DWQA Questions › Tag: mainstream psychology
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
A viewer asks: “High blood pressure is conventionally regarded as a health risk and that lowering it reduces risk, especially in moderate-to-severe systolic BP of 140-159 mmHg. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick author of Doctoring Data claims that cardiovascular risk increases more steeply after systolic BP reaches around 160-170 mmHg—well beyond the 140/90 threshold often used to diagnose and treat hypertension. A rule of thumb in medicine is that for older individuals, a systolic BP of around 100 + age is a reasonable upper limit beyond which cardiovascular risks increase significantly. Is hypertension over-treated, given that aggressively lowering blood pressure—especially in older individuals—can be harmful?”
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
41 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “A 2018 book, Medical Nihilism, by Jacob Stegenga claims the healthcare system over-adopts treatments and under-recognizes risks. He states confidence in the effectiveness of medical interventions should be low because empirical evidence for the efficacy of many treatments is weak due to methodological flaws, publication bias, the influence of commercial interests. He claims positive studies are more likely to be published, screening programs tend to detect and treat cancers that would never cause harm, common treatments can cause long-term complications, short trial durations miss long-term harms etc. How accurate is his view that evidence is systematically skewed and harms are undercounted?”
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
36 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Dr. Bernard Lown, a Harvard cardiologist in the 1980s, criticized the rapid rise of surgical Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts (CABG), noting 20–40% were potentially avoidable, especially in stable angina, and many patients had uncertain survival benefit. He advocated medical therapy—nitrates, beta-blockers, lifestyle changes—for symptom control. How accurate is it to say that in 2026, evidence-based guidelines and trials have reduced avoidable CABG to <10% for high-risk, guideline-selected patients, and that for low-risk, stable patients, surgery rarely improves survival, and that beta-blockers, nitrates, ACE inhibitors, lifestyle changes are to be preferred?”
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
31 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “A 2012 paper in the British Medical Journal “Use of relative and absolute effect measures in reporting health inequalities” concluded that “75% (258/344) [of 2009 papers] reported only relative effect measures.” Absolute risk reduction is often far less impressive and less often stated. This suggests that physicians will overestimate the efficacy of treatments and patients may have a misplaced belief in both effectiveness and risks. To what extent does this practice mislead patients and clinicians and benefit pharmaceutical manufacturers?”
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
29 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick in his book, Doctoring Data, suggests more patients are harmed by over-treatment than helped. He claims published treatment benefits are often exaggerated by hiding behind relative risk (to mask how tiny most benefits are), selective reporting (such as statistical significance without meaningful benefit), or clever framing (such as natural variation in cholesterol or blood pressure) is medicalized as a treatable condition. To what extent is published medical research actually the fabricated appearance of scientific rigor to sell a product?”
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
32 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “What percentage of patients take drugs for almost no real benefit, even while risking side effects and penalized by the cost?”
ClosedNicola asked 6 days ago • 
38 views0 answers0 votes
You have said athletic contests make no sense because all are born blessed with an inherent wherewithal, physically, mentally, emotionally or spiritually. It is a given that no two people are alike as soul attribute expressions differ, so who might be best at a particular skill is not even really their doing. Winning a staged competition is either a fait accompli or decided by a temporary impediment blocking the way of the best athlete present. Is the great cultural importance of contests, like the Olympics, a manipulation of the extraterrestrial interlopers, who view everything through a lens of personal power, so what feeds the ego seems most important?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
43 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “We know that this world is not fully under God’s control and much more so under the control of “the gods” and whatever we can do to enlist God’s help, but what really happened in yesterday’s Olympic gold medal hockey game, where the Canadians kept getting perfect scoring chances on open nets and almost none of them went in…?” What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
57 views0 answers0 votes
A recent national survey reports that half of American schools require ‘Equitable’ Grading and most teachers are opposed. The report identifies five equitable grading practices: unlimited test retakes, no late penalties, no zeroes, no homework, and no required participation. Critics cite examples of the policy enabling students to survive by going through the motions, but in the end losing out. Many school districts report a majority of students being as much as three years behind in basic proficiency. What is Creator’s perspective about American K-12 education and the reasons for chronic underperformance?
ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • 
148 views0 answers0 votes
A news report states: “Nearly a dozen violent assailants equipped with tactical gear and weapons attacked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas, on July 4, shooting a local law enforcement officer in the process.” Is this just a spontaneous choice of those assailants coming together because of shared political beliefs, or is there a deeper influence involved behind the growing attacks on this branch of law enforcement?
ClosedNicola asked 8 months ago • 
170 views0 answers0 votes
A practitioner asks: “Source Creator, the backstory for my first question was a recent experience I had with a client who, 21 years ago, had a car accident that damaged her spinal column. Her vertebrae were pressed against each other, and they compressed the nerves that run between them. This provoked a great deal of pain to her in the coccyx, sacral and lumbar areas, and in her neck. Her right leg developed a sciatic-like pain, and her right foot became numb. She can barely walk. Over the years she went to different conventional medical treatments and to alternative therapies, but saw no improvement in her condition. A couple of months ago I was contracted to do LHP and DSMR sessions for her which significantly reduced her pains for weeks. However, recently her pains came back with a vengeance and I was called again to do more sessions for her, but despite all my efforts, this time her pains were locked in place and there was no reduction in their intensity. Can Creator tell us the reason why He was unable to reduce her pains after my second round of healing? Is there also a karmic backlog involved here?”
