IADC - Induced After Death Communication

[gattino]

Maybe I've been going round with my eyes closed, and there have been hundreds of articles in newspapers and on tv shows, and many previous discussions on forums like this. So pardon me if my sense of bewilderment is misplaced. But I'm reading something now which I've no reason to believe is untrue, yet if it is true ought to be far better known and discussed than I'm aware of.

I first read of it a few years ago as a chapter in a general book about fringe science and phenomena, and assumed it was something brand new at the time of writing. I've seen nothing about it since until I bought a book by the principle originator of the discovery, a Dr Allan Botkin, and see it was written 10 years ago and already reporting thousands upon thousands of successful inducements.

Inducements of what? "Encounters" and communication with deceased loved ones, of the kind reported in NDE cases and deathbed visions...but in this case in perfectly healthy, alive and conscious clients on the psychologists couch.

In essence he and colleagues are grief counsellors. They practice an established method for getting rid of crippling grief..in his case initially and primarily in Vietnam war vets...in which through a sequence of REM-style eye movements while holding onto thoughts of their sadness, the emotion builds to a peak and then starts to subside till it dissipates entirely. This apparently has miraculous success. Purely by accident the aforementioned doctor discovered that when he finished with a final set of eye movements but no specific instructions, the patients....again and again, with seeming 100% success...spontaneously report while their eyes are closed and with no instruction from the therapist, seeing/hearing/communicating/even physically feeling their dead loved one.

These "encounters" are describe in identical terms to those reported in near death experiences, vivid communication dreams etc..not least in the apparent certainty every (?) patient has that it was literally real, not a dream or hallucination or whatever. A conviction that stays with them. Beyond this he/they have - he reports - discovered its possible for an observer or the therapist themselves to share the mental experience of the patient as it happening!

As I say I take it to be sincere reporting of an established and endlessly replicable on demand phenomenon. But have never heard it outside of this direct testimony. Is it well known, and if not why not?

 

[EnolaGaia]

IADC represents a misleading label for the application of Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) psychotherapeutic techniques in the context of grief resolution. In terms of approach and method, IADC is essentially a subset of EMDR. EMDR dates back to the late 1980's, and you can find a lot of EMDR literature (including peer-reviewed papers) online.

EMDR is itself controversial, but the majority of studies on it support a conclusion that its positive therapeutic outcome rate is better than nothing. This puts EMDR on an equivalent basis with cognitive behavioral therapies. Both are now widely recommended approaches to dealing with PTSD, depression, etc., even though neither is universally considered 'scientific'. Phrased another way - the evidence seems to indicate these approaches 'help', and that's enough for the psychotherapeutic community to accept them.

Generally speaking, EMDR leads the patient through one or more exercises in which he / she focuses on the target problem (memory, issue, whatever ... ) while simultaneously inducing a motor / sensory / cognitive burden. In effect, the approach overloads mental activity with the intended result being a reduction, if not elimination, of the target's intensity (e.g., in terms of memory strength, emotional connection, etc.).

EMDR doesn't even require eye movements to work. It can be done using other recursive shifts in the patient's attention (e.g., tapping on one, then the other, knee).

The central tactics of overload and recursive burden are not unlike certain tricks of the trade in hypnosis and neuro-linguistc programming.

The bottom line is this ... In EMDR (and, by extension, IADC) the only thing the patient gets in touch with are his / her own memories / sensations / thoughts.

Calling the grief-specific EMDR subset IADC is misleading because it insinuates the procedure induces actual (or at least phenomenologically substantive) communication with 'the other side'.

To the best of my knowledge, Botkin consistently avoided claiming the induced phenomenological effects represented actual communications with the other side. On the other hand, he also seemed to avoid any clear statement that they didn't. This left the door open for speculation that they might.

 

[gattino]

The bottom line is this ... In EMDR (and, by extension, IADC) the only thing the patient gets in touch with are his / her own memories / sensations / thoughts.

Calling the grief-specific EMDR subset IADC is misleading because it insinuates the procedure induces actual (or at least phenomenologically substantive) communication with 'the other side'.

To the best of my knowledge, Botkin consistently avoided claiming the induced phenomenological effects represented actual communications with the other side. On the other hand, he also seemed to avoid any clear statement that they didn't. This left the door open for speculation that they might.

