Talk:Hypnotic breast enlargement

Amusing
Amusing bit of woo, but some links indicating it actually exists might be of interest.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Where's the proof that this is going on? And we should have pictures. 07:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Done - and yes, it has pictures. Jack Hughes (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying and failing to think of what we could put on this article as a picture without blokey fnarr fnarr - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh right, this. I remember a transwoman who thought she could grow breasts by, basically, wishing really hard for it. Something about "magick" (sic) and, of course, mystical energies. Some people. At least she didn't waste any money on a charlatan. - LucidFox (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, wait a minute, let me get this straight : those people are payed to stare at womens' boobs ?! Those guys are not quacks, they're freaking geniuses ! Kungo Gumi (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Nothing so involved - they sell them CD sets - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is another study in addition to the one reported in the article that purportedly showed this: Williams, J. (1974). Stimulation of Breast Growth by Hypnosis Journal of Sex Research, 10, 316-326.

Online copies of the studies

 * Breast Enlargement through Visual Imagery and Hypnosis, Willard 1977
 * Stimulation of breast growth by hypnosis, Williams 1974

And remind me to clean my internet history. 23:49, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Study flaws:


 * Size: Willard had a sample size of 22 and Williams had a sample size of 6(hypnosis only)+13(hypnosis and suggestion).
 * Control: Neither had a control group (HBE vs no HBE).
 * Confounding: Both noted that some of their subjects were on birth control. Willard noted that none of the subjects were on other medications; Williams failed to ensure that subjects were not also pursuing other augmentation efforts.
 * Length: Williams measured base size over 3 weeks, performed hypnosis&measurement over 12 weeks, and ended the study. Willard made no baseline measurement, measured after 6 weeks of 1/week HBE, and measured after 6 additional weeks of .5/week HBE. 00:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Willard:


 * Summary: these studies suggest extremely weak support for HBE. 00:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)


 * By all means, editorialise with this backing! One of the great things about dredging through pre-Internet scientific literature is discovering just what trivially ludicrous bullshit you could get peer review on - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Can I just say
... that the marketing for these products is disgusting? This is a tame example. 23:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Disgustingly misleading and fraudulent, absolutely. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Judging by those pictures there's no growth happening between sessions, so at least they're honest about that. Vulpius (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I like that. 03:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I would imagine there is a vast range of nuttiness around this. This is accupressure, this one homeopathy. I would imagine that every kind of alt med you can imagine is in on it.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been meaning to write up esoteric breast massage for years now ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)