Thread: Indian man 'survives without food or water for decades'

Originally Posted by Photolysis

There are however times where I am so offended by what is being said that I will not hesitate to give my opinion on the matter, and quite frankly I won't apologise for that. Sometimes it really is necessary to do so.

You are welcome to give your opinion, as is everyone else...but please do so in a respectful manner, in accordance with forum rules. This goes for everyone. And yes, back on topic...

edit: ah yeah, what MM said

I created a thread about vaccines.
Here is the link: http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...68#post1451768

I included evidence. So, now you can read the evidence I offer and then see how 'unreasonable' I am. Maybe you might learn something.

This one claims that nearly 800,000 people die each year from conventional medicine. And 2.2 million people have bad reactions to prescribed drugs each year.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/...i_death_01.htm

This one claims the same thing.

http://www.communicationagents.com/s...jury_in_us.htm

This one claims just over 200,000 deaths per year. Much lower but still in the top 5 causes of death.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...-part-one.aspx

This one is reporting just under 800,000 again.

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/medicine/usamed.htm

This one claims 100,000 deaths, and 2.1 million serious injures a year. And says its the 6th leading cause of death.

http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/meddeath.htm

This one says its the second leading cause of unintentional death.

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/the...n-the-us.html#


Like I said, I just did a quick search, and found a lot of stuff saying that. So she isn't just pulling it out of her ass, apparently there are a lot of articles saying things like that.

The flu and stuff is an entirely different issue. The flu vaccine is one of the vaccines I would never get. I normally very careful when it comes to anecdotal evidence, but in this case I just have to make an exception, since nearly everything shows it to not be very effective, and people are always getting sick from taking it. I just really doubt the studies involved in it.

As for things that will seriously injure or kill you, yea get the shot. Chances of a dog having rabies in the US is practically 0. However if a strange dog bit me, you better believe I would get a shot for it.

There's only one book? There's your first red flag juroara.

All new science is the work of a small group, even sometimes one person. Breakthroughs aren't always popular, not when they challenge the dogma. Bruce however is not the only biologist arguing that universities are teaching an outdated form of biology based on a Newtonian view of the universe. That we need to start applying the newest breakthroughs in physics, which is the most fundamental, to biology.

The scientific method was designed to be human proof, made so that humans can't screw things up with their biases and predjudices.

Exactly what bias and prejudice is inherent in this new science?

I would like to see the results of that experiement for myself

In the book there is appendix showing the original source of the different experiments that are talked about. So that, if you are in disbelief or feel the experiment was misrepresented you can find the source and read/learn about it yourself and decide. Yes, its work finding the original source, but at least it's listed so that you can.

because I can almost gurantee there was some shoddy detective work going on

Isn't that a bias?

How come this experiment hasn't been repeated?

Who says it hasn't been repeated? The real question is why aren't these experiments getting more attention? That's something that Bruce struggled with for years. Much of what he talks about are based on experiments (not only his) that have been going on for the past decade if not longer. Why don't more people know about it?

Money is power. And in this day and age truth is getting harder to get out there. Look at FDA. The top dogs in the FDA are also the top dogs in the very same companies they are supposed to be regulating! There are plenty of tests showing how aspartame is crap, and it's taken YEARS for that message to reach the public. Why is it a battle to get the message out there? Because the top dogs in FDA make serious money from aspartame.

This new science directly challanges Big Pharma. It's a battle getting the information out there. Big Pharma slanders, it out right lies about holistic medicine and practices. Eating abundant fruit helps prevent cancer. And this practice of eating abundant fruit, if you can call it a practice, gets slandered as new-age mumbo jumbo, when really it just makes logical sense! Cancer is on the rise, and people are eating crap. You can drink fruit juices, nourish your body's defenses, strengthen it, or poison it with radiation. I dunno, what's more logical to you? When was the last time Big Pharma helped to spread the word that a raw fruit and vegetable diet has healed people from cancer?

And how do you explain how people get poison ivy without knowing they touched it? I used to get poison ivy all the time as a kid, but I didn't do it on purpose. I unknowingly brushed up against it and then later the rash would appear. I didn't expect for a rash to form, it just did, without the help of my mind.

I thought this question would come up. There was a mind involved in your ivy experience, the subconscious mind. The subconscious mind is taking in thousands of times more information a second than our tiny puny conscious mind. The image I was given to see just how great the subconscious mind is....is a dot on a page. The dot is the consciousness, everything else is the subconscious. And as dreamers we get a first hand look of just how incredible the subconscious is, able to reproduce every minute detail we consciously couldn't.

It's our subconscious that stores the beliefs. And it activates them like a program. Babies and children are developing belief-programs, given to them by their parents. Take water for example. All human beings are born knowing how to swim. And were good swimmers at that. So why do we lose our ability to swim, when its INSTINCTUAL? Why do most of us have to re-learn it at a later age?

