Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Placebo and double and triple blind studies destroyed cures.

  1. #1 Placebo and double and triple blind studies destroyed cures. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    There was a time when alternative medicine was much more effective at healing. I know, I was involved with alternative medicine when it was very effective.

    What happened? Alternative medicine was debunked by the introduction of the placebo effect theory and it has never recovered from it. That hasn't stopped alternative medicine from thriving despite it's ineffectiveness. It's popularity is growing because it has no real competition.

    You have two options when it comes to your health, you can use drugs to treat signs and symptoms and suffer the side effects or you can use new age woo woo alternative products that have no ill side effects so naturally there will be a productive alternative medicine industry kicking out cookie cutter doctors left and right.

    Back in the day when alternative medicine focused on cures instead of today's treatments they relied on placebo to cure their patients. Alternative medicine was curing diseases conventional medicine claimed where incurable creating quite the contradiction and quite a mess. Society couldn't have two medicines contradicting one another so what was the solution? It was simple, the people in charge of conventional medicine took control over alternative medicine and restructured the medicine to what we know alternative medicine as today. No more cures but more importantly no more contradictions.

    Placebo effect propaganda attacks and double and triple blind studies destroyed cures. Early alternative medicine relied on placebo to cure people, however the practitioners where not aware of this fact until it was too late. Cures were doomed.

    I was in the alternative medicine industry when cures were common. Instead of adding more and more gimmick products that could not or cannot pass double or triple blind studies I was taking the gimmick placebo products out and focusing on the effect of the placebo not the product.

    Instead of being upset about the placebo effect I embraced the effect. This is how I learned that we can control our immune system and its immune responses.

    You see, early alternative practitioners consistently involved with cures were actually controlling immune responses in their patients. Less effective practitioners were relying on their patients to control their own immune response.

    When an effective practitioner administered a consistent alternative treatment he or she was directing the immune response not the treatment and the placebo was born.

    Naturally when you take the effective practitioner out of the testing process the treatment fails every time in double and triple blind studies.

    However, cures are not all but lost, they are simply ignored by medicine and science in pursuit of higher profits. You could learn to control your immune response and cure yourself or help others cure themselves with great consistency and you would be completely ignored by medicine and science. There would be no Nobel Prize for you, there would only be disdain for you because there is no money in curing diseases without using any patented products or products period.

    That's right, science attacked the placebo and debunked an effective means of healing when they could have embraced it showing that science has it's flaws and as such every scientific theory, hypotheses or claims should be questioned if it does not lead directly to a cure.

    When you learn to control your immune system and immune responses I seriously doubt it can be referred to as placebo and consistency cannot be avoided because it is just like riding a bike.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    As I pointed out earlier, the placebo effect is over-rated. It is not able to effect cures when there is a clear organic cause for the disease.

    Fortunately for those who sell placebos (alternative medicos), about half of all patients who turn up at clinics have ailments with no clear organic cause. (This statistic is the experience of a doctor friend of mine). That 50% of all patients respond extremely well to placebos.

    This creates a false appreciation of placebos. It makes it appear as if half of all illnesses are curable by placebo. However, most of that half are not actually illnesses, except inasfar as the human imagination can create illness.

    There has been a lot of scientific research into alternative remedies. Their powers and limitations are well documented. Apart from a small number of herbal remedies, alternative therapies are pure placebo. They have no power whatever against cancers, infections, or physical trauma.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    I have copied and pasted from the other topic. I will also address this comment. Thank you very much for getting involved with my topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Bleep

    I cannot help you, and no-one I know of in this or other forums, can help you in getting your claims checked.

    The problem is that there have been plenty of other people with claims similar to yours. In a few cases, those people managed to get their claims checked by proper medical researchers, and the claims were found to be incorrect. For example : researchers have checked the 'power of prayer' and found it to be no better than suggestion. It did not work at all when the people being prayed for did not know they were being prayed for.

    Without meaning to be impolite, my view is that there is a close to 100% probability that your claims also would prove to be incorrect.

