Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Rolci

Indisputable Evidence for Mind over Matter

174 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

seeder

Indisputable Evidence....

That you have been taken for a mug :tu:

How to stop your heartbeat !

Even donut youtubers are doing this 'trick'

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPZSFhHn9N4

NEXT?

Edited by seeder
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

Hey Rolci, I found those above vids by ONE simple search. Dont you think it would save future long-winded posts if you just do a little search.... before believing everything? Just a suggestion of course, could save you a lot of typing, and backlash

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh

If you can fail basic syntax so hard, you're in no position to request indisputable evidence.

Non-sequitur.
As for the rest of my post, I'm by no means saying the title is a lie. Statements can be lies. The title is a noun phrase, not a complete sentence, let alone a statement. READ IT AGAIN. It says indisputable evidence. It doesn't say where you can find it. My post does. As it clearly explains, you can find it in your own experience. It's all you need. When you apply NLP and it works 100 out of 100 times, or even 90, because 10 times you didn't do something right, it shows it works. An observer can always say it's chance, luck, or whatever, but what do you care?? Long as it works... And apparently for millions it does. Don't be sour though if in your life it doesn't. It's because you haven't made the commitment, while others have.
You need to come up with a better excuse because the description states you have sources to this evidence.
The funny thing is, more and more people are utilizing these tools successfully.
As the ones failing are ending up dead, logically only the "successful" ones remain.
The question is, what percentage of the population is needed to practise it successfully for it to become evidence? 80? 90? If 100% of the population is consistently using them successfully, contributing to more accomplished and happier lives, but it can't be reproduced in laboratory conditions, what does that make of it? You say it's unproven? For whom?? Suppose a 90%-10% ratio. Then it's unproven for whom? The 10%? Do you think the 90% cares? About the 10% armchair skeptics that never tried? Why should they care? Or only ever tried with the intention of proving it wrong (in which case that's the reality they create). Funny how you wait for the evidence. So if Nature said tomorrow that it works, you'd start practising? Or if you wouldn't, what difference does it make whether there is evidence or not if you won't use it anyway? Do you need Nature's permission to try?

Unfortunately some of us have to face reality that the failures outweigh the success. But still I can't help to notice that you need you invent a hypothetical scenario and only to blame skeptics for not accepting the hypothetical evidence, likely to make up for the fact it doesn't exist. It's easier for you to blame others isn't it?

Anyway who's permission do you need to use some critical thinking skills?

Edited by Rlyeh
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

Hey Rolci, I found those above vids by ONE simple search. Dont you think it would save future long-winded posts if you just do a little search.... before believing everything? Just a suggestion of course, could save you a lot of typing, and backlash

I don't follow your logic. So if I do a video where you see a plane in the sky, and then show you that it was a holographic projection I was creating to fool you, does that mean that all planes are holographic projections?

As the ones failing are ending up dead, logically only the "successful" ones remain.

Unfortunately some of us have to face reality that the failures outweigh the success. But still I can't help to notice that you need you invent a hypothetical scenario and only to blame skeptics for not accepting the hypothetical evidence, likely to make up for the fact it doesn't exist. It's easier for you to blame others isn't it?

For a minute I thought you were talking about chemotherapy, which the medical profession is eager to use, even though it's been shown in Nature that it makes tumours more resistant to treatment. It "cures" less than 10% of the subjects, the other 90% end up dead. Compared to that, Conscious Autosuggestion has been documented to cure "incurable" diseases, on top of its outstanding success ratio. Yet it's not applied. If it has a chance to heal, ANY CHANCE, why is it being neglected, and the documented success ignored? Same with everything else in my post. If there is a chance it works, why not try it?

You seem to be confident that failures outweigh success. Can I ask for your source for that statement? For every 10 success stories you can find one that failed, which is then blown up by skeptics. Only asking because I'm wondering WHOSE failures you're talking about. You must've read a comparative study I'm not aware of.

As opposed to you, I provided trusted sources. I have lots more, but it doesn't make any difference for people like you. See this for example.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131208090343.htm

Yet, your kind keeps pouring their hard-earned cash into big pharma's pockets. Let's see now.

"The analgesic drug market in the US alone amounts to over $2.3 billion annually for pharmaceutical companies like Proctor & Gamble, and that’s just for over-the-counter drugs. Simply practicing meditation could eliminate the need for expensive and side effect-causing medication that can ruin the body’s natural immune response."

There's your indisputable evidence. Are you people going to apply what you've learned? Or do you just have a big mouth? We don't care, it's your cash! So what do you need evidence for, if you don't apply it? And what stops you from trying things your "institutes" have not enough evidence for YET? And you argued for years that you can't control your ANS just because Wikipedia said so. I have to laugh!

Say that again about critical thinking skills?

P.S.: Also, what was it again about metabolism? Didn't quite catch your explanation.

Edited by Rolci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quaentum

Well then. Neuro-Linguistic Programming has been researched and peer-reviewed sufficiently..

evidently not

http://skepdic.com/neurolin.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

For a minute I thought you were talking about chemotherapy, which the medical profession is eager to use, even though it's been shown in Nature that it makes tumours more resistant to treatment. It "cures" less than 10% of the subjects, the other 90% end up dead. Compared to that, Conscious Autosuggestion has been documented to cure "incurable" diseases, on top of its outstanding success ratio. Yet it's not applied. If it has a chance to heal, ANY CHANCE, why is it being neglected, and the documented success ignored? Same with everything else in my post. If there is a chance it works, why not try it?

You seem to be confident that failures outweigh success. Can I ask for your source for that statement? For every 10 success stories you can find one that failed, which is then blown up by skeptics. Only asking because I'm wondering WHOSE failures you're talking about. You must've read a comparative study I'm not aware of.