Babies aren't biased. Their brains are simply wired to take in what their parents give them. Babies are extremely perceptive of how their parents react to things. Babies lose their ability to swim when mom flips out when baby gets too close to water. The subconscious mind of the baby just created a new belief......"deep water is bad". This belief now overrides the instinctual knowledge of swimming. Now the baby is in danger of drowning because this belief is the program that's on auto-run.

If I have never heard of this experiment, it means there is something about it that calls its validity into question

So unless you've heard about it, it isn't valid? You know it doesn't work that way. What if someone you admired told you about these experiments? Would your perception be different?

So I guess the Indian man who went 70 years without food or water discussion is settled, so now we can debate western medicine?
I want people to argue with the evidence I posted on the thread about vaccinations and immunizations linked above. What's the matter? Afraid?
Anyway,
I never got poison ivy or poison oak as a kid. Then my grandma tells me that she used to not either. Until one day she got it real bad and so she stays away from it. The next day I caught it just a little bit. I thought that it was too much of a coincidence so I thought that hearing my Grandma's story made me allergic to it. So I decided not to be. To this day I have never gotten poison ivy, or poison oak since then. And another thing I learned to do was to not be allergic to mosquito bites. Now they won't even bite me. The just fly on by. Now I don't have to kill mosquitoes. When I go camping the girls are always complaining about the mosquitoes and they get eaten up. I try to teach them to not be allergic to mosquitoes but they aren't interested. Because I think that it means that they would have to believe that the mind effects the body. Obviously! It is a body/mind.

Originally Posted by Alric

Like I said, I just did a quick search, and found a lot of stuff saying that. So she isn't just pulling it out of her ass, apparently there are a lot of articles saying things like that.

The flu and stuff is an entirely different issue. The flu vaccine is one of the vaccines I would never get. I normally very careful when it comes to anecdotal evidence, but in this case I just have to make an exception, since nearly everything shows it to not be very effective, and people are always getting sick from taking it. I just really doubt the studies involved in it.

“There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza. The producers of these vaccines know that they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.”

- Dr. J. Anthony Morris (former Chief Vaccine Control Officer of FDA)

I find this hard to believe, but I'm open to what the reality of it may be. At first I instantly thought "...70 years without food and water? Well the body would dehydrate". The guy actually doesn't look that starved, but what if he is dehydrated and is simply alive at the same time? Could the laws of physics still be in play while he is actually conscious? I won't deny this does seem nonsensical at first.


Photolysis you need to stop acting so arrogant. Your Science/Faith image is completely biased. You have faith in your model as does anybody else have faith in theirs.

Originally Posted by juroara

All new science is the work of a small group, even sometimes one person. Breakthroughs aren't always popular, not when they challenge the dogma. Bruce however is not the only biologist arguing that universities are teaching an outdated form of biology based on a Newtonian view of the universe. That we need to start applying the newest breakthroughs in physics, which is the most fundamental, to biology.

That isn't true and it still doesn't change the fact that this study is unscientific. Usually a scientist, if he is smart and cares about his career, will make damn sure he can prove beyond any question of a doubt the validity of his theory before he pubishes any papers on it, much less a whole book. The fact that he already wrote a book geared towards the public is very suspect considering the fact that he should first convince the scientific community before he publicly disgraces his own name. To me that says he is trying to gain a cult following from all of the people who are naive enough to give him their money. The majority of New York Times best sellers can be chalked down to that phenomenon. The fact that you call science dogma is further evidence of your scientific ignorance. I am really trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here but you are making it hard on me. Have you not been taught anything on the scientific process? How exactly do the newest breakthroughs in physics relate to this pseudo-biology?

Originally Posted by juroara

Exactly what bias and prejudice is inherent in this new science?

The fact that you use your intuition to guess at the cause of certain phenomenon when there is no means to perform an objective test. But the meaning of my post was to inform you of the purpose of the scientific method, something you erroneously likened to a religious belief system.

Originally Posted by juroara

In the book there is appendix showing the original source of the different experiments that are talked about. So that, if you are in disbelief or feel the experiment was misrepresented you can find the source and read/learn about it yourself and decide. Yes, its work finding the original source, but at least it's listed so that you can.

That's your job. You're crazy if you think I am going to hunt down this book and check the appendix for the sake of this argument. But you should be able to back your facts up if you are going to present them as an argument.

Originally Posted by juroara

Isn't that a bias?

No. Wanting to verify the validity of a study is biased?

Originally Posted by juroara

Who says it hasn't been repeated? The real question is why aren't these experiments getting more attention? That's something that Bruce struggled with for years. Much of what he talks about are based on experiments (not only his) that have been going on for the past decade if not longer. Why don't more people know about it?

Money is power. And in this day and age truth is getting harder to get out there. Look at FDA. The top dogs in the FDA are also the top dogs in the very same companies they are supposed to be regulating! There are plenty of tests showing how aspartame is crap, and it's taken YEARS for that message to reach the public. Why is it a battle to get the message out there? Because the top dogs in FDA make serious money from aspartame.