I only have the direct testimony of his book to go on..and a separate journalists account of undergoing it...but while its correct he doesn't say its really contact with the dead (Would he dare do so? His position is that it doesn't matter whether it is or not, all that matters is the benefit felt) its pretty clear he's at pains to do away with any sceptical alternatives before they're expressed. He places emphasis for example on the conviction of the patient that it is not another kind of mental imagery such as dream or imagination, is distinct from any known form of hallucination in terms of its consistencies from patient to patient, contains - in examples given - information unknown or unknowable to the patient at the time but later confirmed to be true, is devoid of direction being given by patient or therapist akin to hypnotic suggestibility, the conversations with the deceased are frequently contrary to the patients wishes and expectations, and as mentioned above the internal mental imagery - that is the specific places, objects, and events seen in the minds eye of the patient - has been repeatedly and simultaneously witnessed int he minds eye of a third party observor, with comparitive notes being taken. In other words some form of direct visual telepathy is being described.

Without undergoing it oneself we can't know what its like or how accurate all of this is of course. But if reported accurately it doesn't sound much like it can fit under the description "his/her own memories/sensations/thoughts" as the "only thing" they're getting in touch with.

Having said that it does occur to me - and I'm only half way through so answers maybe forthcoming - that whether the phenomenon is a hidden but evolved function of the organic brain or, hypothetically, real contact from a spirit realm, either way the key to accessing the experience is so obscure and its discovery so by chance, that it raises questions about how on earth it came to be there when its was so unlikely to ever be discovered or used!

 

[gattino]

If anyone is keen to read and judge whats being described for themselves, here's the book link https://www.amazon.co.uk/Induced-Af...8&qid=1476980553&sr=1-1&keywords=botkin+moody

 

[EnolaGaia]

NOTE: I'm having trouble deciphering the first paragraph in post #3 so as to identify your overall point(s?), so I can respond to only those bits I think I'm clear about ...

I only have the direct testimony of his book to go on..and a separate journalists account of undergoing it...but while its correct he doesn't say its really contact with the dead (Would he dare do so? His position is that it doesn't matter whether it is or not, all that matters is the benefit felt) ...

Yes; agreed ... Botkin tries to maintain an agnostic position on the 'reality' of the patient's phenomenological experience, because it's essentially irrelevant to the ultimate objective (i.e., a successful therapeutic intervention reducing stress).

... its pretty clear he's at pains to do away with any sceptical alternatives before they're expressed. ...

Here's where I start getting lost, because I'm not sure whose 'sceptical alternatives' you see him avoiding or discounting.

If these are alternatives potentially posed by the patient, it's entirely reasonable - and necessary for promoting a successful outcome - for the therapist to prevent the patient from second-guessing or discounting the experience. Phrased another way ... For this (or any other ... ) intervention procedure to work it's critical to get the patient's 'buy-in'.

It's also reasonable / necessary for the therapist him-/herself to avoid insinuating, or even mentioning, such alternatives (e.g., in framing the procedure for the patient), because that would undermine 'buy-in' and hence the likelihood of obtaining the intended benefit.

If these are alternatives potentially posed by third-party critics it shouldn't matter, given Botkin's agnostic position on the 'reality' (ontological status; whatever ... ) of the patient's phenomenological experience.

... He places emphasis for example on the conviction of the patient that it is not another kind of mental imagery such as dream or imagination...

Of course - this reflects how important 'buy-in' is to a successful outcome.

Beyond this juncture, I'm at a loss ... Sorry ...

 

[EnolaGaia]

Having said that it does occur to me - and I'm only half way through so answers maybe forthcoming - that whether the phenomenon is a hidden but evolved function of the organic brain or, hypothetically, real contact from a spirit realm, either way the key to accessing the experience is so obscure and its discovery so by chance, that it raises questions about how on earth it came to be there when its was so unlikely to ever be discovered or used!

A couple of comments ...

First ... It raises questions only in proportion to how much / how deeply you ascribe purpose to the realization of our neural / mental / etc. faculties. Insisting on purpose biases one into needing to ask such questions and biases the type and range of answers one may accept.

Second ... As I previously mentioned, the sort of cognitive overloading tactics underlying IADC are obscure, but not really new. Such tactics have been employed or are reflected in a variety of practices dating back centuries (EMDR, hypnosis, rituals leveraging frenzy or ecstasy to achieve a breakthrough, etc., etc., etc.). The primary novelty of IADC is the context of its application (grief management; dealing with death), not its procedure.

 

[Paracelsus]

As an IADC practitioner for the last 10 years, let me say that the term, Induced After Death Communication, is indeed a misnomer. Nothing in the procedure is induced. What we do in those sessions is ask the client to re-member the most important trigger for the overwhelming sadness from a loss. Then, using bilateral stimulation, this signal event, or image, or smell, or bodily feeling is reassembled in the brain but with the added ingredient of the rhythmic input. Very quickly the previous trigger is released from its function of replaying exactly the same emotional response over and over again. This is how EMDR has worked for the last three decades to overcome trauma.