ClosedNicola asked 9 months ago • 
417 views0 answers0 votes
The recently deceased Stanford Emeritus Professor Dr. Philip Zimbardo wrote the book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Dr. Zimbardo is famous for his 1971 “Stanford Prison Experiment” that he was compelled to abruptly terminate as it quickly got out of hand and turned into a dangerously oppressive and health-threatening situation for the experiments’ participants after only a week. In the experiment, the prison guards became overwhelmingly sadistically abusive and cruel, and the prisoners became shockingly powerless and submissive to the point of losing their objectivity and grip on reality and actually believing they were real prisoners and not just participants in an “experiment.” The findings of this experiment were deeply disturbing and shocking on many levels. Zimbardo wrote, “One of the dominant conclusions of the Stanford Prison Experiment is that the pervasive yet subtle power of a host of situational variables can dominate an individual’s will to resist.” He continued, “We see how a range of research participants … have come to conform, comply, obey, and be readily seduced into doing things they could not imagine doing when outside those situational force fields.” Can Creator tell us how this MOCK prison with randomly chosen guards and prisoners almost immediately took on the atmosphere and oppressiveness of some of the world’s worst prisons and concentration camps? Zimbardo wrote, “We were surprised that situational pressures could overcome most of these healthy young men so quickly and so extremely.” Is this widespread and disturbing proclivity, to quickly slip into either extreme perpetrator or extreme victim roles, an inherent flaw in the human makeup? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 11 months ago • 
416 views0 answers0 votes
Zimbardo wrote about the Rwandan genocide. The Holocaust Museum website gives this summary: “Under the cover of war, Hutu extremists launched their plans to destroy the entire Tutsi civilian population. Violence spread with lightning speed through the capital and into the rest of the country, and continued for roughly three months. Between 500,000 and one million people, mostly Tutsis, were slaughtered in 100 days. Hutu militias, backed, trained and equipped by Rwandan government forces, were responsible for the majority of the killing.” Zimbardo wrote: “A Hutu murderer said in an interview a decade later that ‘The worst thing about the massacre was killing my neighbor; we used to drink together, his cattle would graze my land. He was like a relative.'” Zimbardo wrote further, “The testimonies of these ordinary men – mostly farmers, active churchgoers and a former teacher – are chilling in their matter-of-fact, remorseless depiction of unimaginable cruelty. Their words force us to confront the unthinkable again and again: that human beings are capable of totally abandoning their humanity for a mindless ideology, to follow and then exceed the orders of charismatic authorities to destroy everyone they label as ‘The Enemy.'” Can Creator help us make sense of this sense-less event in recent human history?
ClosedNicola asked 11 months ago • 
369 views0 answers0 votes
Dr. Stanley Milgram contrived and carried out a famous experiment on Blind Obedience to Authority. Google’s AI provided this summary: “In the experiment, participants were instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to a learner (an actor) for incorrect answers. The study demonstrated that ordinary individuals are surprisingly willing to obey authority, even when those orders conflict with their own moral beliefs.” Zimbardo wrote: “In Milgram’s experiment, two of every three (65 percent) of the volunteers went all the way up to the maximum shock level of 450 volts. … The data clearly revealed the extreme pliability of human nature. Milgram was able to demonstrate that compliance rates could soar to over 90 percent of people continuing the 450-volt with the introduction of one crucial variable … Make the subject a member of a ‘teaching team,’ in which the job of pulling the lever is given to another person.” We want to think of the majority of humanity as good, but Milgram demonstrated rather conclusively that 9 out of 10 people can become, willingly, a party to unthinkable cruelty. Even to an authority that has no means to actually compel them. Can Creator tell us, how can this possibly be?
ClosedNicola asked 11 months ago • 
258 views0 answers0 votes
Zimbardo characterized the Milgram Studies as “Creating Evil Traps for Good People.” Zimbardo extracted ten methods for this: 1. Create a contractual obligation. 2. Give a positive role or title like “teacher.” 3. Present basic rules that “must” be followed – even if vague. 4. Spin the agenda as “positive” – bad-tasting mouthwash “kills germs.” 5. Insist the authority is fully responsible for everything that happens. 6. Start with small acts of evil and work up from there. 7. Keep the amplification of evil so gradual as to hardly be noticeable. 8. Gradually change the nature of the authority from “just” to “unjust” and demanding and even irrational. 9. Make the exit costs high while allowing verbal dissent. And 10. Offer a “big lie” to justify everything. This is clearly a diabolically effective “stacked deck” that Milgram demonstrated works 90% of the time. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 11 months ago • 
329 views0 answers0 votes
123…8Next »
Ask Question