    Medical researchers are very smart people. They will not spend their time and their research dollars investigating something that appears to be so seriously unlikely to prove positive.
    So we are told. We are told how science and universities have dealt with all kinds of crazies. I've heard it firsthand from the science research centers and the universities. What you are not considering though is the fact that prayer obviously worked well enough for someone to push it to the next level and so what if double and triple blind studies trashed prayer, why couldn't money, time and research been invested in why prayer works 1 out of 100 or 1 out of 1000?

    Learn what made the 1 and learn to duplicate it and you have ONE THING, consistent cures. You have the ability to control your immune system and immune responses.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Medical researchers are very smart people.
    OMG or OMS whatever you guys say around here, this is what bugs me the most, it can only mean one thing, medical researchers are very corrupt.

    Yes, medical research debunked modality after modality and product after placebo product and in the end completely dismissed the actual tangible healing effect and never invested a moment or a dime on the actual tangible healing that used "nothing". Prayer shows you do not need a product to create an healing effect. Medical researches could have investigated the healing itself but no, instead they trashed the modality buried the cures under the trash title "placebo".

    This can only mean one thing, because we all agree that medical researchers are very smart people it means they are very corrupt as well.

    Skeptic, I do want to thank you for pointing out the fact that I am not going to get scientific validation or research. That means a lot to me. I know it is likely you believe I am a quack even though some of my points make the hair on your neck scientifically stand up but at least you are not naive enough to debunk me based on the fact that I am not famous.

    Science has set it up to were any mention of a cure is automatically grounds for dismissal on the bases of insanity. LOL Unless it talks about potential future cures that only require zillions of more dollars because they just about have it. Now that's crazy.

    No, science has completely sabotaged any chance of cures being made public, you pretty much said it yourself. And....
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Medical researchers are very smart people.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    As I pointed out earlier, the placebo effect is over-rated. It is not able to effect cures when there is a clear organic cause for the disease.
    Like I said above, "placebo" is over rated, the "effect" is perfect even if it is only brief relief. It is perfect because there is an honest science behind it and as I pointed out, learn the science behind it and learn to duplicate it and you will not have any need for medicine that offer only temporary relief as well that are full of damaging side effects. Medical treatment is over rated.

    Please KEEP IN MIND I am not talking about temporary relief or even "placebo" I'm talking about the immune system being the only explanation for unexplained cures, many of which have been dubbed "placebo", actual cures not temporary relief. The perfect "effect" part of the placebo effect is a generated immune response with the sole purpose of eliminating pathogens and organic causes of disease which is what science refuses to research.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Fortunately for those who sell placebos (alternative medicos), about half of all patients who turn up at clinics have ailments with no clear organic cause. (This statistic is the experience of a doctor friend of mine). That 50% of all patients respond extremely well to placebos.
    Oh, there is so much more than what your doctor friend is aware of. In conventional medicine there is no clear organic cause either, which explains why all the drug commercials use terminology like "depressions is thought to be caused by".

    "Placebo" is not science, it is a catch all. It is a scapegoat. It is a scam. It is a way to misdirect attentions. The "effect" is can be fine tuned and provide consistent cures with ease. Which is why I am here, which may or may not be a waste of my time.

    I hope I don't offend you Skeptic because we could really have some fun here.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    This creates a false appreciation of placebos. It makes it appear as if half of all illnesses are curable by placebo. However, most of that half are not actually illnesses, except inasfar as the human imagination can create illness.
    I'm glad to see you use the word "cure". Sure it is a false appreciation of placebo but even a false appreciation that works only 50% of the time with no ill side effects is better than a medical product with ill side effects that really isn't much more effective that the placebo. I'm not promoting "placebo" I'm saying it is obviously proving to be reasonable competition for conventional medicine because alternative medicine is thriving.

    What humans imagine as illness may not be imagined at all. The science behind cures, if science were to choose to pursue such a science would turn medical science upside down and make it completely moot, even medical science's theory of what is imagined and what is not. Curing diseases said to be incurable changes everything.

