I realize that I’ve been neglecting my woo. Indeed, yesterday I noticed that it’s been a month and a half since I did a real Friday Dose of Woo. Of course, that particular installation of my long-running blog series (over two and a half years!) was some incredibly powerful woo. In fact, it was titanic, mind-bogglingly amazing woo. We’re talking Lionel Mllgrom-grade woo. Actually, we’re talking Lionel Milgrom himself, a level of sheer looniness that few, if any, can match, much less surpass. Once you’ve experienced the sheer power of his quantum homeopathic madness, it’s hard not to become a bit jaded. My woo circuits were stimulated to overload; any other woo seems, well…ordinary and even logical by comparison. It’s just that hard to compete. Milgrom’s also a hard act to follow. He is a black hole of woo beyond whose event horizon no science, reason, or mathematics can exist undistorted, and seemingly Milgrom draws all woo to himself.
Just like a black hole.
Of course, not all the best woo necessarily has to involve fancy-schmancy equations that abuse quantum mechanics to the point where Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr, and Werner Heisenberg, among others, are busily doing back flips in their graves at the pain of seeing their science turned into imaginative and magical woo. Sometimes, the simplest-sounding woo is the best woo. No grand excursions into multiple dimensions and quantum entanglement this week, just some good old-fashioned mind over matter–and not just any mind over matter exercise, but mind over the matter that makes up one’s own body. But what mind over matter?
Personally, if I could control the matter that is my body other than in the standard, boring, visible way of having my central nervous system fire off nerve impulses that make my muscles move, I know I’d probably like to bulk up my muscles a bit and perhaps get rid of a bit of fat. Oh, wait. There already is a way of doing that for someone like me, who’s put on about 10 pounds over the last year and is a bit out of shape. It’s called diet and exercise. But that involves work! Some people will risk surgery to get rid of that fat, and some people will risk surgery to get a better-looking body. Wouldn’t it be so much better if “mind over matter” could eliminate that choice? No more having to choose between either diet and exercise or plastic surgery, on the one hand, versus remaining unsatisfied with one’s body on the other, none of which are appealing choices. I’m sure you can see the appeal of using the mind to fix the body this way. After all, haven’t woo-meisters been telling us for years that the mind can fix the body?
In any case, if you’re a woman and unsatisfied with your endowment, why go through all the difficulties and potential risks from surgery if you can simply use Adam Eason’s Hypnotic Breast Enlargement System?
First off, if you want some yucks, you really should listen to the recording of Eason’s comments about his system:
You know what? Your brain knows how to grow your breasts. It knows how to do it. It’s grown them before and it can do so again, all wonderfully naturally. It’s very likely that your breasts enlarge when you menstruate…They’re capable of doing it, and this audio program shows you how to do it once again but even more so…This is one of the most fascinating uses of hypnosis.
Certainly a lot of men would be very interested in this, not for themselves of course, but how many women would actually be interested in this. Strike that. Not every one thinks as I do. Given the popularity of breast implants (i.e., women willing to undergo significant surgery for larger breasts), I’m sure there’s a fantastic market out there for this. The bonus is that it probably doesn’t even matter if it really works or not! As for Eason himself, what a wonderful scam. Imagine the money he could make if he moved to the San Fernando Valley and made himself the personal breast augmentation hypnotist to the porn industry. He could really clean up.
In any case, here is Eason’s explanation:
You see, tightening connective tissue, firming your breasts and enlarging them is all a reality just by using your mind in the right way.
There have been many studies completed, and there are more being successfully completed that demonstrate the amazing response that the body has to hypnosis and suggestions given to your brain while in hypnosis.
I am proud to announce that the very university I went to here in England, the University of Manchester, published research results that proved that you can grow significant muscle using hypnotic visualisations alone.
Within that very research, the people that did only hypnosis exercises grew over 50% of the muscle that the real group grew — the real group did the actual exercise for the exact same amount of time.
He goes on to explain:
As you continue reading this, let me tell you about a lady that I worked with in my private consulting rooms. She had an operation to have her breasts reduced in size. Within months, her breasts naturally grew back to their former larger size. Her consciousness was that of a woman with those large breasts — that is how she unconsciously believed herself to be and her brain responded accordingly!