As opposed to you, I provided trusted sources. I have lots more, but it doesn't make any difference for people like you. See this for example.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131208090343.htm

Yet, your kind keeps pouring their hard-earned cash into big pharma's pockets. Let's see now.

"The analgesic drug market in the US alone amounts to over $2.3 billion annually for pharmaceutical companies like Proctor & Gamble, and that’s just for over-the-counter drugs. Simply practicing meditation could eliminate the need for expensive and side effect-causing medication that can ruin the body’s natural immune response."

There's your indisputable evidence. Are you people going to apply what you've learned? Or do you just have a big mouth? We don't care, it's your cash! So what do you need evidence for, if you don't apply it? And what stops you from trying things your "institutes" have not enough evidence for YET? And you argued for years that you can't control your ANS just because Wikipedia said so. I have to laugh!

Say that again about critical thinking skills?

P.S.: Also, what was it again about metabolism? Didn't quite catch your explanation.

Edited by Rolci
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

This is the same old same old that has been pushed for years and has failed for years. In the 70s one of the big deals was Carlos Castenada. His basic claim was that reality is what you think it is. He later admitted it was all made up. Still he probably earned a lot from the books he sold.

As long as this is all anecdotes we might as well mention back in around 1988 there was a gang in Mexico. They were caught because for a change they kidnapped a UT Austin student seeking to buy some dope on the Mexican side of the border. He ended up being ritualistically cut up by the gang for purposes of magic. His spine had been chopped out of his back and nailed to a door when the police arrived. They allowed the police to handcuff and arrest them because they were so certain that their magic would let them walk away any time they chose to. Didn't happen.

There are people that believe these things and in the end they find out that it doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

This is rich! You skeptics have been crying out for reliable sources, which I have gladly provided in the form of Science Daily articles. And you come back with (wait for it...) The Skeptic's Dictionary? Are you for real?

But let's not get caught up on that, shall we? Let's see if there is any substance in this article. Did you even read the article? Or did you just have that website bookmarked and type in anything you want to debunk, and post the top article in the results, and that should do it? I admit, it's a long read. Luckily for you, there's a "conclusion" section at the end. Let me quote from it, keeping in mind that this is a skeptic website:

"It seems that NLP develops models which can't be verified, from which it develops techniques which may have nothing to do with either the models or the sources of the models. NLP makes claims about thinking and perception which do not seem to be supported by neuroscience. [Like neuroscience understands how the brain works.] This is not to say that the techniques won't work. They may work and work quite well, but there is no way to know whether the claims behind their origin are valid. Perhaps it doesn't matter. NLP itself proclaims that it is pragmatic in its approach: what matters is whether it works. However, how do you measure the claim "NLP works"? I don't know and I don't think NLPers know, either. Anecdotes and testimonials seem to be the main measuring devices."

Not bad from a skeptic website! While I do not agree that any person should pay for a technique that can be utilized using the resources of one's own mind, the techniques are surely worth trying. Luckily they're out there freely available. Like I said before: if there is a chance it may work, give it a go. Nothing to lose, a lot to gain. And if it doesn't work for you, you pick another method from the list.

Next time you want to debunk something, use the same kind of respected sources you expect me to use. Like this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w77k3 - "Thousands claim NLP has changed their lives, but what exactly is it and is there any scientific evidence that it works? ... NLP has found its way into all walks of life, spawning numerous practitioners and schools and offering many different ways to improve, from curing phobias or depression to becoming a better teacher, athlete or manager. Its most prolific gurus are multi-millionaires and, in the case of Paul McKenna, household names. ... William Little, journalist and author of The Psychic Tourist, finds out for himself what it's like to experience NLP techniques, meets those who have used it to change their lives and interviews its co-founder Richard Bandler, the charismatic exponent of so-called "persuasion engineering"."

Or this:

http://www.medicineonline.com/topics/n/2/NLP/Neuro-Linguistic-Programming.html

There are people that believe these things and in the end they find out that it doesn't work.

Yes, there are. And there are people that believe in chemotherapy and in the end they find out... sorry, they don't.

Before you try anything, simply ask yourself how much effort you'll need to make, is it worth it, and what are the risks? Conscious Autosuggestion ( http://gordonsander.com/2000/04/day-by-day-in-every-way-i-am-getting-better-and-better/ ), NLP, yoga and meditation, any time. See my sources above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

For a minute I thought you were talking about chemotherapy, which the medical profession is eager to use, even though it's been shown in Nature that it makes tumours more resistant to treatment. It "cures" less than 10% of the subjects, the other 90% end up dead. Compared to that, Conscious Autosuggestion has been documented to cure "incurable" diseases, on top of its outstanding success ratio. Yet it's not applied. If it has a chance to heal, ANY CHANCE, why is it being neglected, and the documented success ignored? Same with everything else in my post. If there is a chance it works, why not try it?

That is simply nonsense. Where did you get this nonsense claim about 90%. Even early chemotherapy methods in general worked better than that.

There are many forms of cancer. You need to know that. There are many forms of cancer which are treatable. Success rates top 70% for many cancers.

There are all sorts of BS claims from hemp oil to aromatherapy that they cure almost every cancer. That is baloney. Baking soda injections do not cure cancer as has been touted in Italy. Prayer doesn't work either.

Please show us all where this "Conscious Autosuggestion" has cured anything. I can't wait to see something. As far as why should anyone take a chance on some BS unproved crapola just because it might make a minor difference in 1 person in a hundred million the answer is simple: only use what makes a difference.

Oh please show us that there are studies showing that "Conscious Autosuggestion" makes a difference. That is a difference distinguishable from the placebo effect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Yes, there are. And there are people that believe in chemotherapy and in the end they find out... sorry, they don't.