    Again, I have no use for "placebo", I am only interested in cures the "effect" can achieve consistently.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    There has been a lot of scientific research into alternative remedies. Their powers and limitations are well documented. Apart from a small number of herbal remedies, alternative therapies are pure placebo. They have no power whatever against cancers, infections, or physical trauma.
    I don't want to sound cocky but there is no one who understands the powers and limitations of alternative remedies better than myself unless someone else has made the same discoveries and is being completely ignored as well.

    Hear hear, alternative medicine is pure placebo, not just the remedies but the machines and gadgets too and when I say pure "placebo" I am referring to your understanding of "placebo" which is very limited and I mean no disrespect, your understanding is based on a set understanding, mine is based on consistent and perfect scientific observation and results.

    Skeptic, you are truly an asset to this world in regards to health and healing and I am so thankful you are involved in this discussion. You give me hope that there are people out there who can check their pride and hash it out for a better understanding. I beg you to forgive my cocky nature which is probably bordering on arrogance, but time is always a factor and I don't need to hear myself talk I need others like yourself to hear me talk not to take my word for anything but to take your own word for it so I become more blunt and less tactful.

    I'm not talking about "placebo". I'm talking about a perfect immune response that makes the "effect" part of the "placebo" and how it can easily be refined and perfected to almost if not complete consistency without any need for technology or money.

    There is not one person on this forum who cannot be cured with what I know and understand and it doesn't matter how skeptical they are. Humans are the supreme beings and we have the perfect immune system if we can put our greed aside and it doesn't require any faith or belief because the immune system doesn't operate on faith and belief or prayer for that matter. If it did, prayer would have passed double and triple blind studies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Bleep

    What I have to emphasize, and I am sure others on this forum would agree, is that making a claim is one thing. Providing credible evidence is another.

    No, medical researchers are not corrupt. (Well, at least most of them). What they do appreciate though, is that a lot of claims are made which, when tested, fail.

    It is the testing that provides evidence. It is only testing that can determine if your ideas have any merit. With respect, I doubt it. Testing must be robust. With claims like yours, which appear to claim a great deal, and are very different to what is generally accepted, the testing process must be exceptionally robust.

    As the skeptic saying goes : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    The only way your claims will achieve any reputation is through solid, robust testing. And my view is that they will almost certainly fail such testing. It is the probability of failure that makes researchers most reluctant to commit time and money to that test program.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Bleep

    What I have to emphasize, and I am sure others on this forum would agree, is that making a claim is one thing. Providing credible evidence is another.

    No, medical researchers are not corrupt. (Well, at least most of them). What they do appreciate though, is that a lot of claims are made which, when tested, fail.

    It is the testing that provides evidence. It is only testing that can determine if your ideas have any merit. With respect, I doubt it. Testing must be robust. With claims like yours, which appear to claim a great deal, and are very different to what is generally accepted, the testing process must be exceptionally robust.

    As the skeptic saying goes : extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    The only way your claims will achieve any reputation is through solid, robust testing. And my view is that they will almost certainly fail such testing. It is the probability of failure that makes researchers most reluctant to commit time and money to that test program.
    I completely agree with you on the nature of the evidence needing to be robust and how important it is however you last sentence is the kicker. At one time I was posting on a herpes forum and the university of Florida had just generated 4.7 billion dollars for herpes research that was three years ago and they were on the forum asking for more. Wow, that is a lot of money to commit and three years have come and gone and the 4.7 billion + the 500 billion donated to herpes research since then has done nothing so medical science is far weaker than sciences take on placebo. At least with placebo someone occasionally gets cured.

    Back to the point, proving my claims will not take any money in relation to medical research and the money wasted there. As for time, there is nothing more effective or efficient than the human immune system.

    Nothing in medicine or medicine science can take 20 or 40 people with deadly allergies and cure every single one of them in less than two weeks. I use allergies as an example because there is no need for conventional mainstream science to add their fictional two cents. It is a obvious and simple test, one day a person cannot eat a food without risking death and then the next few days they can eat the food without any ill effects.

    Now, please tell me that isn't robust enough and why is isn't. Right now I am allowed to cure or help people cure themselves one on one, one by one and each time they are cured of a disease conventional medicine and science has failed in curing it is extremely robust.