This new science directly challanges Big Pharma. It's a battle getting the information out there. Big Pharma slanders, it out right lies about holistic medicine and practices. Eating abundant fruit helps prevent cancer. And this practice of eating abundant fruit, if you can call it a practice, gets slandered as new-age mumbo jumbo, when really it just makes logical sense! Cancer is on the rise, and people are eating crap. You can drink fruit juices, nourish your body's defenses, strengthen it, or poison it with radiation. I dunno, what's more logical to you? When was the last time Big Pharma helped to spread the word that a raw fruit and vegetable diet has healed people from cancer?

So now it's turning into a giant conspiracy. What is with this site and conspiracy theories? Juroara, your argument just turned from the unscientific to the ridiculous.

-- "The real question is why aren't these experiments getting more attention? That's something that Bruce struggled with for years. Much of what he talks about are based on experiments (not only his) that have been going on for the past decade if not longer. Why don't more people know about it?"

There is a very simple answer to this question juroara. Science is not usually prone to conspiracies, bribary, deceit, or what have you. The sheer size and integrity of the scientific community as a whole ensures that any frauds are eventually exposed. If anybody outside of Bruces circle saw any validity or even any promise in these studies, they would be getting the attention they deserve. (I chose to flat out ignore your comment about the connection between vegetables and cancer on account of it is so ridiculous it doesn't even deserve the light of day.)

Originally Posted by juroara

I thought this question would come up. There was a mind involved in your ivy experience, the subconscious mind. The subconscious mind is taking in thousands of times more information a second than our tiny puny conscious mind. The image I was given to see just how great the subconscious mind is....is a dot on a page. The dot is the consciousness, everything else is the subconscious. And as dreamers we get a first hand look of just how incredible the subconscious is, able to reproduce every minute detail we consciously couldn't.

It's our subconscious that stores the beliefs. And it activates them like a program. Babies and children are developing belief-programs, given to them by their parents. Take water for example. All human beings are born knowing how to swim. And were good swimmers at that. So why do we lose our ability to swim, when its INSTINCTUAL? Why do most of us have to re-learn it at a later age?

Babies aren't biased. Their brains are simply wired to take in what their parents give them. Babies are extremely perceptive of how their parents react to things. Babies lose their ability to swim when mom flips out when baby gets too close to water. The subconscious mind of the baby just created a new belief......"deep water is bad". This belief now overrides the instinctual knowledge of swimming. Now the baby is in danger of drowning because this belief is the program that's on auto-run.

Yes, thats all well and good, but it doesn't answer my question. My unconscious mind can't know things that I don't first filter throw my consciouness or experience through my senses. If I don't see or feel myself touch the poison ivy, my unconscious mind, in its infinite wisdom, can't know either. You are trying to play off all kinds of unrelated anecdotes as scientific evidence, again hinting at your lack of reasoning capacity. Poison ivy secretes an oily substance that irritates skin and forms a rash on contact. There is no evidence that our minds play any part in this chain of events. It is a chemical reaction that happens between two different substances, nothing more. You literally have no ground to stand on with your arguement, not a shred of evidence. The fact that you devote yourself so fully to a concept that so horrible disregards the need for evidence shows me you are in no state to argue about science.

Originally Posted by juroara

So unless you've heard about it, it isn't valid? You know it doesn't work that way. What if someone you admired told you about these experiments? Would your perception be different?

If my own mother told me, it would make no difference. But if a real scientist told me, of course my perception would be different. That fact that I have never heard of any scientist with a notable career advocate any study of this nature tells me there is something fishy. You should get the same feeling. The fact that so little is known about what constitutes a "thought" is evidence that no real scientific study of this nature could be done at the present moment without a great deal of subjective bias. As of right now, you can't hook anybody up to a machine and prove that their thoughts are what caused or prevented the poison ivy from forming a rash.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

And another thing I learned to do was to not be allergic to mosquito bites. Now they won't even bite me. The just fly on by. Now I don't have to kill mosquitoes. When I go camping the girls are always complaining about the mosquitoes and they get eaten up. I try to teach them to not be allergic to mosquitoes but they aren't interested. Because I think that it means that they would have to believe that the mind effects the body. Obviously! It is a body/mind.

That's quite a fantastic claim you made there. You just choose not to be allergic? So your mind has physically changed your DNA structure? Or have you just convinced yourself that your not allergic because you have not had and allergic reaction, thus providing your own confirmation bias to yourself.

I too have learned to ignore mosquitoe bites, but that doesn't mean they don't bite me. I just choose to ignore it. I can ignore a lot of things and continue on as if nothing has happened, but that doesn't mean I haven't been affected by it - I'm just choosing to ignore it. Mind over matter? Yes. Means I'm not affected? No. I just choose to ignore it.

Well, I claim that I'm not allergic to poison ivy because I haven't had an allergic reaction to it. In my travels I always set my camp up in the middle of a huge patch of poison ivy whenever I could in order to be left alone.
As for mosquito bites. Mostly they don't bite me. Every once in a while one will land on me and then fly away. When I do get bit, I don't get a bump and it doesn't itch. I don't know if my mind does this, like I said, I have never been allergic to poison ivy or poison oak.