Before you try anything, simply ask yourself how much effort you'll need to make, is it worth it, and what are the risks? Conscious Autosuggestion ( http://gordonsander....ter-and-better/ ), NLP, yoga and meditation, any time. See my sources above.

There re many people that are cancer survivors, but those using real medicine fair so much better than those relying on some of thew quackery you suggest. How sad that o many die needlessly when efficacious medicines are available to them.

And please list your peer reviewed sources in a simple manner so I don't have to dive through all of the needless mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

And please list your peer reviewed sources in a simple manner so I don't have to dive through all of the needless mess.

Behavioural training reduces inflammation:

http://www.nature.com/news/behavioural-training-reduces-inflammation-1.15156

Gene expression changes with meditation:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131208090343.htm

chemotherapy helps tumors grow:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/08august/Pages/Chemotherapy-encourages-cancer-claims-researchers.aspx

As you can see, these articles have emerged in the past 2-3 years. Even though Zen meditators (these guys: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/zen-gamma/ ) and our alternative sources have been trying to tell you for decades. Too many have died in vain, with pretty much 0% of the patients utilizing the power of meditation. So what do you need the sources for, if you're not going to apply anything anyway?

The purpose of this topic is to raise awareness of the tools available. The reason I have no study to show you that proves CA works is the same reason you have no study that found there is no evidence. This simply hasn't been looked at properly. All we have is trustable sources and their accounts.

"In Chicago Coué was greeted as if he were a true messiah:

In Michigan Avenue people knelt to him as he passed into the hall, and begged him to help them, and mothers held their wizened babies up to him, imploring him to heal their crooked bodies. Others paid fabulous sums to owners of front row seats, and once there, hoisted themselves painfully onto the stage, and panting crawled on helpless limbs to a spot where they might hope to catch the eye of the ‘Miracle Man.’

One after another crippled or paralyzed men and women dragged themselves or were wheeled to him and under his encouragement, as though under magic touch, threw away their crutches or canes and walked. Some who had not walked for years, even ran. Others recovered instantaneously the flexibility of long-stiffened limbs.

A woman, paralyzed nine years and unable to walk, walked off the stage unaided. From a young man who trails a useless leg, Coué snatched his cane and bid him walk, and the man strutted along the footlights while the huge audience, fanned to frenzied mysticism, yelled its wildest. Policemen had to come to the platform to keep order and prevent Coué from being swamped by the rush of wondering spectators at the ‘miracles’ of auto-suggestion performed on people possessed of blind faith."

Source: The New York Times, February 7, 1923, p. 15 "Coué Makes Cripples Walk,”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Behavioural training reduces inflammation:

http://www.nature.co...mmation-1.15156

Gene expression changes with meditation:

http://www.scienceda...31208090343.htm

chemotherapy helps tumors grow:

http://www.nhs.uk/ne...esearchers.aspx

As you can see, these articles have emerged in the past 2-3 years. Even though Zen meditators (these guys: http://www.scientifi...icle/zen-gamma/ ) and our alternative sources have been trying to tell you for decades. Too many have died in vain, with pretty much 0% of the patients utilizing the power of meditation. So what do you need the sources for, if you're not going to apply anything anyway?

The purpose of this topic is to raise awareness of the tools available. The reason I have no study to show you that proves CA works is the same reason you have no study that found there is no evidence. This simply hasn't been looked at properly. All we have is trustable sources and their accounts.

"In Chicago Coué was greeted as if he were a true messiah:

In Michigan Avenue people knelt to him as he passed into the hall, and begged him to help them, and mothers held their wizened babies up to him, imploring him to heal their crooked bodies. Others paid fabulous sums to owners of front row seats, and once there, hoisted themselves painfully onto the stage, and panting crawled on helpless limbs to a spot where they might hope to catch the eye of the ‘Miracle Man.’

One after another crippled or paralyzed men and women dragged themselves or were wheeled to him and under his encouragement, as though under magic touch, threw away their crutches or canes and walked. Some who had not walked for years, even ran. Others recovered instantaneously the flexibility of long-stiffened limbs.

A woman, paralyzed nine years and unable to walk, walked off the stage unaided. From a young man who trails a useless leg, Coué snatched his cane and bid him walk, and the man strutted along the footlights while the huge audience, fanned to frenzied mysticism, yelled its wildest. Policemen had to come to the platform to keep order and prevent Coué from being swamped by the rush of wondering spectators at the ‘miracles’ of auto-suggestion performed on people possessed of blind faith."

Source: The New York Times, February 7, 1923, p. 15 "Coué Makes Cripples Walk,”

You do realize that none of the links you provided is to peer reviewed material, right? Each link is to any essay written by someone about peer reviewed material.

You also horrible misrepresented the chemotherapy essay which shows that chemotherapy efficacy can taper off. That is not the same as helping it grow.

And please don't try to weasel out of providing some evidence for your claims of the efficacy of treatments you tout. You've made grandiose claims and I believe none of your claims has any support whatsoever. You want to rely on what you refer to as "trustable sources". What good does that do? Where are the studies? You post a 1923 article which sounds like a dog and pony show at a religious tent. That provides nothing of interest. It may fool a few, but it doesn't fool me.

You may not be aware of it but many of the people involved in these shows are not as paralyze or as lame as claimed. Almost everyone of those people is right back where they came from the next day: lame, paralyzed, ill, etc. Many people claiming miraculous cancer cures never had cancer in the first place. People claiming cures from homeopathy never had serious illnesses in the first place. Then there are the people claiming miraculous cures who have cancer or some other difficult to treat disease and then proceed to die anyways from the disease because the hemp oil, peach pits, magnets, praying, copper bracelets, or whatever is not efficacious.