    Certainly you are skeptical about what I am claiming and it is nice of you to at admit my claims "are very different to what is generally accepted". If you were here right now I would kiss you on both cheeks and hug you until your spine cracked. Naturally my claims are very different, if I kept stayed on the generally accepted path I would never ever taken the step to learn what it was that caused my patient to cure themselves once it became obvious to me that the alternative medicine I was using was pure placebo.

    Skeptic, you have to also agree that the consistent "cure" is either ignored by medical science or it is eluding medical science so please don't discredit my claims because they don't jive with tried and proven to fail accepted scientifically based medicine. Naturally "cures" are going to come in a package completely separate from medical science. Cures are a science in themselves and medicine is a science in itself. They do not, I repeat they do not compliment one another.

    Cures are not medicine.

    So back to credible evidence? Is there anyone here who considers them self credible? It's a fact, medicine is a science of medicine not cures and we have no logical reason to assume they would or should be interested in cures that require no medicine so we can rule out medical research and support, its not going to happen but maybe, just maybe someone you have had your curiosity peaked and you are not as patriotic as you are expected to be and would like to take a peak at cures or even be cured?

    What I offer is not a miracle cure, it is an immune response that will be consistent under reasonable conditions. Science isn't going to get involved but I am not going to give up so I will continue to prove my claims one by one. I am well aware that medicine has been sabotaging cures for years so I will be careful to not fall into a set up. This is why allergies are great, a person cannot fake swelling and hives. Curing psoriasis and eczema are great examples because either your skin is sloughing off or it isn't.

    Basically any disease or condition can be cured and if anyone here convinces me they want to be cured they will be cured of whatever they want cured. If they start making up conditions for a set up or they intend to intentionally sabotage the work then I will screen them out unless they have deadly food allergies and they will consent to being locked away from any possible means of sabotage.

    Some of you may think I am paranoid but that is only because you do not believe me.

    Right now Skeptic has an existing condition that he or she would prefer wasn't. That condition is easily cured. Once it is cured he or she will then know that I am not paranoid and he or she will know that medicine is corrupt. If you don't want to call it corrupt or a conspiracy don't because it could be just as easily referred to as great business savvy.

    So we assume medicine isn't interested in cures outside of medicine, anyone curious for the sake of science, real science?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    I find this discussion completely interesting and wish I had more than a moment to contribute. Perhaps at a later time. But it really is a discussion about the efficacy of pseudoscientific principles ("alternative" medicine).

    So I'm moving the thread to the pseudoscience subforum. This, however, shouldn't be seen as an offensive or pejorative action. I've always been a proponent of our pseudoscience section being a place where rational, critical discussion should take place about topics just such as these.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    I pointed out in the other similar thread that the people behind Lorenzo's Oil overcame the problem of getting an unorthodox treatment accepted.

    Frankly, if Bleep has a treatment as good as the one he is claiming, then it is only a matter of time. In the mean time, I will live up to my nom de plume.

    All that is needed is to 'cure' patients that have been essentially written off by medical specialists, and then get the cured patient to return to that specialist. Those guys are desperate to get their names into print, and if they can write a research paper about an incurable condition that is cured, they will.

    However, we have all seen heaps of people claiming cures, and few, if any, pass the testing process. So I am not going to hold my breath.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I find this discussion completely interesting and wish I had more than a moment to contribute. Perhaps at a later time. But it really is a discussion about the efficacy of pseudoscientific principles ("alternative" medicine).

    So I'm moving the thread to the pseudoscience subforum. This, however, shouldn't be seen as an offensive or pejorative action. I've always been a proponent of our pseudoscience section being a place where rational, critical discussion should take place about topics just such as these.
    I'm not offended by you moving the thread. My feelings are a little hurt by being classified as pseudo-scientific principles with "alternative" medicine in parenthesizes.

    If science was interested in cures through natural immunity the "science of cures" would prove conventional medicine and medical science as ("alternative" medicine) and pseudo-scientific.