However, I have not been able to cure my allergy to dairy. I guess I will have to go without pizza.


There is a paradigm conflict here, obviously. One side says that any claim made has to be proven true by scientists. The other side says that there is plenty of evidence, just not scientific. I think that the problem relates to the belief that the only truth is science and only science can know what is true. The scientific method is foolproof when it figures something out, but there are flaws, not in the method, but the actual way that science gets funded. Saying that the scientists cannot be bribed just isn't true. Most of the studies of these pharmaceuticals are funded by the pharmaceutical companies. ANd it is hard for other scientists to get funded who are looking for other answers. And discoveries in one branch of science should also be investigated in other branches. Discoveries in physics should be investigated in biology as well. After all, it is all one reality.

Calling it a conspiracy doesn't mean that it isn't true. Is it so crazy to see that companies protect their own interests? Why is the pharmaceutical companies a major campaign contributor and lobbyist organization? Why did they pass a law that experimental drugs can now be given to the public without proper testing? The H1N1 vaccine was only made possible by this law being passed RIGHT BEFORE we heard of the swine flu. Why are the heads of the FDA usually on the board of directors of pharmaceutical companies?

Calling something a conspiracy theory is a term meant to discredit it, but actually has no meaning. Surely all these corporations and all the politicians have our best interests in mind. We should just believe whatever they say without question.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

That isn't true and it still doesn't change the fact that this study is unscientific.

There isn't anything else left to say except that you MADE THIS UP. You have no evidence what so ever that this study is unscientific. This study took place in a real laboratory with other - for the record- materialistic atheist scientists.

I'm not going to paraphrase the book, nor is it my job to. It's there if you want to know. If you don't, then you don't.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I never got poison ivy or poison oak as a kid. Then my grandma tells me that she used to not either. Until one day she got it real bad and so she stays away from it. The next day I caught it just a little bit. I thought that it was too much of a coincidence so I thought that hearing my Grandma's story made me allergic to it. So I decided not to be. To this day I have never gotten poison ivy, or poison oak since then. And another thing I learned to do was to not be allergic to mosquito bites. Now they won't even bite me. The just fly on by.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

I don't know if my mind does this,

This is in direct contrast with a post you made just inches above.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

There is a paradigm conflict here, obviously. One side says that any claim made has to be proven true by scientists. The other side says that there is plenty of evidence, just not scientific. I think that the problem relates to the belief that the only truth is science and only science can know what is true. The scientific method is foolproof when it figures something out, but there are flaws, not in the method, but the actual way that science gets funded. Saying that the scientists cannot be bribed just isn't true. Most of the studies of these pharmaceuticals are funded by the pharmaceutical companies. ANd it is hard for other scientists to get funded who are looking for other answers. And discoveries in one branch of science should also be investigated in other branches. Discoveries in physics should be investigated in biology as well. After all, it is all one reality.

This sounds like a cop out to me. My problem is that you are trying to be scientific, especially juroara. Now you say it can't be proved by science, but you will most likely continue your attemts to prove it in a scientific manner. I think your viewpoint as a whole is wishy-washy. You personally are notorious for back-pedalling, no offense.

As for scientists being bribed, an individual can be bribed, yes. The scientific community as a whole is a world-wide network. As I said earlier, any frauds or "untruths" will eventuall be exposed. That is the beauty of the system.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

Calling it a conspiracy doesn't mean that it isn't true. Is it so crazy to see that companies protect their own interests? Why is the pharmaceutical companies a major campaign contributor and lobbyist organization? Why did they pass a law that experimental drugs can now be given to the public without proper testing? The H1N1 vaccine was only made possible by this law being passed RIGHT BEFORE we heard of the swine flu. Why are the heads of the FDA usually on the board of directors of pharmaceutical companies?

Calling something a conspiracy theory is a term meant to discredit it, but actually has no meaning. Surely all these corporations and all the politicians have our best interests in mind. We should just believe whatever they say without question.

There is an unavoidable reality when it comes to conspiracy theories: 99% of the time they are not true. Maybe they started with a colonel of truth, but they inevitably get blown way out of proportion. You should always be hyper-critical of any movement with the conspiracy tilte attached to it. If it survives the onslaught, then it may be legitimate after all, but you can usually be sure it isn't. If you study the leaders and the origin of a movement, it is very easy to judge its validity. Also a lack of verifiable evidence is a tell-tale sign of a conspiracy. The problem here is not that pharmaceutical companies are fudging information, it is that they are supposedly suppressing the work of the entire scientific community. Most of the worlds greatest scientists work for universities or other organizations not affiliated with the government or big businesses. Those scientists are free to publish whatever they feel is important.

Originally Posted by juroara

There isn't anything else left to say except that you MADE THIS UP. You have no evidence what so ever that this study is unscientific. This study took place in a real laboratory with other - for the record- materialistic atheist scientists.

I'm not going to paraphrase the book, nor is it my job to. It's there if you want to know. If you don't, then you don't.