You can spot the phonies a mile away because they use woo words to con their prey. The cure is natural, healthy, holistic, organic, alternative, etc. Then they give the testimonials. The use of these "case studies" is a dead giveaway for quackery. Another sure give away for quackery is those that denigrate real medicine.

There are always excuses as to why studies are not done. Consider this pathetic excuse:

The reason I have no study to show you that proves CA works is the same reason you have no study that found there is no evidence.

Science and medicine do not have to do studies investigating every nonsense claim that is tossed out. We know how real medicine works because it is heavily studied and regulated. The fakes do not do studies. CA advocates have had over 100 years to do studies. So where are they?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

You also horrible misrepresented the chemotherapy essay which shows that chemotherapy efficacy can taper off. That is not the same as helping it grow.

To quote Nature ( http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v18/n9/full/nm.2890.html ):

The expression of WNT16B in the prostate tumor microenvironment attenuated the effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in vivo, promoting tumor cell survival and disease progression.

Do you need me to spell out for you what disease progression means? It makes it GROW. What "tapering off" are you blabbering about?

Furthermore, a survey of 128 US cancer doctors found that if they contracted cancer, more than 80 per cent would not have chemotherapy. Sources? Use google?

For an ACTUAL study into the success rate of chemo, see this ground-breaking 14-year study that was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in December 2004:

http://www.bestzapper.com/pdf/3.percent.chemo.cure.rate.pdf

Further source: the National Center for Biotechnology Information

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849

It has well over a 100 references for your satisfaction. To Quote the result of the study:

The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

Good to know, eh?

I think I'm beginning to see through it all. Those that have a natural leaning toward utilizing tools will do so regardless of the saddening lack of studies. Many get better / happier / more successful. Many don't. Those that don't have this leaning will not use them, EVEN IF they were to be verified by one of your "trusted, verifiable, peer-reviewed sources". Again, just so I understand, why exactly do YOU (or any skeptics for that matter) need the "evidence"? Because as soon as you have it you will all of a sudden want to use these tools? Answer me that please. Do you actually believe evidence will make people use these tools? Will lawyers start to meditate? Car mechanics doing yoga? Doctors doing EFT tapping? Teachers using sigils? Just because some peer-reviewed journal said it works?? Or your doctor recommended it? Pleaaaase....

For the last time: This topic is to raise awareness, NOT TO CONVINCE. Everyone is invited to research further, try methods, or if it's not their stuff, leave it and walk away. No evidence is going to make you want to meditate or use any tool. No amount of peer-reviewed sources can make you do that. And if Nature is not peer-reviewed, then what is?

Edited by Rolci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

To quote Nature ( http://www.nature.co...ll/nm.2890.html ):

The expression of WNT16B in the prostate tumor microenvironment attenuated the effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy in vivo, promoting tumor cell survival and disease progression.

Do you need me to spell out for you what disease progression means? It makes it GROW. What "tapering off" are you blabbering about?

Furthermore, a survey of 128 US cancer doctors found that if they contracted cancer, more than 80 per cent would not have chemotherapy. Sources? Use google?

For an ACTUAL study into the success rate of chemo, see this ground-breaking 14-year study that was published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology in December 2004:

http://www.bestzappe...o.cure.rate.pdf

Further source: the National Center for Biotechnology Information

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15630849

It has well over a 100 references for your satisfaction. To Quote the result of the study:

The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA.

Good to know, eh?

I think I'm beginning to see through it all. Those that have a natural leaning toward utilizing tools will do so regardless of the saddening lack of studies. Many get better / happier / more successful. Many don't. Those that don't have this leaning will not use them, EVEN IF they were to be verified by one of your "trusted, verifiable, peer-reviewed sources". Again, just so I understand, why exactly do YOU (or any skeptics for that matter) need the "evidence"? Because as soon as you have it you will all of a sudden want to use these tools? Answer me that please. Do you actually believe evidence will make people use these tools? Will lawyers start to meditate? Car mechanics doing yoga? Doctors doing EFT tapping? Teachers using sigils? Just because some peer-reviewed journal said it works?? Or your doctor recommended it? Pleaaaase....

For the last time: This topic is to raise awareness, NOT TO CONVINCE. Everyone is invited to research further, try methods, or if it's not their stuff, leave it and walk away. No evidence is going to make you want to meditate or use any tool. No amount of peer-reviewed sources can make you do that. And if Nature is not peer-reviewed, then what is?

Do you understand what attenuate mean? What are you blathering about? It states very clearly that a material named WNT16B stopped the chemo from working. It was WNT16B that led to disease progression. What are you blathering about?

Please provide the source for your 128 doctors claim. That is a rather meaningless statement and you should know that.

So you use a 1985 Scientific American? Lots has happened in the last 30 years or are you also not aware of that? I didn't bother to read the lame letter in front of the old article. Using old data is the sort of thing frauds do.

Do you know that there are different types of chemotherapy? Bet you didn't. Cytotoxic chemotherapy is more likely to be used with cancers that are likely to kick quickly. The question her is whether such harsh drugs should be used when a patient can allowed to die with less distress from drugs. The fact is that cancer is difficult to treat. Cancer treatments have vastly improved and some cancers are not treatable in the long term, but some are.

Are any of these people helped with baloney such as you tout? No.

Here is a good question "why exactly do YOU (or any skeptics for that matter) need the "evidence"?"

Skeptics are not gullible like the people that fall for "Conscious Autosuggestion" and other suck malarkey. We want to follow the best methods and those are discovered through testing. Some people just want to believe in nonsense such as "Conscious Autosuggestion". Go for it. What is it to me if someone tries that and dies from preventable conditions. I on the other want to use the best that is available. I can choose from methods that have been tested and verified as efficacious.