    Skeptic, I would like to make an important note for you and others, please do not let the excuses for why science and medicine ignore my claims of cures or any claim of cure to be considered scientific, they are simply excuses and nothing more.

    At anytime, science could have taken the crazy claims they discredited in the past as placebo and turned them around and discovered cures without me having to do it myself. Scientifically speaking, excuses are like anuses, and medical excuses make anuses smell like roses.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    I pointed out in the other similar thread that the people behind Lorenzo's Oil overcame the problem of getting an unorthodox treatment accepted.

    Frankly, if Bleep has a treatment as good as the one he is claiming, then it is only a matter of time. In the mean time, I will live up to my nom de plume.

    All that is needed is to 'cure' patients that have been essentially written off by medical specialists, and then get the cured patient to return to that specialist. Those guys are desperate to get their names into print, and if they can write a research paper about an incurable condition that is cured, they will.

    However, we have all seen heaps of people claiming cures, and few, if any, pass the testing process. So I am not going to hold my breath.
    In reality I don't think "treatment" is the proper terminology. I do use the term but mostly because there isn't a better term for people to relate to. When your body cures a cold, you don't refer to it as a treatment do you?

    I hope you are right and it is only a matter of time. I have other interest and hobbies I would like to pursue.

    Funny thing is, when I see medical patients mostly written off by their doctors I tell them not to mention anything about my work. I tell them to let their doctors take full credit for your healing that way they can get an honest diagnoses and clean bill of health by their doctor. After all doctors have pride, they didn't spend 7 years in evil medical school, oops, Austin Powers got the best of me there, they didn't spend 7 years in medical school to be proven inferior.

    Nope, curing terminal patients doesn't make an impact unless science got involved and picked the patients and the number and I helped cure them all while they documented it which we know will not happen. No doctor is going to give up their career and 7 years of schooling to cures outside of medicine without moving to Mexico because their license to practice medicine in the states will be removed if they practice cures outside of medicne.

    Nope, medicine and medical science has effectively and completely sabotaged cures.

    So Skeptic, there is no convincing you that the human immune system is responsible for offering immunity and perfectly capable of it?

    I'm well aware that medicine has no science to suggest the immune system can offer any kind of immunity past third grade biology but that does not mean that your immune system cannot cure you.

    Sleepy on my first thread here ironically pointed out how sleep, dehydration, stress, starvation, drugs and poisons do not effect immunity according to medical science. WOW, I couldn't believe science would adopt this theory. NO WONDER THEY CAN'T CURE little ole' herpes. When it comes to common sense and logic there is nothing more pseudo-scientific than western conventional medicine and medical science which clearly accounts for its constant failures and ineffectiveness.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Bleep

    Couple of points.

    First, it would be good if you could get over your negative feelings towards the medical profession. Most of them are good people who are keen to help others. They are skeptical of your claims, as am I. The reason is not anything to do with nastiness, but simply hard experience.

    Every year, heaps of people pop up out of the woodwork claiming new and wonderful methods of curing people. Some are sufficiently persuasive that doctors test their claims. Very few show any promise, and pretty much every one fails the test. It is this experience that makes doctors sour towards claims such as yours.

    If your system actually works, and you want to get it accepted, you have to work with the medical profession. To do this, you have to shuck off any negative feelings towards them, and get cooperative.

    As I suggested before, if you manage to cure someone who has been written off by their doctor (or preferably, medical specialist), then send them back to that doctor to be checked over. Assuming a cure has been effected, then contact that doctor and work with him/her.

    Nearly always, a medical person will be keen to be part of any new medical discovery. If your system represents such a discovery, they will support you. Only if you are pushing a non effective system will they oppose you.

    The second point I must make relates to the immune system. Now I am not an immunologist, and thus, in all honesty, I cannot go into details. However, I am aware that the immune system is a highly complex piece of physiology. It is most definitely not a case of turn it up for a cure. In fact, an over-active immune system is not a nice thing to have. It leads to auto-immune illnesses, such as asthma, eczema, Lupus, or even lethal problems such as MS.