Whatever juroara, I just spent a consiberable amount of time telling you why it is not scientific. And you know I can't just take your word for it, so don't bother to cite it if you can't back it up or even show me where it came from. I have a strange inkling that maybe the findings of such an experiment would be inconclusive, but a person with a mindset similar to yours wold have no problem injecting the results they expected.

I could call my dorm room a labratory if I wanted to, and I could name dozens of individuals who call themselves scientists but are acutally nothing of the sort nor are the recognized as such by the rest of the community. That tells me nothing.

You claim that I am back pedaling because Juroara is talking about science? I said that I don't know if my mind did this, and I related an experience that makes it seem possible. But I am not certain. You, however are certain that the mind can't do such things.

My quote about science and paradigms is not a cop out. I say that because personally, I think science is very limited, and the scientific method is very limited. But what it can do it does right.
I was just pointing out that to science devotees only one avenue of information qualifies as evidence and that is the limitation of science. Science devotees seem to not be able to heal themselves
or have access to any kind of knowledge that falls outside of the small realm of science. And they consider that science is the only source of truth. For things like immunizations, you need science.
But for things like self healing, and meditation, and living without food or water, science is clueless. That is the paradigm conflict I speak of. Of narrowing all experience through the lens of science,
which blocks out so much of experience.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

Whatever juroara, I just spent a consiberable amount of time telling you why it is not scientific.

What is not scientific? An experiment was set up, and there were results. That's science! There are plenty of experiments showing the placebo effect to be real, including people taking sugar pills and testifying how great their new medicine works. You can talk all day about the biology of the plant, it doesn't negate the results of the experiment.

It means that something very strange and fascinating is happening that is worthy of research, not turning a blinds eye and pretending these accounts didn't happen. I didn't post these examples as a scientific argument. I posted them to spark some sense of curiosity in you. Aren't you the least bit curious as to why the placebo effect works? Do you ever question how often the placebo effect is working?

I have a strange inkling that maybe the findings of such an experiment would be inconclusive, but a person with a mindset similar to yours wold have no problem injecting the results they expected.

That's how you feel. And that's exactly what that is, how you feel.

I could call my dorm room a labratory

A good scientist would turn their room into a laboratory. But since Bruce teaches at the university level, I would like to think he would have some access to their facilities.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

You claim that I am back pedaling because Juroara is talking about science? I said that I don't know if my mind did this, and I related an experience that makes it seem possible. But I am not certain. You, however are certain that the mind can't do such things.

Juroara has nothing to do with you. I was saying that you have a tendency to make very fantastical claims without much regard to their validity, then when proven wrong you'll says things like "well that may not be true but blah blah blah" or you'll say something to the nature of "well I can't really be sure but that's just what I thought." It make it hard to take you seriously when you repeatedly make such bold claims and then immediately back pedal at the first sign of opposition.

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

My quote about science and paradigms is not a cop out. I say that because personally, I think science is very limited, and the scientific method is very limited. But what it can do it does right.
I was just pointing out that to science devotees only one avenue of information qualifies as evidence and that is the limitation of science. Science devotees seem to not be able to heal themselves
or have access to any kind of knowledge that falls outside of the small realm of science. And they consider that science is the only source of truth. For things like immunizations, you need science.
But for things like self healing, and meditation, and living without food or water, science is clueless. That is the paradigm conflict I speak of. Of narrowing all experience through the lens of science,
which blocks out so much of experience.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The only avenues science is unable to venture through are the supernatural. Psychology is not supernatural. Self healing, if real, is something that would be measurable and testable. Some of the claims being made, especially about living a lifetime without food or water, are just not physically possible. Science isn't so limited that it can't tell us that much. If you go in with the right mindset, there is really nothing in the universe outside the scope of science, with the exception of human fantasies. Carl Jung for instance, offers great insight into what it really means to be spiritual, and he does it without any supernatural "new age" mumbo jumbo. He is the one who opened me to the idea of "rational spirituality."

Originally Posted by juroara

What is not scientific? An experiment was set up, and there were results. That's science! There are plenty of experiments showing the placebo effect to be real, including people taking sugar pills and testifying how great their new medicine works. You can talk all day about the biology of the plant, it doesn't negate the results of the experiment.

It means that something very strange and fascinating is happening that is worthy of research, not turning a blinds eye and pretending these accounts didn't happen. I didn't post these examples as a scientific argument. I posted them to spark some sense of curiosity in you. Aren't you the least bit curious as to why the placebo effect works? Do you ever question how often the placebo effect is working?

I'll say it one more time, and I'll try to be as clear and concise as possible. You rubbed some poison ivy on some kids, some kids who were rubbed with poison ivy did not develop a rash, some kids who were not rubbed with poison ivy somehow manifested the toxic oil on their skin and formed a rash. FASCINATING! ---That should be the end of the experiment, publish that interesting fact and leave the question unanswered. They drew a bold conclusion that they were not a liberty to draw, not as scientists. Clear? If you asked them to explain the process, they would not be able to do it, because they don't know. Do they even know if it was actually poison ivy that developed? Did they test it? Or was bruce in too much of a hurry to get his book published?