You can tell the frauds because they point to such difficult to treat issues as is cancer and they can find the data because real medicine tests and records and reevaluates what is done. The frauds don't test. They simple toss out mindless proclamations to the gullible about how well they work. Why should a gullible person ask for evidence when they are going to take such asinine proclamations as gospel without a second thought.

Smart people do use evidence based methods. Gullible people will do anything they are told. Will the gullible buy magnets and copper bracelets? You bet. Will the gullible fool kill themselves by taking weird herbal concoctions? They do. Will EFT tapping do anything about cancer? Not at all. Will meditation do anything about cancer? Not at all. Will any of this phoney baloney have any effect on cancer? Not at all.

While we discuss cancer you post articles about meditation and it making people feel better. What an obvious cop out. Have any articles about meditation and cancer? Have anything to show other than some mild effect from any of these ideas you are pushing?

No amount of peer-reviewed sources can make you do that. And if Nature is not peer-reviewed, then what is?

That is the voice of a scoffer that is scoffing at the importance of studies, testing and getting it right. Also, you did not use a peer reviewed article. You made reference to a non-peer reviewed article. Do you know the difference?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I saw the same baloney from the homeopathy group. Their claim to fame is that giving people ineffective distilled water was safer than taking efficacious drugs. They point out that drugs can be lethal, but the distilled water they sell is not lethal. It also allows the patient to die. How is that for nonsense.

Here we have the baloney of someone posting links to people feeling better when they meditate and then pointing out that real medicine has along way to go in treating cancer. Please show us real studies where the baloney has been effective. Even the homeopathy folks have done studies and they show that it is effective around 6% of the studies. Amazingly that would be expected from studies done at the 95% confidence interval.

Most other alternative methods are not tested. They simply make statements about how it works. Do they know that it works? No. It is wishful thinking and more than likely deceptive.

Some people try to claim that studies cannot be done. They have dubious claims as to why it is not possible to do studies. Well here are studies which show that acupuncture has little benefit in these situations. There is a way to test even acupuncture so that the patient cannot tell if there is a needle stuck in them or not.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304395983901677

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304395985900740

http://journal.publications.chestnet.org/article.aspx?articleid=1082409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

The placebo effect. How does it work again? Don't tell me. I'll just take an Aspirin that the doc and the adverts have managed to convince me will work and I believed them. (Like I have ever or will ever pay for something like that, let alone ingest one. I'll leave that to you. Cheers.)

Painkillers are just as big (if not bigger) of a scam as chemo and radio therapy. They do NO MORE than placebos. (Makes you wonder how much of their effectiveness comes from the placebo effect then?)

I know, I know. Here you go:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140724094025.htm

If painkillers do no more good for an acute condition like this than placebo (effectively nothing at all) then how much difference do you expect for a simple headache? What a con!

After all that, when you say hypnosis, CA, NLP, and the rest are all "just" placebos, that's actually a compliment.

Edited by Rolci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rlyeh
For a minute I thought you were talking about chemotherapy
Then you realised you can't think.
You seem to be confident that failures outweigh success. Can I ask for your source for that statement? For every 10 success stories you can find one that failed, which is then blown up by skeptics. Only asking because I'm wondering WHOSE failures you're talking about. You must've read a comparative study I'm not aware of.
Because you're uneducated, you wouldn't know of a study if it involved kicking you in the teeth.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/breatharian.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/453661.stm

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/archive/news/swiss-woman-starved-to-death-on-daylight-diet/story-e6frf7lf-1226339082591?sv=90aca59a96b36b808b3a32a4915440

As opposed to you, I provided trusted sources.
Naturalnews isn't a trusted source, David Icke isn't a trusted source. You've been caught lying before.
There's your indisputable evidence. Are you people going to apply what you've learned? Or do you just have a big mouth? We don't care, it's your cash! So what do you need evidence for, if you don't apply it? And what stops you from trying things your "institutes" have not enough evidence for YET? And you argued for years that you can't control your ANS just because Wikipedia said so. I have to laugh!
Where is it. Still trying to shift the burden? You made the bull**** claims, you prove it.
Say that again about critical thinking skills?

P.S.: Also, what was it again about metabolism? Didn't quite catch your explanation.

Of course you didn't. The explanation requires an education.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

Naturalnews isn't a trusted source, David Icke isn't a trusted source. You've been caught lying before.

I have provided several Nature, ScienceDaily, Journal of Clinical Oncology, National Center for Biotechnology Information, etc. sources. Yes they are trusted sources. You have managed to escape reaction tail-between-legs to every single one of them.

Of course you didn't. The explanation requires an education.

Then please educate me. If metabolism were enough to produce the heat, everybody could do what Wim Hof can do, without yoga or meditation, instead of freezing to death. Yet the studies CLEARLY showed that he controls his immune system and his autonomic nervous system. (Which they said in their previous study was impossible - and you skeptics believed it!) Same as thousands of Zen monks have been doing for hundreds of years in Tibet. (So yes, it can be learned. They're not born in packs with special abilities.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The placebo effect. How does it work again? Don't tell me. I'll just take an Aspirin that the doc and the adverts have managed to convince me will work and I believed them. (Like I have ever or will ever pay for something like that, let alone ingest one. I'll leave that to you. Cheers.)

Painkillers are just as big (if not bigger) of a scam as chemo and radio therapy. They do NO MORE than placebos. (Makes you wonder how much of their effectiveness comes from the placebo effect then?)