    For the human immune system to effect a cure, it must respond in the correct manner. As far as I know, the only effective and harmless way we have of achieving this artificially is via vaccines.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I find this discussion completely interesting and wish I had more than a moment to contribute. Perhaps at a later time. But it really is a discussion about the efficacy of pseudoscientific principles ("alternative" medicine).

    So I'm moving the thread to the pseudoscience subforum. This, however, shouldn't be seen as an offensive or pejorative action. I've always been a proponent of our pseudoscience section being a place where rational, critical discussion should take place about topics just such as these.
    I'm not offended by you moving the thread. My feelings are a little hurt by being classified as pseudo-scientific principles with "alternative" medicine in parenthesizes.
    Many if not the vast majority of the "alternative" approaches to medicine are, demonstrably, pseudoscientific in nature. Moreover, the choice to put "alternative" within the boundaries of inverted commas is both intentional and appropriate.

    There is no real alternative to medicine that can make any change in a person's health. Either a treatment is medicine or it is not. And by medicine, I'm referring to evidence-based treatments. Either a treatment is supported by evidence and is, thus, efficacious or it is not. If a treatment is not efficacious and supported by evidence, yet touted as helpful and claimed to have a benefit that simply doesn't exist, then it is pseudoscientific.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I find this discussion completely interesting and wish I had more than a moment to contribute. Perhaps at a later time. But it really is a discussion about the efficacy of pseudoscientific principles ("alternative" medicine).

    So I'm moving the thread to the pseudoscience subforum. This, however, shouldn't be seen as an offensive or pejorative action. I've always been a proponent of our pseudoscience section being a place where rational, critical discussion should take place about topics just such as these.
    I'm not offended by you moving the thread. My feelings are a little hurt by being classified as pseudo-scientific principles with "alternative" medicine in parenthesizes.
    Many if not the vast majority of the "alternative" approaches to medicine are, demonstrably, pseudoscientific in nature. Moreover, the choice to put "alternative" within the boundaries of inverted commas is both intentional and appropriate.

    There is no real alternative to medicine that can make any change in a person's health. Either a treatment is medicine or it is not. And by medicine, I'm referring to evidence-based treatments. Either a treatment is supported by evidence and is, thus, efficacious or it is not. If a treatment is not efficacious and supported by evidence, yet touted as helpful and claimed to have a benefit that simply doesn't exist, then it is pseudoscientific.
    Grand Prairie Texas, I've been there. Might be there again in a few months.

    Like I mentioned above to Skeptic, if you consider the last time you cured yourself of a cold, flue or any other infection as placebo or pseudoscientific then by all means cram me in there as well. But if you do not consider the immune system to be placebo or pseudoscientific you have clearly made some incorrect assumptions.

    You are clearly lumping me in with alternative medicine which I am not. Cures are not medicine because they require no medicine, they only require an immune response. So sure "alternative" medicine has milked the natural immune response for all it is worth making less informed people think that any cure outside of conventional western medicine is pure placebo or alternative when in fact is pure absolute solid science, but a science being completely ignored because no one can patent it or sell it.

    Cures require no treatment, they only require true knowledge something medical science is obviously short on or they would be curing diseases too.

    Also your claims of what is and what isn't evidence is subject to great interpretation and extremely questionable at best unless you disagree with Skeptic claim that medicine and science no longer investigates claims of cures because of all the wacko claims they have debunked as "placebo".

    Unless you experience something first hand it really isn't anything more than hearsay or secondhand information taken at face value.

    It may seem like we are beating a dead horse here but the point needs to be made before we can move on. The evidence and proof people ask for isn't always evidence or proof.

    This is what I posted about an opinion of empirical evidence.

    Your demand for "empirical evidence" though it seems logical isn't logical. Skeptic and I have already shown that medicine and its evidence is biased. This is found on my topic about placebo. Real evidence is going to be hard to find for issues that really matter. It's a money thing.

    Claims of cures are always going to be dismissed by science under the excuse that too many crazies have already been proven to be placebo. So with that kind of scientific bias it is very easy to say that the truth about actual health and healing as it pertains to cures will always be ignored and asking for "empirical evidence" is just mean and rubbing salt in a wound.

