How do you know that? Are you saying that the brain/mind have no effect on the body?
Please point to the scientific research that states that psychedelics definitely do not affect your rectum. At that point, your statement will be more valuable to me than the GP's. As of now, it's at equal value.
Proving a negative isn't typically the best scientific approach. It'd be on the person making the dramatic claims to offer evidence. There's a lot of evidence about how cancer cells work and little (if any) gives reason to suspect some sort of conscious connection would affect it.
Though I think there is some data that people are more likely to recover if they feel more confident or at least not hopeless, but can't remember where I read about that. There was also something recently about an unexpected immune 'tube' to the brain or something and I think there's a positive correlation with being happy and getting sick less often. All this is still a pretty far cry from claiming that psychedelics are likely to cure cancer.
Stating that the negative can't be proven either does not make both arguments equivalent.
Cancer is not a binary category. In the natural course of a human life it can be observed that some "cancerous" cells cease to exist / be problems, not from some external intervention, but merely through other signals and interactions within the body. Maybe some process detected something was wrong and set in motion another process that corrected it.
What controls these processes? Likely complex electro-chemical reactions that can only occur in certain environments. If a suitable environment does not exist, the reaction does not occur (how can it?).
Now, consider that the human consciousness can be observed to seemingly create complex changes throughout the body, including numerous electro-chemical reactions, and even changes of local environments (e.g. release of neurotransmitters and more general hormones).
If the appropriate environment is created for the appropriate reactions in the appropriate places to "resolve a cancer", then it will happen.
Yes, you can argue about how much fine control a consciousness can have over it's body. You can also argue about what reactions happen in which environments.
>There's a lot of evidence about how cancer cells work and little (if any) gives reason to suspect some sort of conscious connection would affect it.
Such as? You can only find something if you look for it. You would never expect to suspect a consciousness at work if you weren't looking for it.
Stating an unproven negative as if it were a fact is also not the best scientific approach.
(Also, saying something like "the mind has no affect on the body" is a positive statement of fact. Quibbling about the word "no" or "not" is just semantics IMO.)
Scientific research doesn't work like that. Scientists don't set out to prove that links between arbitrary things don't exist.
Because there's no research that disproves any link between toothpaste and baldness, doesn't mean we can't use common sense based on what we know about toothpaste and baldness to all but rule out any link in the absence of that research. What we do know about toothpaste and baldness, does not point or suggest any link between the two.
Likewise, what we know about psychedelics and cancer of the rectum, is that the two would unlikely be connected. From the extremely small amounts of drugs needed to affect consciousness, to the aggressive disease attacking your cells. Even in a biological sense they are worlds apart.
Finally, the "mind over body" idea is more about our minds over our healthy bodies - keeping things such as blood flow and other systems healthy. Once those cancerous tumours start growing, there's no scientific data or even a reasonable theory to suggest "the mind", be it under the influence of drugs or not, has any fighting ability to repair localised cancerous cells and prevent further spreading.
However, in this case, I don't think one can say there is there's no scientific data or even a reasonable theory to suggest that "the mind" has any affect on the healing abilities of our bodies given that the placebo effect is our rule of measure for whether a drug works or not.
Placebos, sure. The thing that bothers me about placebos is the time variable. A course of placebos or drugs is also a course of time. Things heal in time, healing may have happened anyway in that time if nothing was done for those patients. Our immune system is pointed in the healing direction by nature, but significant momentum in that direction is another matter.
My own opinion on mind over body is not one of miraculous healing but of providing good conditions or foundation for healing to happen. I'm not convinced the mind on its own can deal with something like cancer without significant help (proper help, not placebos or psychedelics).