I know, I know. Here you go:

http://www.scienceda...40724094025.htm

If painkillers do no more good for an acute condition like this than placebo (effectively nothing at all) then how much difference do you expect for a simple headache? What a con!

After all that, when you say hypnosis, CA, NLP, and the rest are all "just" placebos, that's actually a compliment.

Please learn a little logic. All the article states is that one painkiller does not speed up recovery. Your inference from this article is laughable. You write which "They do NO MORE than placebos", which is childish at best. Did you read the article or did you simply copy something from one of the hoax sites you seem to spend your time visiting?

understanding why paracetamol works for other pain states but not low-back pain would help direct future treatments.

Paracetamol has been efficacious in other treatments, but not this. This is why testing is done. It shows what works and what does not.

That was not a peer reviewed article. Are you learning what is and what is not?

The issue here is not whether the drug reduced pain. The question here is whether or not the drug sped up recovery in a particular condition.

So you think showing something to be a placebo is a compliment? How naive. That means that CA, NLP, and the rest of the malarkey you tout can be dropped just as the recommendation from testing shows that paracetamol should be dropped from these type of conditions mentioned in the article.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

I have provided several Nature, ScienceDaily, Journal of Clinical Oncology, National Center for Biotechnology Information, etc. sources. Yes they are trusted sources. You have managed to escape reaction tail-between-legs to every single one of them.

Then please educate me. If metabolism were enough to produce the heat, everybody could do what Wim Hof can do, without yoga or meditation, instead of freezing to death. Yet the studies CLEARLY showed that he controls his immune system and his autonomic nervous system. (Which they said in their previous study was impossible - and you skeptics believed it!) Same as thousands of Zen monks have been doing for hundreds of years in Tibet. (So yes, it can be learned. They're not born in packs with special abilities.)

As I pointed out you are not using peer reviewed material. You are referring to essays that discuss other articles that were peer reviewed.

It is time for you to learn what a peer reviewed article is? Here are hints that can be used. Look for an abstract. All of the articles I checked from you lacked an abstract, discussion, review, and conclusion. None of the articles discussed the statistical methods used, or the confidence intervals of the results. They did not mention the limitations of the process. These are all things I would expect to find in a peer reviewed article.

You do not seem to understand the meaning of the word skeptic. Look it up. You are confusing scoffer and skeptic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Stop the baloney and show us peer reviewed articles that show that any of the hocus pocus you tout is efficacious.

I'm still chuckling that you think that it is an honor to be found to be a placebo. In my book that means it is the same as doing nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

Then you realised you can't think.

Of course you didn't. The explanation requires an education.

Then please educate me. If metabolism were enough to produce the heat, everybody could do what Wim Hof can do, without yoga or meditation, instead of freezing to death. Yet the studies CLEARLY showed that he controls his immune system and his autonomic nervous system. (Which they said in their previous study was impossible - and you skeptics believed it!) Same as thousands of Zen monks have been doing for hundreds of years in Tibet. (So yes, it can be learned. They're not born in packs with special abilities.)

You may not be aware of it but many of the people involved in these shows are not as paralyze or as lame as claimed. Almost everyone of those people is right back where they came from the next day: lame, paralyzed, ill, etc. Many people claiming miraculous cancer cures never had cancer in the first place. People claiming cures from homeopathy never had serious illnesses in the first place.

In 1951, a young hospital doctor treated a patient suffering from a rare and debilitating skin disease - thought to be incurable - with a single session of hypnosis, unaware that he was about to make medical history. The case caused a sensation. Doctors described it as ‘unprecedented and inexplicable’ and ‘a challenge to current concepts of the relation between mind and body’.

Stop the baloney and show us peer reviewed articles that show that any of the hocus pocus you tout is efficacious.

I have told you and your "friends" twice already, but you seem to have a hard time doing a certain thing called comprehension. MAYBE if I tell you for the third time, you'll get it. Maybe.

The purpose of this topic is not to list external evidence, EXACTLY BECAUSE of what you said. External evidence is NEVER indisputable, you can always doubt trickery, conspiracy, whatever you want, just as flat-earthers doubt that the Earth is "round". If you want to be a flat-earther (there are hundreds) - you're more than welcome. Doubt all you want. Indisputable is what YOU experience. This thread is not about external evidence - there is no such thing. It's about empowering the individual. (As in, different things work for different people.) If YOU take the time and learn to use the methods I listed, and see it work without fail over and over, or come away healed every time you go to a reiki healer, you don't give a red cr@p what "institutions" say or don't say. You have the ONLY kind of INDISPUTABLE evidence that exists - your own personal experience. And when every human has found their truths - who will need institutions to tell them what to believe in? But first you have to try. The title of this topic is, again, Indisputable Evidence for Mind over Matter. I didn't say I'm giving it, or that I know someone who does. (Heck, now that I look back, I didn't even say it exists!) I'm trying to tell people like you how you can find it. I don't want anyone to believe, just because you see a video. I provided examples to raise awareness these methods exist in the first place. (Which is embarrassing for the medical profession, considering the accounts and the magnitude of the possible implications. A lack of study cannot be excused, let alone used for evidence something doesn't work. Although I understand having Conscious Autosuggestion proven would effectively put the medical profession [and for that matter, the entirety of the pharmacological industry] out of business, so why would they WANT to conduct experiments - to lose their jobs and careers?) They add to the palette of tools one can use. More choice. As in, instead of relying on one method, like the 2% success rate chemo I quoted above from the National Center for Biotechnology Information from 2004 (chemo hasn't changed much if any at all in a single decade), you can try another method at the same time, or instead of it. I mean if you want to have yourself poisoned or radiated sh!tless, by all means go ahead. But I invite you to take inspiration from the examples I provided, prompting you to try things you haven't considered trying, and gain your own personal experience, whether it be something or nothing. And when you see it change (or save) your life, there you have it, your INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE!