Breasts do not grow back to their normal size after reduction mammoplasty. They just don’t. At least the breast tissue doesn’t, except rarely in very young patients. However, it is certainly possible for a woman’s breast size to fluctuate with her menstrual cycle, whether reduced or not. Also breast size varies with weight and body fat content. I’ve often heard women joke that when they lose weight the first place the fat seems to disappear from is their breasts. Indeed, breasts contain considerable fatty tissue; the older the woman, usually the more fat in the breasts, as the breast lobules and ducts atrophy and are replaced with fat. That’s why mammograms are more sensitive in older women than in younger women. Tumors and the calcium deposits that are often associated with them show up much better in tissue that is less dense. Younger women have a lot more breast tissue, which is much denser than fat; so mammography is not as sensitive in them. But I digress. Suffice it to say that it’s nonsense to think that a woman is “meant” to have any breast size based on her personality.
So how does Eason claim that his hypnotic breast enlargement work? As amazing as it sounds, apparently Eason thinks that his audio program can show women these things:
This audio programme uses a wide range of mind enhancing techniques, cutting edge strategies and classically proven methods to ensure that you get the most wonderful, beneficial effects from your mind and body, let me tell you about some of the ways this audio programme helps you to grow your breasts naturally:
- Firstly, this audio programme helps to stimulate your growth hormones:
During the Hypnosis sessions, we connect with and tune into the part of your brain called the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus maintains most of the body’s systems and controls what emotional chemicals are in our system and the release of hormones too.
We influence the hypothalamus within the hypnosis sessions to release neurotransmitters to stimulate the pituitary gland at the top of the spine, which in turn releases the growth hormones needed for breast enlargement.
Many people actually report to me that they can sense that occurrence in their body with those particular hypnosis sessions. Many state that it is a enthralling sensation to experience!
- Secondly, we take you on a journey through time:
During certain periods of time in your life, your breasts grew. The memory of this growth process remains with you forever, almost like a blueprint that your brain has stored within it.
You can stimulate the growth of those cells once again and grow your breasts to a size that is more desirable and pleasing to you.
It is such a growing joy to also experience your future inside your mind and feel how good it is when you have achieved your goal.
- Thirdly, the principle of imagination:
During these receptive hypnotic states, your brain is going to create and install the outcome that you want. This imagination process is a way to directly communicate with your body, to send messages to your unconscious mind. This is illustrated well in scientific evidence I have provided for you later on this page.
This is fantastic! Imagine all the plastic surgeons we could potentially put out of business! No more nasty scars, no matter how artfully disguised by the most skillful of plastic surgeons. The first part is the best because it sounds all science-y, but with enough of a touch of woo to make it attractive to the sort of woman who might be interested in willing herself to having bigger breasts. Yes, the hypothalamus is very important for releasing hormones that regulate every aspect of bodily function. For instance, the hypothalamus controls the secretion of prolactin by the pituitary gland. However, none of this means that it’s under any sort of conscious control, or even control accessible by hypnosis. In other words, Eason’s claims are a load of bollocks. (Eason’s British; so I thought I’d use British lingo.)
Of course, Eason outdoes himself with the time travel bit. Who does he think he is, The Doctor? And do I detect a bit of homeopathic thinking there, with his whole “blueprint” and “memory” of the growth process? I think I do. One thing Eason seems to forget, though. Any stimulation of breasts to grow, if it actually worked, would necessarily involve growing new cells. In other words, it would require cells to proliferate. And anything that can induce cells to proliferate can increase the risk of cancer, in this case, breast cancer. No, I don’t for a moment believe that hypnosis can increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer. I merely point that out to demonstrate that Eason is a clueless git. (There goes the British thing again!) He has no clue what it means to grow breast tissue or how hormones and genetics. Big surprise. Well, not really.
Not that that stops Eason from claiming that it’s all science, maaaan! He cites, for example, Peter H.C. Mutke thusly:
Peter H.C. Mutke, M.D. (UCLA) performed the first study. He presented his results as a research paper to the Department of Neuropsychiatry, University of California, Los Angeles, February 28, 1971. As of 1994, Dr Mutke was still with UCLA and has been active in the American Council of Hypnotist Examiners.