What is new in IADC is that we no longer use a cognitive element in the procedure as is EMDR protocol, and simply let the emotional component stand alone. When the client is experiencing this release and relief (usually within 30-45 minutes), we simply let them "be" in that place and do a few more bilateral sets while they are there. In that space, people spontaneously report the presence, or feeling, or conversation with their particular deceased loved one, even pets. In my practice, this happens 92% of the time. Some clients have gone home and had spontaneous after death communications after the session when they didn't have one during the session.

All After Death Communication is spontaneous. We do not induce it. It happens, and it happens regularly and dependably. That's why this is useful as a therapeutic tool. It is not hypnosis. There is no suggestion of relaxation. The therapist follows the client, not the other way around as in hypnosis.

One telling incident in Botkin's book is where he details a session in which he felt that the client had a particularly good connection with his loved one. He said, "Do you mind if I ask a question?" The client said, "Sure." "Ask what he thinks about IADC." They did another bilateral set, and the client responded, "He says it's fine. Just remember, we are in charge of it, not you."

Spontaneous ADC is reported by 49% of all widows and widowers in the US. It is reported by 40% of the population over 60, and by 30% of the population at large. This was reported by the North American Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago in 1972. It is usually subtle, but meaningful, signals from their loved ones who passed. The emotional distress that is the primary experience of grief is not subtle. It is brutal. But, when the distress has been relieved, when the hypocampus and the amygdyla have been quieted through the bilateral stimulation during memory recall, the grieving person is then free to see what else is there. It's like trying to see starlight during the day. Not possible. But, when the sun goes down, you can look up and there it is.

 

[gattino]

Here's where I start getting lost, because I'm not sure whose 'sceptical alternatives' you see him avoiding or discounting.

I'm not sure why you're lost. You stated that he himself never suggests it really is communication from the dead (in an objective spirit world sense). I was saying while its true he avoids saying "this is really the dead!" he appears to me to be very keen to emphasise all the obvious objections to believing it is the dead are invalid. In other words my impression - thus far - is that he clearly does believe its "real" and is stopping just shy of saying so.

My impression of course could be wrong.

 

[Paracelsus]

The focus of all IADC sessions is the diminishing of the intensity of the pain involved in grief. The biggest contribution, in my opinion, that Botkin has made is noticing that if the therapist only focuses on the "core sadness" of the loss, the often attendant anger and guilt go away without ever focusing on those directly. In other words, sadness is the key emotion, and anger and guilt are just defenses against that feeling.

Many IADC therapists, including myself, have had instances where we actually experienced the same scene as the client described it, before and during the client's experience. We were "sharing" an ADC experience within our individual consciousnesses independently. This is really unexpected if this is simply an artifact of the brain. Also, there are many times where the client will get information during an IADC that was unknown to them at the time, but was later confirmed by an outside source.

IADC therapists all over the world report that the procedure works regardless of the clients' world view, or spiritual background, or lack thereof.

There is no universal "proof" of life after death, just as there is no proof against it. We all rely on our experience to make meaning of the world, and all the parts of it. What is clearly evident, though, is that we have the mechanisms within us to heal from terrible psychological wounds. IADC is one way to access some of those mechanisms.

 

[EnolaGaia]

I'm not sure why you're lost. You stated that he himself never suggests it really is communication from the dead (in an objective spirit world sense). I was saying while its true he avoids saying "this is really the dead!" he appears to me to be very keen to emphasise all the obvious objections to believing it is the dead are invalid. In other words my impression - thus far - is that he clearly does believe its "real" and is stopping just shy of saying so. ...

As I stated, I wasn't clear as to whose potential skepticism you thought Botkin was attempting to refute or mitigate by critiquing a list of alternative explanations / positions. This was my initial roadblock in trying to figure out your orientation to IADC and what its methods or results may signify. I was having trouble parsing your earlier postings without understanding where you were going with them.

Your more recent posting (#9) resolves this ambiguity for me. I now see that you (at least tentatively) seem to view Botkin as a believer who discreetly stops short of proclaiming it, whereas I view him as being doggedly agnostic.

It doesn't really matter which of these interpretations is the more accurate. Both would be justifiable ways of keeping the focus on a method that seems to demonstrably help in a majority of cases while avoiding potential debates / arguments over peripheral issues that (a) wouldn't necessarily contribute to improving IADC's efficacy and / or (b) might well be off-putting to potential patients. IMHO that's the important thing ...