The placebo effect is very subtle and usually works best with psychological problems or minor aches and pains. Many times the placebo only creates the illusion of a cure because the individual feels a subjective theropeutic effect which draws their mind away from the ailment, during which time the actual ailment may cure itself. Even with that potential effect, placebos are considered very unreliable. There have never been placebo experiments that show the mind is anywhere near powerful enough to manifest poison ivy on the skin. Maybe a severly neurotic individual can develop a little redness on the skin, but poison ivy is much more than a little redness (coming from a person who used to get it bad as a kid, it is absolutely horrible.) Also, there are no experiments that show the mind is capable of resisting such a reaction that takes place on the outer limits of the body. Your mind can't stop a chemical reaction from taking place. If you dump acid on your arm, it will burn.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

I'll say it one more time, and I'll try to be as clear and concise as possible. You rubbed some poison ivy on some kids, some kids who were rubbed with poison ivy did not develop a rash, some kids who were not rubbed with poison ivy somehow manifested the toxic oil on their skin and formed a rash. FASCINATING! ---That should be the end of the experiment, publish that interesting fact and leave the question unanwered. They drew a bold conclusion that they were not a liberty to draw, not as scientists.

Okay, I can understand that. But that wasn't the experiment . Each child was rubbed with the poisonous plant and each child was rubbed with a non-poisonous plant. The arm that developed the minor rash (it wasn't poison ivy) was rubbed with the non-poisonous plant, and the arm rubbed with the poisonous plant, developed no symptoms. Why children? I don't know. Except that maybe they are extremely gullible and perfect subjects for the placebo effect. The children were lied to ahead of time which plant was poisonous and which wasn't.

The placebo effect is very subtle

I don't think so. Not if its working at the cellular level.

These links here are very interesting articles that are very applicable. Because you don't understand what I mean, you say that I am backpedaling. These articles are about science, avery enjoyable and enlightening read:

The limitations of science and its methods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

You believe in scientism, which is not a truly scientific attitude.
When you say that I am backpedaling, that is because you cannot see beyond your scientism.
Because I do not think that science is the sole authority in answering the questions of reality.
So, by you always trying to debate on your terms, by demanding only scientific evidence,
which is from a paradigm I do not subscribe,
I have to point out that your dogma is not the only interpretation or explanation of phenomena.
And by insisting that the debates end up on your terms, from a position of scientism,
our arguments tend to devolve also into scientism and pseudoscience.
And then you say that I am back pedaling.
The remark I made that prompted you to accuse me of backpedaling
was not a response to my conversation, but offering an insight into your and
Juroara's conversation. But on retrospect, it is equally applicable to my conversation.

Originally Posted by juroara

Okay, I can understand that. But that wasn't the experiment . Each child was rubbed with the poisonous plant and each child was rubbed with a non-poisonous plant. The arm that developed the minor rash (it wasn't poison ivy) was rubbed with the non-poisonous plant, and the arm rubbed with the poisonous plant, developed no symptoms. Why children? I don't know. Except that maybe they are extremely gullible and perfect subjects for the placebo effect. The children were lied to ahead of time which plant was poisonous and which wasn't.

Well that sounds a lot less remarkable than the way you had originally put it. It is kind of old news that certain individuals can develop a light rash if they truly believe it will happen and then they worry about it. And the fact that these were children would probably make them more suceptible to this phenomenon. As for not developing the rash, some people are simply not allergic to poison ivy. I used to get it when I was a kid, but my brothers and my friends who were frolicking in the poison ivy right next to me would be unscathed. Now that I've had it so many times I think I'm immune to it because I haven't had it since I was in about second grade but I still spend a lot of time around it. He would have to test a large amount of kids and he would first need to make sure they were allergic to the plant before he can prove anything with this test.

Originally Posted by juroara

I don't think so. Not if its working at the cellular level.

Maybe it's more powerful for you, but for the average individual the resutls usually range from subtle to completely ineffective. And what do you mean working at the cellular level? When is it not working at the cellular level?

Originally Posted by Dannon Oneironaut

These links here are very interesting articles that are very applicable. Because you don't understand what I mean, you say that I am backpedaling. These articles are about science, avery enjoyable and enlightening read:

The limitations of science and its methods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

You believe in scientism, which is not a truly scientific attitude.
When you say that I am backpedaling, that is because you cannot see beyond your scientism.
Because I do not think that science is the sole authority in answering the questions of reality.
So, by you always trying to debate on your terms, by demanding only scientific evidence,
which is from a paradigm I do not subscribe,
I have to point out that your dogma is not the only interpretation or explanation of phenomena.
And by insisting that the debates end up on your terms, from a position of scientism,
our arguments tend to devolve also into scientism and pseudoscience.
And then you say that I am back pedaling.
The remark I made that prompted you to accuse me of backpedaling
was not a response to my conversation, but offering an insight into your and
Juroara's conversation. But on retrospect, it is equally applicable to my conversation.