Well, that’s a ringing endorsement! As for Dr. Mutke, all I could find on him was a something about “selective awareness.” More tellingly, the only article by him in PubMed that I could find dated back to 1967 and was about using hypnosis to improve reading comprehension. There was nothing about Dr. Mutke using his amazing powers to grow women’s breasts. Did Eason just make this up? You be the judge!
As for the other articles, yes, they do appear to exist. Two of them appeared in a journal called the American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, and one appeared in the Journal of Sex Research. I notice that these articles all appeared to have been published in the 1970s (truly The Me Decade, eh?). Just to check, I did a little impromptu PubMed search myself for “hypnosis” AND “breast.” There has been nothing published since 1979 about trying to use hypnosis to enlarge breasts, although there has been a lot of stuff published about using hypnosis in breast cancer patients as a “complementary” therapy to alleviate treatment side effects. Gee, I wonder why. Perhaps even hypnotists decided this was a dead end and decided to give up 30 years ago. In any case, I’d love to see the methods used for the studies Eason cites, but unfortunately I can’t get online access to journals that old and I certainly don’t plan on going into the stacks at my medical school’s library to find such old, dusty tomes–assuming my university even carries such journals going back that far. Suffice it to say, though, that my guess is that the methodology in these studies was–shall we say?–less than rigorous. Or perhaps I should say: insufficiently endowed with science.
I don’t know which disturbs me more, that this Adam Eason character is so unscrupulous that he would make such dubious claims for hypnosis in order to make money off of women with low self-esteem who seem to think they need more size or that there are so many women who would fall for this. In any case, I’ll give Mr. Eason a challenge. If he really can do what he says he can do, his methodology could be a boon to women with breast cancer who have needed a mastectomy. One thing that is not commonly understood about a mastectomy is that it does not remove 100% of the breast tissue. A thin layer of breast tissue must be left attached to the skin flaps of the mastectomy because if it isn’t the flaps will be devascularized. They’ll turn black and die for lack of blood flow. That means that, even after a mastectomy, there is still a small amount of breast tissue left, which is why breast cancer sometimes recurs in mastectomy scars or nearby. If Eason’s hypnotic woo is so powerful, don’t you think he should be able to regrow breasts in women who have undergone mastectomy. I do.
Somehow, though, I doubt he’ll take me up on that challenge.
66 replies on “Your Friday Dose of Woo: The best woo is breast woo”
I think you are too quick to dismiss the imaginative aspect of breast-size increase. I find that thinking hard about it can increase a woman’s breast size, though admittedly I am a man, and the effect is unsatisfacorily temporary.
Which brings to mind another useful British term of abuse: “wanker”. See also ~fest, ~y, and a load of old ~.
All of which seem to apply to this product.
When I first saw the title “hypnotic breast enlargement programme” I thought it was a tv-programme. That probably would be a massive hit.
BTW,
Here is a link to some products which are supposed to increase women’s breast size when men take them.
If I read this correctly, he’s saying that the course will regress the woman back to being a teenager (when her breasts really grew). Hmm, I’m not so sure I like that idea – my girlfriend’s moody enough as it is.
This isn’t new to me. There’s an episode of Bullsh*t were a hypnotist makes the same claims. IIRC, said hypnotist even sold a tape to help cure breast cancer.
I think this fits the description “scam” or “quackery” more than it does woo.
Well done on the precise use of English expletives.
AK correctly suggested wanker but you could also try tosser, arsehole, twat or dickhead.
Rune is quite accurate in his post. Beer does indeed make womens breasts appear larger, their faces smoother and their legs longer. The effect rarely lasts.
My mother lost an eye and has so far successfully failed to get her subconscious to grow another one. I wonder of she might use this technique to redirect her chi (or whatever the bullshit is supposed to be).
I am ashamed that this twat is British but would point out that his references to the University of Manchester are almost certainly lies – or at the very least misrepresentations (well everything else is a lie so why shouldn’t they be). Although it is situated in the cold bleak extremity of the British Empire it is a proper university and I doubt if there was anyone there who would vouch for this drivel.
On the positive side the pictures are better tham Milgroms lunatic drawings.
It’s not technically making them grow, but the mind *can* make the breasts look better by thinking in the right ways. The specific patterns of neural impulses necessary for this can be learned from me for the low, low, price of $50!
