"Hypnotizability" and Suggestibility

Bacterial resistance to penicillins and cephalosporins

“…Class IV. Barber (1964) investigated 59 strains of naturally-occurring methicillin-resistant Staph. aureus, isolated in Britain, France and Denmark; all belonged to closely related phage types (Group 111), and all produced penicillinase.…”

“…Several workers (e.g. Barber, 1964 ;Seligman, 1966 ;Hamilton-Miller & Ramsay, 1967) have reported that methicillin-resistant strains of Staph. aweus contain a significant proportion of colonial variants, particularly when the bacteria are grown in the presence of methicillin.…”

Penicillinase-resistant Penicillins and Cephalosporins

“…It has been suggested that the reason why these strains vary in their sensitivity to methicillin with the size of the inoculum is that only some of the cells are resistant to the antibiotic (Knox and Smith, 1961;Rolinson, 1961). The investigations of Barber (1964), however, suggest that variation in sensitivity of the individual cells is not the prime reason for the inoculum effect. She has shown that even in the presence of quite low concentrations of methicillin, growth on solid medium with the usual salt content is quite abnormal in that the cells tend only to grow massed together at the site of heavy inoculum and Gram-films show the cells to be swollen and irregular, suggesting a partial inhibition of cell-wall synthesis.…”

Hypnosis with Psychotic Patients: Comment on Scagnelli-Jöbsis

“…Had she read our paper carefully, she would have understood that we were not agreeing with these early writers that hypnosis was not applicable to normals: "We would not agree that hypnosis is confined to hysteria, or that high hypnotizability implies psychopathology" (Spiegel & Fink, 1979, p. 778). She then goes on to accuse us of misquoting four earlier studies (Abrams, 1964;Barber, Karacan, & Calverley, 1964;Vingoe & Kramer, 1966;Lavoie, Sabourin, & Lan'glois, 1976). In fact, we correctly noted that Abrams (19M), Barber et a].…”

“…Of eleven empirical studies conducted utilizing the Stanford type scales (Weitzenhoffer & Hilgard, 1959;Shor & Orne, 1962) between 1936 and 1978, six (Bartlett, 1936;Gill and Brenman, 1959;Barber, Karacan, & Calverley, 1964;Webb & Nesmith, 1964;Lavoie, Sabourin, & Langlois, 1973;Lavoie, Lieberman, Sabourin, & Brisson, 1978) conclude that psychotic patients are less hypnotizable than normal comparison samples. One study (Kramer, 1966) concludes that psychotics are equally hypnotizable to normal comparison samples, and four conclude that psychotics are equally or more hypnotizable than normals (Kramer & Brennan, 1964;Vingoe & Kramer, 1966;Greene, 1969;Gordon, 1973).…”