Haha, I've never heard it put that way before. I'm a scientismist? Just to clear things up, I said you back pedal a lot based off of your collective postings that I have noticed since I've been a member here. Your posts usually catch my attention because they sometimes claim things that are so obviously untrue, then you kind of change your stance once you are challenged. I can remember one post in particular where you claimed that Saddam Hussein didn't get a trial and then that George Bush had him beheaded in public, I believe you also claimed George Bush was responsible for 9/11 in that post. That was so far from the truth that I had to blink really hard before I read it again to make sure I got it right. That's just one example of my first encounter with you, so it isn't just this thread that makes me say that.

As for the limitations of science, I agree with you to an extent. Science can't really know what is beyond our senses, if anything exists beyond our senses. I will say however, technology could possibly give a glimpse into realms that we can't physically sense. With technology we can see colors that are naturally beyond our spectrum of visible light. Mathematics tells us that there are dimensions that we can't sense or even comprehend. Given enough time, I can't justify putting a limitation on science that says it can't know the universe. The list of limitations deal mostly with subjective, human issues. Human emotions and ideas have no effect on the overall composition of the universe. They are more like limitations of humans rather than science itself. The scientific method would work equally well for an alien species. So does our subjective need to know "why" and our unique set of morals also limit an aliens use of science to explain the universe?

One of the listed limitations is that science can tell "how" but not "why." Why does it need to explain "why?" That is purely a human need and it doesn't limit sciences ability to know the true state of a natural phenomenon. Another limitation they listed is that science is amoral. That is a true statement, but not necessarily a limitation. We aren't supposed to use the scientific method to make everyday, human decisions. Science can however, explain the origin of morality and the development of morality. You can also use reason and logic to argue for a universal set of morals inherent to all humans despite their cultural upbrining. Another limitation they had is that science can't deal with the unique. That is simply not true. If a unique event is measured or observed, it falls into the realm of science. Science usually does not bother with unique, "one-of-a-kind" situations because they are usually just random events that have no special meaning and are not worthy of study. The one about the scientific method being limited by time is also true, but that doesn't mean a scientific explanation can't be formulated. Note that most of these limitations are a critique of the scientific method rather than science in general. I think the only true, timeless limitation presented in that article is the limitation of our senses, though that may be overcome by technology given enough time.

So you don't subscribe to the scientific method. What do you subscribe to? The extreme bias of your own mind? The intuition of your feelings at the present moment? Perhaps that's why you are so wishy-washy. Is it so much to ask for a rational argument? Something based in reason and logic if you don't have evidence? You are trying to use these articles to validate your misguided belief system, but I don't think either one is an argument for the existence of supernatural forces, if that's what you are getting at. What you are doing is advocating a philosophy of ignorance and then grasping for any pit-falls of the opposing viewpoint to justify your belief. What are your motivations? Logically your viewpoint makes no sense. Not only does it not make sense, but it can be downright dangerous to teach people to disregard science, unless you only make exceptions for certain situations. Then I would ask why do you make exceptions? Science explains perfectly well that a man cannot survive a lifetime with no food or water, why are you so quick to denouce the scientific viewpoint in this case? It makes more sense to side with the rational idea first, and then lay the burden of proof on the irrational idea, that way you'll know for sure which one is right. If the irrational idea proves itself, your knowledge shifts.

I also think you are confused about the definiton of dogma.

Like I said, I just did a quick search, and found a lot of stuff saying that.

Well you've at least included the sources which is something. However, I took a look at them and they are extremely dubious (ZOMG SCIENCE COVERUP).

I was only able to take a very quick glance at the first link but the figures given out are comletely at odds with those gleaned from far more reliable sources such as the CDC or WHO. The tone is also not impartial which you would expect from a legitimate scientific publication, and the cited "Nutrition Institute of America" on page 2 does not appear to have any credibility. Indeed there is some reference to it being a questionable organisation, though I've yet to be able to find out on what basis this claim is made.

The citations are extremely sparse and does not provide adequate references for the figures, which would result in the publication being rejected in any serious scientific journal. Furthermore I did notice that the one citation I checked was published in PubMed but also had a rebuttal written criticising the study. I haven't been able to check the papers myself yet but the credibility of the study would appear to be under some doubt.

Additionally the journalism was very bad, swapping between figures and sources, and failing to reference them. For example

"The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year"
Easily falsified; see more reliable figures from WHO for example.

"It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697)"
Again, completely false.

"This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be 2.2 million per year"
No reference for what these reactions were is given. These could be very common but mild side-effects such as nausea or headaches, but the implication is that these are serious reactions.

To top it all off, you even end up with the site claiming that about 40% of all deaths are due to medical error. Approximately 2 out of 5 people in the U.S. dying of medical errors? No one can seriously believe that ... right? Those figures are so at odds with ones from credible sources that it's laughable.

So she isn't just pulling it out of her ass, apparently there are a lot of articles saying things like that.