Oh, OK, I’ll give them out for free. Pectoral toning and posture. (Hey, the exercises for those are ordered by the brain, so it counts!)
I can improve female breast muscle tone by my patented method of manipulation and muscle massage.
I have extensive expertise in this speciality although all my evidence as to efficacy is purely anecdotal.
This service is free of charge at the point of delivery but is not available on the NHS. Selective criteria will be applied to all patients.
I have no idea if it works (and if it does then why) but it beats the crap out of reading rubbish about homeopathy.
When I read this, I was so hoping to buy a CD for penis enhancement. I tried all does other techniques I seem to get in Email daily with no luck. Unfortunately, he does not seem to offer hypnotic penis enhancement program just yet. When he does I am looking forward to trying it. He would make a killing with that program alone, I’m sure.
The internet is a reliable help in penis enlargement, I find. Additionally, it can occur while googling an interest in large breats.
Sorry, that should read, for most people, “breasts”. My own interest in breats is strictly personal.
Ladies: I like small breasts and I am more than willing to make you feel good about your small breasts, free of charge and at any time.
“During certain periods of time in your life, your breasts grew. The memory of this growth process remains with you forever, almost like a blueprint that your brain has stored within it.”
It’s too bad my brain can’t seem to store a blueprint of where I left my keys last night.
I’m confused. I thought the “natural” and “original” process of breast growth were the origin of the problem Eason claims he can solve.
“As you continue reading this, let me tell you . . .”
“It is such a growing joy to also experience . . .
Those are odd ways to begin a sentence; I think this guy’s ad copy is filled with those magic NLP words that are supposed to influence the reader into buying his product. There’s a whole taxonomy of woo that NLP promoters believe allows them to subliminally influence people.
As part of my dedication to science I am more than happy to act as an independent arbitrator for any woman who wants to give this a bash.
I am willing to undertake extensive research into the before and after status of any/all experimental subject(s).
In the event of non-efficacy my legal department can undertake to secure a refund of your cash. (This only applies where I have independently and quantitatively verified the failure.)
I’ve managed to convince my girlfriend that regular massage (to stimulate the blood-flow) and heavy breathing (cardio boost) will cause them to grow, albeit temporarily. It works!
This reminds me of Judy Blume and a generation of pre-teens pulling back their shoulders and chanting “We must, we must, we must increase our bust!”
It’s a good thing this doesn’t work; I was momentarily worried that even looking at the thing would make my breasts bigger (why not, everything else seems to). And if the bloody things get much bigger, they’re going to need their own area code. And dealing with Bell Canada is a bitch. 🙁
On this hucksters website you can get a 25% discount if you answer the following question and leave your email address and name.
“””What Is Your Most Important Reason For
Wanting To Enhance Your Breast Size?”””
Now:
1) every contributor to this site has got that little email address reserved for covert black operations
2) every contributor to this site is an intelligent individual (well apart from the odd wooster who ends up here by mistake and who is by definition a moron) and can surely think of some obscene and scatological response to that question
3) it is Friday afternoon (well it is here anyway – you Americans can think about it for a few hours and then join in) and it is surely time for some POETS Day fun
Far be it from me to suggest flaming some charlatans site . . . . . . .
But !
Taller shoes on the women make breasts look larger due to improved viewing angle. It works much faster than hypnosis.
A little help with definitions.
It’s a scam if the seller doesn’t believe it.
It’s “woo” if it is not science or fact based.
Many cases are both
I hope this charlatans busty substances enlargement plan is better than his maths.
(Obviously I had to have a go at getting my 25% off so I used my partners email address and made an obscene suggestion as to why she might want larger shirt potatoes).
The “Price Before Discount” is:
£31.77 (â US $49) â MP3
£77.97 (â US $124) â CD
And the “SPECIAL PRICE FOR ANSWERING SURVEY”
CD: £54.77 (â US $108)
MP3: £24.77 (â US $62)
I think his discounts are suffering from quantum entanglement.
How is $62 a 25% discount on $49 FFS.
And if any Americans would like to give this a go your best bet is to pay in sterling as he will give you $2.50 to the £ (the bank are doing 1.36 at the moment).