Edited by Rolci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

In 1951, a young hospital doctor treated a patient suffering from a rare and debilitating skin disease - thought to be incurable - with a single session of hypnosis, unaware that he was about to make medical history. The case caused a sensation. Doctors described it as ‘unprecedented and inexplicable’ and ‘a challenge to current concepts of the relation between mind and body’.

I have told you and your "friends" twice already, but you seem to have a hard time doing a certain thing called comprehension. MAYBE if I tell you for the third time, you'll get it. Maybe.

The purpose of this topic is not to list external evidence, EXACTLY BECAUSE of what you said. External evidence is NEVER indisputable, you can always doubt trickery, conspiracy, whatever you want, just as flat-earthers doubt that the Earth is "round". If you want to be a flat-earther (there are hundreds) - you're more than welcome. Doubt all you want. Indisputable is what YOU experience. This thread is not about external evidence - there is no such thing. It's about empowering the individual. (As in, different things work for different people.) If YOU take the time and learn to use the methods I listed, and see it work without fail over and over, or come away healed every time you go to a reiki healer, you don't give a red cr@p what "institutions" say or don't say. You have the ONLY kind of INDISPUTABLE evidence that exists - your own personal experience. And when every human has found their truths - who will need institutions to tell them what to believe in? But first you have to try. The title of this topic is, again, Indisputable Evidence for Mind over Matter. I didn't say I'm giving it, or that I know someone who does. (Heck, now that I look back, I didn't even say it exists!) I'm trying to tell people like you how you can find it. I don't want anyone to believe, just because you see a video. I provided examples to raise awareness these methods exist in the first place. (Which is embarrassing for the medical profession, considering the accounts and the magnitude of the possible implications. A lack of study cannot be excused, let alone used for evidence something doesn't work. Although I understand having Conscious Autosuggestion proven would effectively put the medical profession [and for that matter, the entirety of the pharmacological industry] out of business, so why would they WANT to conduct experiments - to lose their jobs and careers?) They add to the palette of tools one can use. More choice. As in, instead of relying on one method, like the 2% success rate chemo I quoted above from the National Center for Biotechnology Information from 2004 (chemo hasn't changed much if any at all in a single decade), you can try another method at the same time, or instead of it. I mean if you want to have yourself poisoned or radiated sh!tless, by all means go ahead. But I invite you to take inspiration from the examples I provided, prompting you to try things you haven't considered trying, and gain your own personal experience, whether it be something or nothing. And when you see it change (or save) your life, there you have it, your INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE!

So now you want to provide an unsubstantiated anecdote and think that is meaningful. It means nothing until you can provide clear statements about the issue. As it stands it is another story of zero relevance.

So again you think that blustering means anything. It doesn't. Please provide clear evidence for your claims. So far you have zero and your "1951 story" is just more baloney. A clear sign of fraud is someone that has to use stories from over 60 years ago. You tried using old data from Scientific American and now you are doing it again. Which huckster site is the source of your disinformation?

Your suggestion that your position is akin to the flat-earthers is justifiable. Pretending that the actions of dubious and asinine claims such as flat-earthers makes your position better is simply laughable. You are the flat-earther and it shows. You make grandiose and inane claims. You can't support those claims. The evidence against is overwhelming.

All you do is make big claims such as the title of the thread and you can't support any of your claims. Now you want to claim that the title you wrote is misleading. Back peddling is common for those that find that they have to deal with the real world and never want to.

Oh, so all you intended to do is show that pointless, useless, ineffective methods exist. Sure sounds like you are a flat-earther type. You claim that there are possibilities and that you again refer to cancer as if the possibilities you mention have some way to address that issue. So far the answer to that is a big NO. That is more flat-earth blustering on your part. You rely on off the cuff stories with no evidence that any of the stories are real. That is more flat-earth thinking on your part. You sum it up by again making some obtuse connecting to indisputable evidence. What a ridiculous non-sequitur.

I am not interested in your odd little stories which are not real. I want to see evidence. I want to see something done in a controlled experiment that can be verified by others. I want to see follow up clinical tests to determine the efficacy of the methods. Until then all of your posturing about the possibilities is nothing more than silly woo whining. Stop crying and put up or shut up. Show us the evidence you flat-earther.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolci

As for what you called my "1951 story", let's have a better look at it, because I can see you haven't done the research (again), just looked at a number and made a judgement. (Hardly the way scientific enquiry works.)

In February of 1951, Dr. Albert Mason began treating a teenage patient whose skin was so ravaged that after two unsuccessful skin grafts, his plastic surgeons agreed they could do nothing else to help him.

Mason knew he was up against a big challenge. Most of the boy's body -- everything but his face, neck, and chest -- was covered in a "black horny layer" of skin that Mason said "felt as hard as a normal finger-nail, and was so inelastic that any attempt at bending resulted in a crack in the surface, which would then ooze blood-stained serum." On top of that, Mason's treatment plan didn't exactly inspire confidence in his colleagues: he was going to try hypnosis.

On the plus side, Mason had had success using hypnosis on patients with warts before, and he figured it might help this kid. So he decided to start with the boy's left arm (he specified one body part at a time in order to isolate a direct cause and effect from hypnosis). The arm cleared up in under two weeks.

As Mason moved on to the rest of the boy's body, he documented his progress -- which was shocking, especially once Mason realized he wasn't treating a bad case of warts (as he'd originally thought), but an incurable disease: congenital ichthyosiform erythrodermia.* Stunned by the boy's improvement, he typed up a paper charting his results in 1952 (PDF). Complete with photos.

