend to have the best outcomes. Of course, modern science would have my head for any mystical thinking.
Nocebo has measurable negative effects: it is the opposite of the placebo effect. Nocebo is health problems or a worsening of symptoms, solely due to the conscious or subconscious expectation of harm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo
Highly relevant to Covid vaccinations because subconsciously a lot of people fear side effects, so perhaps many anecdotal side effects are purely psychosomatic. I think psychosomatic symptoms are still truely harmful: few people can just decide to think themselves better.
[1] https://onbeing.org/programs/erik-vance-the-drugs-inside-you...
[2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32944584-suggestible-you
― Dr. Hiriluk One Piece(Manga and Anime)
With that, death becomes indeterministic for everybody, because unless believing that everything is predetermined, if someone will be remembered/thought off again is .. (even with the clacks thing btw).
And then also, what about people living, and noone ever thinking of them, are they dead too? :s