It’s new! It’s scientific! It’s
The latest way to grow your tits!
Donât like the way your sweater fits?
Then just pick up the phone!
Embarrassed by your tiny chest?
Or want more bounce back in your breast?
You simply want to look your bestâ
And no, youâre not alone!
You say you want to up-size
To a new and bigger cup size?
Get some bigger dogs, not pup-size?
Send your money in today!
Our CD-ROM will show you
How, hypnotically, to grow youâ
Just you wait; before you know, youâll
Have some melons on display!
[more…] http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2009/02/busted.html
…This is just astounding. I, too, used to think I could will my breasts larger.
When I was TEN!!! Sheesh.
@interrobang. I sympathise. What I want is something that’ll make them smaller.
SO if I fell asleep next to a woman who was listening to this CD I might wake up with my moobs back? After all that work getting rid of them? I’m never sleeping again…
open up Orac for a dose of insolence
see cd case
read Hypnotic Breast Enlargement Progamme
coffee > nose > monitor
I haven’t even read the body of the post yet.
Cannonball
I did some in-depth research on this matter (google and wikipedia obviously) and can confirm (based on my findings) that this would only happen if:
a) your moobs were entangled with her boobs (which is obviously your mutual prerogative should you so wish) and,
b) she could quantum broadcast her “Breast Growth Mental Blueprint” directly into your mind.
Other than that you should be safe.
(Based on your name are you sure you have not been using the testicle version of the CD ?)
“In any case, if you’re a woman and unsatisfied with your endowment, why go through all the difficulties and potential risks from surgery if you can simply use Adam Eason’s Hypnotic Breast Enlargement System?”
I heard that non-surgical non-woo breast enlargement treatment via hormone injections is already available. Is this true?
“I’ve often heard women joke that when they lose weight the first place the fat seems to disappear from is their breasts.”
It’s not always a joke. 🙁
“make money off of women with low self-esteem who seem to think they need more size”
Or women with practically-flat chests who know they need more size or else they’ll be targeted by the same people who discriminate against transsexuals. This is especially true for women with poly-cystic ovarian syndrome, which not only stunts breast growth but also spurs facial hair growth and makes it harder to lose weight around one’s waist (Kate Moss having a flat chest is one thing, Frida Kalho having a moustache is one thing, but the flat chest and beard and moustahce and belly combo gets interpreted somewhat differently at job interviews, meetings with potential customers, etc.).
I like his logo – making an æ when his initials are a and e. How imaginative.
And I am amazed that there is a market for this stuff (I presume there is some kind of market for it)
If Kate Moss has got a flat chest then I am a Dutchman.
Hertz van Rental.
I wonder if this woo can work backwards. Considering that mine have already reached circus-freak status, I wish I could hypnotize myself to make them smaller.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Agree with you both.
“Hold Me Back – Hypnosis Nonsense Alert!
Yes indeed⦠Someone hold me backâ¦
So, the weekend is upon us which means I am ready for a big blow out on the blog⦠Itâs Friday⦠And there are some utter nonsense going on out there in the world of hypnosis that I need to highlight todayâ¦
Ok, so let me vent my spleen⦠Ahem⦠Let me explain:”
No, that’s not Orac’s intro to his latest insightful Friday Dose of Woo…these words are uttered by this Adam Eason!
http://www.adam-eason.com/2009/02/06/hold-me-back-hypnosis-nonsense-alert/#more-551
Hm… while hypnosis might not result in an actual increase, it might result in the subject believing there is one. If so, a skilled hypnotist would have a low rate of return-for-refund complaints. And since (done right) the hypnosis might help some underlying self-esteem issues, it’s probably more moral than most forms of woo-pitch.
This sounds like a fun scam. Where did I put my book on hypnosis?
“I must! I must! I must increase my bust!”
…but at least those kids were waving their arms around!
catgirl: Science is all about observation and experimentation… and being able to prove your point(s) before the full committee! Selfless as I am however, your problem appeals to me, and I would be glad to volunteer for some one-one-one coaching. 🙂
“I merely point that out to demonstrate that Eason is a clueless git.”
Methinks you’re being far too generous with your assessment, Orac. He’d have to work up to being a “clueless git”….