    I don't know who we blame this conundrum on? I do believe it is largely based on a corrupt medical establishment because at any time science could have gone a different direction when investigating claims of cures, instead of dubbing them as placebo and then writing them off as completely useless, science could have investigated the "effect" under the placebo and learned what caused the one or two our however many to show results from the modality but they didn't.

    You see, had science focused on the people who responded to the sugar pills they could have learned what took place internally causing their improvement and then once they learned what it was, they could simply duplicate it and do so with great consistency BUT how would they make money? Would the price of sugar go up? No of course not. There is no way to make money of a natural immune response there fore you and everyone else here will only assume medicine and medical science is based on "empirical evidence" when in reality it is mostly science fiction.

    I hope those aren't fightin' words. It's inevitable, what doesn't go to the highest bidder these days? Corruption cannot be stopped when fortunes can be made and no one will make a fortune off of cures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Surely you aren't creating a straw man out of my post above. You voiced a concern about my position on "alternative" medicine. I explained that position. This thread is separate from your other thread and the topic appears to be on "alternative" medicine in general rather than your unsupported claims from the other thread in particular.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Surely you aren't creating a straw man out of my post above. You voiced a concern about my position on "alternative" medicine. I explained that position. This thread is separate from your other thread and the topic appears to be on "alternative" medicine in general rather than your unsupported claims from the other thread in particular.
    OPINION. It is your opinion that this post "appears to be on "alternative" medicine in general. Matter of fact, it seems to be only your opinion.

    And I just addressed you "unsupported claims" accusation.

    Now I have addressed the issue of evidence, support and proof to show that it is all relevant and every stitch of it can be taken with a grain and reasonably questioned and debunked.

    I addressed this because you people believe their are people searching for cures and when cures are found they will be made public and there is no way cures could exist without science and medicine making it known.

    Not the case, medicine goes belly up with the introduction of cures so if you want cures you better start looking outside of medicine and medical science. You better look into yourself and your immune system and learn how control your own immunity.

    Placebo, double blind and triple blind studies have destroyed cures. Your "evidence" has destroyed cures. You cannot see the cures for the evidence in your way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    I am going to try to get back on topic with the OP. This is a "science" forum and science is seriously flawed otherwise there wouldn't be any such thing as an incurable disease.

    Flawed and corrupt science has spent thousands and maybe even millions of dollars debunking claims of cures that have appeared to be somewhat effective meaning that they were methods or modalities that had occasionally done what medicine could not have done. The corrupt science that proved modalities and methods to be placebo could have in turn invested minimal money on discovering what made the effect known as "placebo".

    No one will understand or enjoy cures until they acknowledge how flawed science is when it is controlled by greed.

    Double and triple blind studies should have paved a way for a new science and it would have done so if science wasn't governed by greed.

    If you have a disease you want cured, you do not need a sugar pill, product or any medicine alternative or western to cure it, you need only engage an immune response, the same response that gave way to the "effect" known as the placebo effect.

    Science could be real and true science again if people will demand it and stop paying for science fiction by donating zillions of dollars to it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,003
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    I am going to try to get back on topic with the OP. This is a "science" forum and science is seriously flawed otherwise there wouldn't be any such thing as an incurable disease.

    Flawed and corrupt science has spent thousands and maybe even millions of dollars debunking claims of cures that have appeared to be somewhat effective meaning that they were methods or modalities that had occasionally done what medicine could not have done. The corrupt science that proved modalities and methods to be placebo could have in turn invested minimal money on discovering what made the effect known as "placebo".

    No one will understand or enjoy cures until they acknowledge how flawed science is when it is controlled by greed.

    Double and triple blind studies should have paved a way for a new science and it would have done so if science wasn't governed by greed.

    If you have a disease you want cured, you do not need a sugar pill, product or any medicine alternative or western to cure it, you need only engage an immune response, the same response that gave way to the "effect" known as the placebo effect.