There may well be many articles saying that, but quantity has no bearing on facts. As I said, many people claim Elvis is still alive, or they've been visited by UFOs, or any number of experiences. That doesn't make them true. The number of people making a claim is irrelevant, it's only the evidence behind the claims that carries weight.

The problem here is basically, people who don't know about science are unable to understand what is a good source and what is a bad one. It's easy to use (or misuse) terminology to give the impression of knowing what you're talking about. It's very understandable why people get confused over this, but unfortunately such people lack the expertise to realise why these sources are rejected by science, leading to the conspiracy theories bullshit.

Essentially this why people ignorant of science should not criticise the methodology. You don't know good science from bad science. You don't understand the methodology by which real scientists separate the two (or even the basic premises behind science, despite what juroara mistakenly believes she knows). You don't know how to tell someone who appears to be a scientist (like 'Dr' Kent Hovind) from a real scientist who knows what they are talking about. And this is why such opinions on scientific matters are useless.

Intelligent people would realise if they don't know much about science, they are best keeping quiet on the subject instead of accusing an entire domain of coverups because they read something else somewhere, instead leaving it to actual scientists to figure out what is true from what is false, which they have a very good record of doing. There is a reason why becoming a scientist involves a large amount of training.

Edit: This stuff isn't a problem in the scientific domain simply because it won't be taken seriously due to the massive flaws. It is however a huge pain when someone has to explain to those who do not understand science why the article is bad and not taken seriously, It is a waste of time because science has already done the hard part of figuring out what is accurate or not.

Edit: It's also far harder to debunk this than it is to link to or write this crap in the first place.

I actually kind of suspect that the numbers they took may have been world wide instances of it. In which case 800,000 deaths a year, world wide from medical errors and stuff sounds reasonable. That would still put it fairly high on the causes of death however.

Scientist American claims to be a scientific magazine and they claim 200,000 people die each year from medical mistakes and infections.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/bl...ror-2009-08-10

WHO actually backs that claim of about a 100,000 people die each year from medical mistakes. The other 100,000 would be from infections.

http://www.who.int/patientsafety/inf...ass_orange.pdf

So even if you remove the infections you are still left with 100,000 deaths a year. Which would still put it in the top 5. Even if you are unsure of some of the sources, the general trend seems to be that it is fairly high.

I suspect the reason its not listed on most lists for leading causes of death, is because most lists don't group medical mistakes as a cause. If a mistake causes you to have heart failure, you are counted as having died from heart failure, not medical mistake.

Where are the statistics on how many lives are saved each year by modern medicine?

I find this all a bit puzzling to be honest. I'll be the first to admit that modern medicine is far from perfect, there's much room for improvement, etc... but come on, people are really arguing that modern medicine--including vaccinations--is a worldwide problem in terms of causes of death? With a straight face? Unbelievable.

Originally Posted by Caprisun

And what do you mean working at the cellular level? When is it not working at the cellular level?

The simple explanation is our cells receive signals from the brain about our environment. We perceive our environment. But for a complex human being, perception becomes mixed up with belief. (For example, just because you feel like someone is being hostile to you, doesn't mean that they really are. Its just your perception/belief they are being hostile to you.). Our beliefs become these signals that the brain sends out to the rest of the body, and our body acts accordingly. The 'magic' happens when we understand that cell a little better. A human cell is capable of many actions, from self-destructing to regenerating itself - to even spontaneously transforming into a different type of cell such as when we are in the womb. When all of this activity is written down for the cell to read within the DNA, and DNA has information recording our past -our future (how to build a human body) the cells potential to do becomes great.

Even after cells differentiate, they are still capable of receiving numerous signals activating a cellular activity. The key to understanding how this cellular activity can explain mind over matter(body) is to understand that cell DOES NOTHING until it receives a signal from the environment. Our emotions and overall thoughts become those signals.

Now this is the part that anyone can accept. There is full-proof science to back this up. My stomach didn't just randomnly decide to produce more acid when I was stressed. Rather, when I became stressed a signal was produced that told my stomach produce more acid.

The stranger part comes in when we begin to see the body as a digital machine. Some crazy experiment some where (I don't remember where, Russia maybe?) discovered that human cells make for great micro computer chips. This lead to the idea (which is being explored) that the human body doesn't just receive chemical signals, but 'digital' signals as well from our massive brain producing electromagnetic energy/waves. (And our heart apparently, which produces more electromagnetic energy). This 'digital' information stemming from our brain would travel instantaneous throughout the body - creating a more efficient machine than biochemistry alone. And it would bypass the cells membrane limitation to read only certain signals.

That last part isn't proven to be fact. I mean, feel free to argue against it, it's just an idea. But that's where this adventure has taken us, and there are scientists taking on this task very seriously. The first part is still significant on it's own, as it means your emotional state of being and your overall long held beliefs effect your body directly. If you think of yourself as weak and pathetic, you might actually be sending some sort of signal that limits muscle development!

Cool vid, bro. I'm not sure how valid it is, but they said that he attracted the attention of the military who put him under surveillance and he still didn't eat or drink. So perhaps there is some truth to it, but not to the extent of 70 years.