I would just hope that anyone realizing the chiseler wouldn’t even cough up the dough for a model on the front of the CD might realize that the subliminal hint is they just might get a cartoon bust.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
Remember those ads back in the 60s-80s for the Mark Eden system of bust enlargement? It showed before/after pics, not hypnotism but claimed to develop muscle underneath or some such.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Eden_bust_developer.
friggin hilarious. made my friday 🙂
Wait, a woman got breast-reduction surgery, presumably because she wanted smaller breasts, but by inadvertently using his system, they grew back? That sounds like a FAIL.
Shyeah, like your girlfriend needs it to work.
akibare: you mean it wasn’t scooby dooby dooby gimme bigger . . .
I saw the CD cover above and thought someone had left their Mickey Spillane novel on the scanner.
Truly some Looney Woo, Orac.
If wishing for bigger breasts worked, I would already have the C cup I’ve wanted since I was a teenager.
Jennifer, I’m not sure about hormone shots but some birth control pills can cause breasts to get a little bit larger. It’s not significant – maybe half a cup size – but along with acne reduction it’s the best medication side effect evar.
This thread is full of win. My hat is off to you all.
Be careful what you dismiss as woo.
I took an elective in medical hypnosis in medical school. Listed in the bibliography for the class notes were four articles, from significant peer reviewed journals, describing hypnosis for breast enhancement.
Now, I never took the time to pull the articles, so I do not know how good they are nor how significant the reported enhancement was — but at least 4 times in the last 25 years, the reviewers of peer reviewed journals have passed on this idea.
I would not have thought too much of it other than that the remainder of the class, and the professor, were extremely rational and research oriented. (The majority of the class focused on uses of hypnosis in psychiatry, for periprocedural anxiety, and for pain — all of which have excellent procedureal backing.)
I’m still not sure I beleive this one — it was only four articles — but I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand.
Jeeves always puts things right, though.
They were probably the same four crappy-appearing papers I found in my PubMed search, all dating back to the 1970s and all looking very questionable.
It is a well known fact that alcohol can increase breast size perception in male subjects. Why go to the trouble of self-hypnosis when all you have to do is attend a bar/pub after 10:00pm. In fact the nearer to closing time, the bigger a woman’s breasts will appear.
…This is just astounding. I, too, used to think I could will my breasts larger.
When I was TEN!!! Sheesh.
And presumably they grew…
Which was a silly thing to wish for being a male eh?!
I am a clinical hypnotherapist (trained about 14 years or so ago) and I have a (poor but readable) pdf copy of the Willard paper (Breast Enlargement Through Visual Imagery and Hypnosis) and the Staib and logan paper (Hypnotic Stimulation of Breast Growth).
They both refer to an earlier Wilson study (which I don’t have) and I believe that there was a later paper by either Willard or Wilson on the underlying physiology of breast growth (which I don’t have either).
The two papers I have are anything _but_ crappy – and it is yet again very sad to come across the all-too-common sight of self-proclaimed “skeptics” attacking research they haven’t even read…
That said, and regardless of how successful these studies were, I personally wouldn’t recommend this for mastectomy patients. I hate to appear crude about this but my best – and a total – guess here is given the amount of scar tissue these unfortunate post-operative ladies probably have any increase in the growth of the remaining breast tissue would probably result, at best, in a few unseemly bumps here and there – if anything at all.
Breasts, or so I’ve heard, are supposed (aesthetically for men perhaps?) to be shaped like tear-drops. Consequently, any lady who has had a full mastectomy (to remove a tumour perhaps) is probably much better of going with the skills of a surgeon (probably implants) to restore her natural shape.
As for the actual studies themselves, I personally agree with the Staib and Logan paper when they cite the Wilson paper saying that regression to puperty seems to be entirely unncessary.
(Basically it just seems to be the visual imagery of growth and imagining feelings of warmth in the breasts that does the trick.)
Going from the citations in the Staib and Logan paper, the Wilson study did have a control group as well as an experimental group – with only the experiemental group gaining in breast size. But there were only 3 subjects in each group in this study!
The Wilard paper had 22 subjects (better) and the Staib and Logan paper had only 3 in total.