    Science could be real and true science again if people will demand it and stop paying for science fiction by donating zillions of dollars to it.
    Ok but you have yet to provide any backing evidence for these blanket claims of corruption...

    All you do is flail at the "corrupt establishment"

    If you would like to be taken seriously please show evidence of the cures that have been abandoned and the double/triple blind studied that have been performed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum
    Ok but you have yet to provide any backing evidence for these blanket claims of corruption...

    All you do is flail at the "corrupt establishment"

    If you would like to be taken seriously please show evidence of the cures that have been abandoned and the double/triple blind studied that have been performed.
    I know it is hard to keep up with me. I have been bouncing around a lot trying to bust myths that will absolutely positively prevent anyone here from ever appreciating cures.

    For example, cures cannot be tested through triple blind studies and testing them through double blind would take some tweaking.

    This is because cures are not product or medicine based so there is no product to blind test which is what blind testing is for. And because all science is geared to product sales there is no science geared to actual cures or cures without products so it is your prerogative to whether you abandon any notion of cures outside of medicine. Most people do. Most people only believe what they see on TV or read in medical journals. I'm not flailing at the "corrupt establishment" I am simply establishing that there are no cures in the "corrupt establishment" and that cures are not going to coincide with ineffective science as in the science you are most familiar with.

    So with that being said, I have no documented proof. I thought that was obvious with my lengthy discussion with Skeptic who explained why I would never have scientifically documented proof. I think it was understood all the way around that medical science would not touch cures outside of medicine with a ten foot pole so scientifically speaking does that mean the cures I speak of are not true or cannot exist? I don't have any documented evidence.

    Before I go further I want to see someone who has done their homework. You aren't interested in cures, your sole purpose here is to discredit me. That is the scientific bias destroying cures. You are only waiting for me to say something you can jump on when you should be excited. It's an ugly sick world we live in.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Still no evidence. I guess he doesn't care about being taken seriously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Still no evidence. I guess he doesn't care about being taken seriously.
    Did I say anything about providing evidence? No.

    No I am waiting to be taken seriously or waiting for someone else who wants to be taken seriously and I might go into greater detail. I didn't come here to argue with people.

    If anyone here wants to know how to cure diseases medicine cannot cure all they need to do is ask.

    Quite frankly I do not think there is anyone here who will risk discrediting their beloved medical science or their pride in exchange for understanding cures. I would love to be proved wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    If anyone here wants to know how to cure diseases medicine cannot cure all they need to do is ask.
    It's very important that you know your claim above is inconsistent with your previous comments... shown again below for reference:


    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    I would never have scientifically documented proof.

    <...>

    I don't have any documented evidence.

    You have been asked. You have failed to address the request with anything more than a bunch of hand waving and evasion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    No I am waiting to be taken seriously or waiting for someone else who wants to be taken seriously and I might go into greater detail.
    for the last frigging time: you will not be taken seriously until you begin to behave seriously. Drop the injured angst. Lose the crap about scientific corruption and speak to the heart of the issue, or piss off. Your choice. You aren't Jesus Christ recruiting dsicsiples, you allegedly have the solution to disease. Get of your self righteous ass and start communicating the principles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I vote we all quit replying and feeding the troll, and allow the threads to die a natural death.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    I came here looking for scientific validation and Skeptic explained that I will not get scientific validation here, on any other science forum or from medical science researchers and the reasons why. I accept Skeptic's explanation and I have no other reason for being here.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Well alrighty, then.

    Don't let the door hit ya...

    Send me an email at cfeagans AT ahotcupofjoe DOT net should you decide you like to come back and provide actual evidence. Otherwise, I'm going to help you along in your decision and put an indefinite suspension on your account.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Single blind - when the participant doesn't know which treatment they're receiving

    Double blind - when neither participant nor researcher knows which treatment they're receiving

    Triple blind - statistician carries out analysis not knowing which treatment arm is which

    Quadruple blind - patients, statisticians, data collectors and investigators determining outcome all blinded (very rare).

    Quintuple blind - no one has any idea what the results mean! (very common).


    Sorry, just a clinical research joke.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •