jimmyb84

Brazil for treatment

90 posts in this topic

Well I'm here at the casa and I say it's all bullshit...arnt I enough physical proof? My hppd has gotten improvement and what is here verses what is on the internet is total crap

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm here at the casa and I say it's all bullshit...arnt I enough physical proof? My hppd has gotten improvement and what is here verses what is on the internet is total crap

 

Unfortunately not, no- see previous posts. Also, I don't think you worded that quite the way you intended; I actually agree with half of what you've said here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyways I just hope that I can find some relief from this constant never ending fuking hppd nightmare I don't want to wake up another day with this shit

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of those skeptic sites are actually as b.s. as they claim other things are, in fact (I'll have to look through a mass of notes, but I can find it eventually), some are being sued/have lawsuits filed against them. I remember I was once sent this article written by one of these skeptics against the idea of water containing a structure, thus not affecting cell membranes, health, etc. Upon investigation, many of the citations in the skeptics articles were flawed, and many were just links to other 'skeptics'. There is actually a lot of double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled studies on energy healing. There were studies showing health benefits attributed to praying to/sending positive 'vibes' to chocolate, tea, coffee, etc. before consuming it, and it was replicated in multiple studies.

 

Many people such as Oliver Sacks, Jeffrey Mishlove, John Lilly, etc. have spoken about group meditations in which the group can imagine an image and everyone sees it, then literally animate it and people who are not partaking in the image can 'see' the animation with their eyes open, almost like a hallucination, yet completely controlled. Timothy Ferriss is funding studies at universities delving into Remote Viewing and the therapeutic value of lucid dreaming. 

 

Is any of this directly related to John of God? No. Indirectly related... yes. Faith/energy healing can have profound effects. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is actually a lot of double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled studies on energy healing. There were studies showing health benefits attributed to praying to/sending positive 'vibes' to chocolate, tea, coffee, etc. before consuming it, and it was replicated in multiple studies.

Studies or it didn't happen ;) . Seriously, though, links! :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of those skeptic sites are actually as b.s. as they claim other things are, in fact (I'll have to look through a mass of notes, but I can find it eventually), some are being sued/have lawsuits filed against them. I remember I was once sent this article written by one of these skeptics against the idea of water containing a structure, thus not affecting cell membranes, health, etc. Upon investigation, many of the citations in the skeptics articles were flawed, and many were just links to other 'skeptics'. There is actually a lot of double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled studies on energy healing. There were studies showing health benefits attributed to praying to/sending positive 'vibes' to chocolate, tea, coffee, etc. before consuming it, and it was replicated in multiple studies.

 

Many people such as Oliver Sacks, Jeffrey Mishlove, John Lilly, etc. have spoken about group meditations in which the group can imagine an image and everyone sees it, then literally animate it and people who are not partaking in the image can 'see' the animation with their eyes open, almost like a hallucination, yet completely controlled. Timothy Ferriss is funding studies at universities delving into Remote Viewing and the therapeutic value of lucid dreaming. 

 

Is any of this directly related to John of God? No. Indirectly related... yes. Faith/energy healing can have profound effects. 

 

There's so much nonsense going on in one post it's difficult to know where to start. I don't what you mean by "a  lot of those skeptic sites are actually as b.s. as they claim other things are". The last time I checked a sceptic (I don't know why the inverted commas either) was just someone who doubts a belief or claim until suitable evidence is provided. I'll happily change my mind on anything if there is good evidence to the contrary. I think pretty much everyone else who is generally sceptical is the same- unlike people of faith (belief without evidence) we don't have any vested interest in any particular belief.

 

Just because someone of a sceptical nature set up a website and carried out some lazy, flawed reporting doesn't mean all sceptical arguments are flawed. I don't know what that statement is supposed to prove. You seem to to have pre-conceived notions about people of a sceptical disposition and have lumped them all into this malign group rather than tackle any actual arguments. Lazy, I say.

 

I'm sure there are a lot of studies into energy healing etc. There should be if people are going to make the claims they do about it. But I have not seen one study that proves anything beyond a placebo effect at work. I'd be suprised if something like that breaks the laws of the universe could be proved and I won't hold my breath waiting for proof that praying to chocolate gives it magical health benefits. But hey, maybe these studies were genuine and properly conducted and you can provide the links.

 

Fitting, though, given all that you'd said before that you end with an assertion for which you offer no proof.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of pseudoscience around, no question about it. If we forget about the downright fraudulent (of which there is a lot) we're left with the ones which just don't live up to reasonable scientific standards. There is, of course, also unintentionally faulty science, like the now infamous superluminal neutrinos. My point here, is that there are no surefire indicators of "good science"[1], but there are indicators of bad science.

 

[1] Sometimes even well-thought out experiments just go wrong, just look at Nobel laureate R. Milikan and his ingenious attempts at showing that charge is a quantized quantity. They were well thought out, but in practice he ended up publishing some fairly reprehensible articles. Won him a Nobel prize nonetheless, primarily because he was right. :D

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's so much nonsense going on in one post it's difficult to know where to start. I don't what you mean by "a  lot of those skeptic sites are actually as b.s. as they claim other things are". The last time I checked a sceptic (I don't know why the inverted commas either) was just someone who doubts a belief or claim until suitable evidence is provided. I'll happily change my mind on anything if there is good evidence to the contrary. I think pretty much everyone else who is generally sceptical is the same- unlike people of faith (belief without evidence) we don't have any vested interest in any particular belief.

 

Just because someone of a sceptical nature set up a website and carried out some lazy, flawed reporting doesn't mean all sceptical arguments are flawed. I don't know what that statement is supposed to prove. You seem to to have pre-conceived notions about people of a sceptical disposition and have lumped them all into this malign group rather than tackle any actual arguments. Lazy, I say.

 

I'm sure there are a lot of studies into energy healing etc. There should be if people are going to make the claims they do about it. But I have not seen one study that proves anything beyond a placebo effect at work. I'd be suprised if something like that breaks the laws of the universe could be proved and I won't hold my breath waiting for proof that praying to chocolate gives it magical health benefits. But hey, maybe these studies were genuine and properly conducted and you can provide the links.

 

Fitting, though, given all that you'd said before that you end with an assertion for which you offer no proof.

Well, as you said, I don't know where to start. You try to point out things such as use of "inverted commas" and laziness, yet spell skeptic/skeptical wrong. Additionally I didn't mean my comment to be directed towards you, but just to be put out into the open, similar to how you say your skepticism (or should I say scepticism?) was for other 'vulnerable' people.

 

If we are going to play a game of critical thinking, there is a lot more to offering proof. You have yet to offer a rebuttal to any specifics of my comment, though used ad hominem attacks to disprove my remarks of 'skeptic' websites. I don't have preconceived notions against skeptics, as I'am often skeptical, too, though I don't identify myself as a 'skeptic', just as I don't identify myself as a 'Christian', 'atheist', 'conspiracy theorist', etc.

 

There are thousands of studies on energy healing, let alone things such as meditation or mindfulness; I suggest your read Robert O. Becker, a Nobel Laureate and orthopedic surgeon who worked for the Navy and was an inventor and displayed eletromagnetic radiations ability to completely regenerate organs and limbs; I hypothesize a lot of these energy modalities are actually effective due to (1) CO2 levels, and (2) electromagnetic energy, as our body is electromagnetic (look into the suprachaismatic nucelus).

 

Here is one of the studies I was speaking about:

 

Metaphysics of the Tea Ceremony A Randomized Trial Investigating the Roles of Intention and Belief on Mood While Drinking Tea by Dean Radin, PhD and Yung-Jong Shiah, PhD

Shiah YJ and Radin D (2013) Metaphysics of the tea ceremony: A randomized trial investigating the roles of intention and belief on mood while drinking tea. Explore. Nov-Dec;9(6):355-60. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2013.08.005.

Abstract

Why does mother's homemade soup seem to taste better than what is nominally the same soup extracted out of a tin can? Besides the use of fresher and perhaps more nutritious ingredients, homemade soup offers a component that is absent from commercial soups—mother's nurturing intentions. Do such intentions matter? A previously reported study investigated this question by exposing samples of chocolate, a natural mood enhancer, to focused beneficial intentions, and then testing under double-blind conditions whether people eating the intentionally treated chocolate would report better mood as compared to people eating untreated chocolate from the same source. The study's outcome supported the intention-enhancement hypothesis.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as you said, I don't know where to start. You try to point out things such as use of "inverted commas" and laziness, yet spell skeptic/skeptical wrong. Additionally I didn't mean my comment to be directed towards you, but just to be put out into the open, similar to how you say your skepticism (or should I say scepticism?) was for other 'vulnerable' people.

Please, not the grammar nazi game. "Sceptic" is completely acceptable, especially in the UK.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, not the grammar nazi game. "Sceptic" is completely acceptable, especially in the UK.

Haha, I wasn't the only grammar nazi; anyhow, I'm not from the UK, and when I type sceptic, it comes up with an error, perhaps that's due to being in the U.S.

 

Nonetheless, it's not very 'critical' to not seek out evidence for both sides of an argument. Chris clearly doesn't believe in energy medicine, so it is up to him to analyze evidence promoting energy medicine. I'm more than willing to analyze any evidence from a 'skeptic', yet there is already a plethora of information 'debunking' these skeptics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As stated "sceptic" is the UK spelling.

 

The wiki page explains some of the problems of positive reults in energy studies rather well:

 

"

There are many, primarily psychological, explanations for positive outcomes after energy therapy such as the placebo effect or cognitive dissonance. A 2009 review found that the "small successes" reported for two therapies collectively marketed as "energy psychology" (Emotional Freedom Techniques and Tapas Acupressure Technique) "are potentially attributable to well-known cognitive and behavioral techniques that are included with the energy manipulation." The report concluded that "Psychologists and researchers should be wary of using such techniques, and make efforts to inform the public about the ill effects of therapies that advertise miraculous claims."[27]

There are primarily two explanations for anecdotes of cures or improvements, relieving any need to appeal to the supernatural.[53] The first is post hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning that a genuine improvement or spontaneous remission may have been experienced coincidental with but independent from anything the healer or patient did or said. These patients would have improved just as well even had they done nothing. The second is the placebo effect, through which a person may experience genuine pain relief and other symptomatic alleviation. In this case, the patient genuinely has been helped by the healer, not through any mysterious or numinous function, but by the power of their own belief that they would be healed.[54][55] In both cases the patient may experience a real reduction in symptoms, though in neither case has anything miraculous or inexplicable occurred. Both cases, however, are strictly limited to the body's natural abilities.

Positive findings from research studies may also be explained by such psychological mechanisms, or as a result of experimenter bias, "methodological flaws"[27] or publication bias, and positive reviews of the scientific literature may show selection bias, in that they omit key studies that do not agree with the author's position.[27][28] All of these factors must be considered when evaluating claims."

 

I've personally seen a demonstration of energy healing that James Randi or Derren Brown couldn't debunk. In fact I believe there is a large cash prize for anyone who can prove claims such as these.

 

"A previously reported study investigated this question by exposing samples of chocolate, a natural mood enhancer, to focused beneficial intentions, and then testing under double-blind conditions whether people eating the intentionally treated chocolate would report better mood as compared to people eating untreated chocolate from the same source."

 

-What does this mean? What were the conditions of the experiment? It's all very vague. Do you have the actual study rather than just the abstract?

 

And how do you debunk a sceptic? They're not making any positive assertions. Rather they are just making logical arguments and using scientific facts to disprove claims made by others. Their capacity to do this will vary from person to person and of course flawed arguments may be made. That doesn't prove the original assertion by default, though. And I'd like to know which sceptics were 'debunked'. Actual scientists or people who have a blog? And again do you have links?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, for instance, this person who just spews a bunch of quotes arguing against structured water despite about 100yrs of evidence against everything he says, and no, I'm not talking about the Japanese researcher who took photos of water after it was subjected to positive intentions; I'm talking about 250+ clinical studies done at/through the University of Washington with Gerald Pollack, let alone amazing scientists such as Albert Szent-Gyorgi, Gilbert Ling, and Michael Polyani. 

 

Light structures water, and probably played a significant role in the origin of life.

 

All of the 'skeptics' I've seen make bold claims and rarely provide ample evidence, mainly just quotes from people with huge financial incentives and blatant biases. For instance, Science Based Medicine. Lol, one of the most ridiculous sites I've seen.

 

"3. Claims for efficacy are often based upon a bait-and-switch deception

The most common example of the “bait-and-switch” for acupuncture are studies that examined the effects on pain of electrical stimulation through acupuncture needles. This is not acupuncture – it is transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS), which is an accepted treatment for chronic pain, masquerading as acupuncture.

This is not a quibble. Science requires unambiguous definition of terms and concepts. If acupuncture is said to be something scientifically then it must have some specific and unique characteristics. In medicine that means it should have a specific mechanism of action – and it is that mechanism that we would call acupuncture. Electrical stimulation is no more acupuncture than if morphine were injected through a hollow acupuncture needle and then claimed that any resulting pain relief was due to “acupuncture.”"

I'm not even going to get into how Dr. Robert O. Becker, who, again, was a Nobel Laureate, Navy researcher, surgeon who cured diabetic ulcers with a 100% success rate over a period of a decade, regenerated finger tips, regenerated salamander hearts, etc. proved the basis of acupuncture. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I highly recommend watching the ThinkingAllowedTV videos on youtube, or purchasing their DVD's. They're all very reputable scientists, such as Oliver Sacks, who discuss a lot of things that if buying into various 'skeptic' sites, would be complete quackery.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't what to do with any of that. And if all of the sceptics you've seen make bold claims and rarely provide ample evidence then I can only suggest confirmation bias at work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how there is nothing to do with it - I provided evidence of a so called skeptic who 'debunked' structured water, then provided evidence for structured water by one of the most renown biologists in the world. I also posted two other studies on intention and then a video by a renown physicist who discusses the scientific basis for shamanic practices. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary besides a portion of a wikipedia article that just says there is placebo at play and so forth. 

 

Also, I can experience and quantify energy medicine in real time by tracking my heart rate variability. All I have to do is simply look at something, say a picture, and there is a distinct and lasting effect. I can think of something, then the same thing occurs. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is someone blogging about structured water the best you can do? Maybe their argument was or wasn't flawed but what does that prove? Same for the other studies. And if you are going to continue to search out bloggers to discredit rather than actual 'sceptical' scientific studies themselves can you at least try someone like Ben Goldacre and stick to energy healing for the time being?

 

If you think the placebo effect can be the only problem with these studies then you can't have read the whole thing, or have chosen to ignore that which may be troubling.

 

"Also, I can experience and quantify energy medicine in real time by tracking my heart rate variability. All I have to do is simply look at something, say a picture, and there is a distinct and lasting effect. I can think of something, then the same thing occurs."

 

- Seriously? Is some kind of 'energy' the only explanation for this? I honestly don't know how you can offer up a subjective experience like that and expect it to prove anything. It's barely even an anecdote.

 

And of course, I don't take any of this personally nor should anything I say be taken personally; I enjoy a spirited debate- even at one in the morning after several glasses of wine. :D

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- Seriously? Is some kind of 'energy' the only explanation for this? I honestly don't know how you can offer up a subjective experience like that and expect it to prove anything. It's barely even an anecdote.

 

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that I can use energy medicine practices and quantify it via heart rate variability, meaning, it affects HRV which is a measurement of nervous system activity. So, that is one of many ways which energy medicine can affect a person. Information on HRV is abundant in the literature, so if I do something that affects it, that is significant. Many supplements and foods directly impact my HRV meaning that it directly or indirectly produces or diminishes a stress response in my body. 

 

So, for instance, in missjess's case, for all we know she is in a very therapeutic environment with positive people and the reason she is in a better mood, feels a bit better mentally (which is evident in the evolution of her typing, for the most part), etc. is all due to a very significant increase in "coherence"/HRV, which things such as mindfulness and meditation also effect. 

 

I'm willing to look at any other 'skeptic' scientists; I was trying to make a point that a lot of the so-called skeptics I see barely abide by the rules of critical thinking and logic (in terms of philosophy) as it is, and thus their arguments aren't really worth spending time on. I used the structured water example for a variety of reasons; of water can be structured by light or intentions or vibrations or magnets or anything, who's to say other things can't be? Additionally, there is this whole revolutionary idea about the role of water in cells, in fact, it can potentially be more important to cells than the so called "cell membrane" (going by the 'fluid mosaic model', at least). If this is true, making the leap that positive intentions, meditation, etc. structures water, it can structure cellular water, too, thus giving explanations for energy medicine (in fact, there are hundreds of studies looking into this, some completed, some currently being completed); though electromedicine already gives an adequate scientific foundation, hence my references to Dr. Robert O. Becker. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The first is post hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning that a genuine improvement or spontaneous remission may have been experienced coincidental with but independent from anything the healer or patient did or said. These patients would have improved just as well even had they done nothing. The second is the placebo effect, through which a person may experience genuine pain relief and other symptomatic alleviation. In this case, the patient genuinely has been helped by the healer, not through any mysterious or numinous function, but by the power of their own belief that they would be healed.[54][55] In both cases the patient may experience a real reduction in symptoms, though in neither case has anything miraculous or inexplicable occurred. Both cases, however, are strictly limited to the body's natural abilities."

 

I'll be honest, I don't know a thing about HRV but surely this is a more plausible explanation for any improvement than any energy/spiritual healing. I'll read more on it, however.

 

We really must have been reading very different sceptical writers (confirmation bias on both sides?) because I have not found a prevalence not to abide by the rules of critical thinking and logic. Rather, that seems to me to come from the proponents of things like energy healing. And I say this as philosophy graduate, for what that's worth.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The first is post hoc ergo propter hoc, meaning that a genuine improvement or spontaneous remission may have been experienced coincidental with but independent from anything the healer or patient did or said. These patients would have improved just as well even had they done nothing. The second is the placebo effect, through which a person may experience genuine pain relief and other symptomatic alleviation. In this case, the patient genuinely has been helped by the healer, not through any mysterious or numinous function, but by the power of their own belief that they would be healed.[54][55] In both cases the patient may experience a real reduction in symptoms, though in neither case has anything miraculous or inexplicable occurred. Both cases, however, are strictly limited to the body's natural abilities."

 

I'll be honest, I don't know a thing about HRV but surely this is a more plausible explanation for any improvement than any energy/spiritual healing. I'll read more on it, however.

 

We really must have been reading very different sceptical writers (confirmation bias on both sides?) because I have not found a prevalence not to abide by the rules of critical thinking and logic. Rather, that seems to me to come from the proponents of things like energy healing. And I say this as philosophy graduate, for what that's worth.

We very likely were speaking about different skeptics, haha. Yeah, look into HRV - I've been occasionally dabbling with it and it's an effective way to get into a meditative state since it gives you real time feedback on your emotional/mental state; definitely nothing as potent as doing to a trained neurofeedback practitioner, though.

 

If you don't mind me asking, what 'kind' of philosophy did you study? I'm only working on my associates degree right now (and soon enough, some certifications in various fields), but I've taken philosophy of critical thinking and I'm eager to take "Philosophy of Logic". Those two courses, along with ethics, I believe should be mandatory, haha. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys.

To be honest I wish I hadn't started this thread.

My intentions were good, hoping everyone would get behind miss Jess and support her over her journey.

Instead unfortunantly, it's turned into alternative healing/treatment Vs mainstream medicine debate.

As I'm sure you can all relate including myself, this condition eats you up and spits you out leaving the individual extremely vulnerable at times. My point being despite if you agree or disagree with this method of treatment please take the debate side of things some place else and keep this space only for Positive and Encouraging comments.

Thank you

Jimbo baggins

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now