In their favour though, the experiments were extremely thorough and they took lots of different measurements to isolate the actual breast itself (not too easy it seems) from the rest of the subjects anatomy.
Naturally, the studies were also carried out over a few months to account for any effects from the menstural cycle.
The bottom line is the subjects breasts did indeed grow in size (but, it certainly seems that not all women will be able to increase their breast size at the same rate or even by the same amount no matter how long they try.)
They subjects also lost weight and a follow up study 3 months later found that the women (in the Staib and logan study) retained 81% of their breast growth and 52% of their waist reduction.
Oh yeah, and here’s a good one that should sell well to naturally larger ladies – there is also a breast firming-up effect. (Just don’t keep listening to these CD’s or you’ll block out the sun and never see your toes again.)
You’d really need to read the papers yourself to get a full idea of what’s happening but it doesn’t take a genius to guess that factors like the subjects age and initial breast size will probably be of relevance…
(None of the studies seem to have tested women who are post-menopause and I’d very much doubt any real gains could be made with older women but, honestly, I just don’t really know for sure.)
I’d also suspect that things like being a smoker or non-smoker just might have an impact on rates of growth – as might any estrogen based birth control pills.
So, what’s going on? How’s it done? Well, I’m certainly not an endrocrineologist but it’s obviously (surely?) all down to hormones somehow.
There’s a lot more in the papers that might explain that but I’d be here all night trying to cover it all. The authors suspect it might, partly, have something to do with the hypnotic suggestions causing some arousal in the women during their hypnosis sessions which seems to point to the idea of certain hormone levels increasing over time.
I do believe there have been other studies done into relaxation therapy for lactating mothers with some success but you’d really need someone like an endrocrinologist (who has actually read all the data) to figure it all out.
The bottom line is that it definitely works and doesn’t _really_ seem that unusual.
As Arthur C. Clark said “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Sadly that’s all that seems to be happening here with the skeptics.
‘Hypnosis for bigger breasts?’ ‘Eh?’ ‘Sounds like magic – and I don’t believe in magic!’ ‘Therefore I’ll just slag it of and think I’m being scientifically skeptical!’
Sad, very, very, sad.
Re my comments above about hypnosis for breast enlargement and hormone increases…
I’ve just been looking through your site since I posted my comments above and noticed you have also written something about accupuncture and hot flashes.
While I don’t think it matters in the slightest where you stick the needles in accupuncture (though they just might trigger the release of endorphins, with some locations in the surface anatomy possibly more responsive than others – but that’s just a guess), your article got me thinking about the studies of hypnosis treating hot flashes.
Since hot flashes are very often caused by low levels of estrogen can you not see here how the physiological effects of hypnosis should be viewed as relating to the body as a system?
There is simply no point in taking some physical phenomena (like breast enlargement with hypnosis) in isolation, particularly where hormones are concerned, since they have multiple roles.
If something seems unconnected on the surface (Hypnosis? Increasing breast size? Eh??) your mind tricks you into thinking there simply can’t be a connection – when, really, all you have to do is dig a little deeper.
At the end of the day, there is simply nothing really that unusual about this… Indeed, had no scientist ever thought to try breast enlargement with hypnosis previously, it’s not too far fetched to imagine some astute researcher predicting the possibility.
For any model or theory to be good and useful science it has to provide us with a good supply of testable hypothesis. And of those hypothesis we should expect at least some of them to overcome sincere but fair attempts at falsifation across a related battery of tests.
Hypnotherapy is clearly seeing good results (as in good clinical outcomes) in this whole area – in a way that each aspect of the research fits together in a way that makes physiological sense.
So why, if you are a health worker yourself, attack another health worker? Honesly, is there not enough of this out there already?
Surely you must have been taught at university that a genuine and valid (i.e. scientific!) critical review should involve actually reading the relevant works and then outlining, fairly, both the merits and demerits of a study?
Frankly, and I’m sorry to have to say this, your entire post and most of the comments added from others are nothing more than arguments from ignorance.
If self-proclaimed “skeptics” can’t even practice the basics of scientific skepticism (which is to say, fully appreciating that bona fide scientific skepticism involves actually _reading_ the relevant data and appreciating, without unnecessary bias, it’s links to other related work) how can you honestly expect the rest of us to take you seriously?