Dr Mason’s success was initially due to his mistaken belief that he was treating multiple warts with which he was confident of success. Following publication of his article other hypnotherapists including Dr Wink found that they too could cure this disease. Dr Mason meanwhile discovered the real nature of the problem he was curing and then found he could no longer gain success. He published a second article in the British Medical Journal in 1961 announcing his revised findings and stated that he no longer felt that hypothesis could help with the treatment of this disease. Once Dr Wink, and six other hypnotherapists, who had been successfully treating ichthyosis on the basis of belief in Mason’s 1951 report read the second article they too began having failures.

The belief system of the therapist will set important limits on the possibility of success with this (or any) protocol. We owe it to our patients to stretch those limits not only in what we are able to do, but in the things we allow ourselves the capability of thinking.

source: http://www.radiolab.org/story/299045-hypnotist-and-warts/

You can read the whole account and many more in 'If This be Magic: The Forgotten Power of Hypnosis' by Guy Lyon Playfair.

To see how hypnotherapy works, explained by a Thomas Yarnell, Ph.D., Licensed Clinical Psychologist and Hypnosis Specialist, Chief Psychologist at The Counseling Center, member of the International Society for Mental Health Online:

http://hypnosisandu.homestead.com/

More uses of hypnotherapy, with references:

Twelve controlled studies have demonstrated that hypnosis is a superior way to reduce migraine attacks in children and teenagers. In one experiment, schoolchildren were randomly assigned a placebo or propranolol, a blood-pressure lowering agent, or taught self-hypnosis; only the children using self-hypnosis had a significant drop in severity and frequency of headaches (Olness et al., 1989). Another pain study of patients who were chronically ill reports a 113-percent increase in pain tolerance among highly hypnotizable subjects versus a control group who did not receive hypnosis (Debenedittis et al., 1989). • Dentistry. Some people have learned how to tolerate dental work with hypnotherapy as the only anesthetic. Even when an anesthetic is used, hypnotherapy can also be employed to reduce fear and anxiety, control bleeding and salivation, and reduce postoperative discomfort. • Pregnancy and delivery. Women who have hypnosis prior to delivery have shorter labors and more comfortable deliveries. Women have also used self-hypnosis to control pain during delivery (Rossi, 1986). • Anxiety. Hypnosis can be used to establish a new reaction to specific anxiety-causing activities such as stage fright, plane flights, and other phobias. • Immune system function. Hypnotherapy can have a positive effect on the immune system. One study has shown that hypnosis can raise immunoglobulin levels of healthy children (Olness et al., 1989). Another study reported that self-hypnosis led to an increase in white blood cell activity (Hall, 1982-83). Other studies in the past 40 years have shown that hypnosis can affect a wide variety of physical responses, including reduction of bleeding in hemophiliacs (Lucas, 1965), reduction in severity of attacks of hay fever and asthma (Mason and Black, 1958), increased breast size (Honiotest, 1977; LeCron, 1969; Staib and Logan, 1977; Willard, 1977; Williams, 1973), the cure of warts (Ahser, 1956; Sinclair-Geiben and Chalmers, 1959; Surman et al., 1973; Ullman and Dudek, 1960), the production of skin blisters and bruises (Bellis, 1966; Johnson and Barber, 1976), and control of reaction to allergens such as poison ivy and certain foods (Ikemi, 1967; Ikemi and Nakagawa, 1962; Platonov, 1959).~No one knows exactly how such bodily changes are brought about by hypnosis, but they clearly occur because of the connections between mind and body. It is also clear that suggestions have the capacity to affect all systems and organs of the body in a variety of ways.

Source: http://www.lifefirst.com/hypnosis_hypnotherapy_hypnosis.htm

If interested, there are a zillion tons of free resources available for hypnotherapy on the internet. For general info the best resource I believe is Guy Lyon Playfair's book I mentioned above, I can email it to anyone interested.

Edited by Rolci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seeder

If interested, there are a zillion tons of free resources available for hypnotherapy on the internet. For general info the best resource I believe is Guy Lyon Playfair's book I mentioned above, I can email it to anyone interested.

I have personally studied clinical hypnosis, Guy Lyon is at the very bottom rung of a tall ladder when it comes to serious reading material on the subject. he writes pretty much entry level stuff and woowoo

He is a bit of an odd one.

3 quotes:

"Guy Lyon Playfair (born 1935) is a British author and parapsychologist. He's a fan of Uri Geller, is "greatly impressed" by psychic mediums like Chico Xavier, feels that psychic surgeons have been capable of mysterious healing, and even claims that British psychic healer Matthew Manning cured him of a slipped disc." :lol:

and

Playfair's mother was a member of the Society for Psychical Research and he fondly recalls reading the SPR journal as a child. Which explains a lot. He believes that Uri Geller can perform psychokinesis[2] and that "a lot of the opposition to him is just based on jealousy." :w00t:

He's also known for his rather gullible investigation of the Enfield Poltergeist, believing he'd found genuine evidence of a poltergeist where others saw only the mischievous pranks of attention-seeking adolescents. He feels that mediums such as Eusapia Palladino and Chico Xavier were genuine. And he's convinced that Carmine Mirabelli, a medium who was caught passing off a retouched photo as evidence of his powers of levitation has some genuine paranormal ability. Go figure. :tu:

and

"According to Harris "Mr Playfair turns out to be a weak observer due to his own misplaced confidence in his abilities as an observer... [he] rushes along crucifying the skeptics, the magicians and almost anyone who has questioned the Geller myth."[8] The skeptic Martin Gardner has criticized Playfair's endorsement of Geller and described him as a "hack writer on the occult"

http://rationalwiki....y_Lyon_Playfair

.

Edited by seeder
  • Like 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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.