Acupuncture - woo or not

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

...mothertonguers...

Oh, he said 'tonguers'. My bad.

 

[Satra]

So if I told you that sacrificing a rat to the Sun-god Ra cured my dog of distemper, then you would solemnly tell everyone that that "works". "Just a fact"?

you should discuss with Ra if you need to know if he exists and if yes under which conditions he would heal a / your dog of distemper, not with me .

OK, fine, whatever floats your boat. Not worth discussing though.

I think to have been relatively precise about my way of approaching knowledge, Rolfe.
There are people I know very well and who are absolutely fond of their compagnon. They would never accept to give him something that does not work on him.
And for the rest of proof, I wrote something concerning "energy fields of thought" an explanation towards I tend.

You do not need to believe anything I or whoever says. But to react to what I say as you (and some others) do only shows for me how deeply your conception of the world limits your mind.


Again wiki: "Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist."
so I don't see what I may have interpreted wrong. ?
it was not me who pretended to be an atheist. nor an ahomeopathist.

I wonder if there are translation problems.

 

[Satra]

And that makes it worthless, because people bring testimonies of lots of things, of which many can be shown to be wrong. If you have not got a precise diagnosis that shows that this animal did in fact suffer from what you thought it suffered from, if you cannot prove that after the treatment the animal really no longer suffers from the ailment, and when you cannot show that it could not have got better by itself with no treatment at all, you are not accomplishing very much with your testimony.

a testimony may open the mind of a person. if the person permits it.

The atoms can be shown to have spin, ie a direction of rotation, but I am not aware that you can actually measure the frequency of rotation.

you are not aware, that means you know that it can't be mesured (now / for ever?)? and if not, I don't see the use of what you say.

It is fine-sounding nonsense because it does not help your favourite quack nonsense becoming any more real. Everything consists of atoms, so what makes homoeopathic remedies any different, apart from the fact that they consist of pure water, or alcohol, or lactose molecules?

that is it: you are focused on the chemical or what substancies. there is a difference about the frequency, not about the substancies. the frequency is a huge matter, that is not only in the ration but also in the emotions. you may know that music can have a mighty impact on the emotions of people, f.ex.

If everything is frequency, why not heal people with music instead of extremely diluted substances that not even homoeopaths can tell from each other?

splendid idea, others had it before. I tested it, on me it worked. In fact, it did always work with me, and that's why I began to study music. it was the only science that resisted to my test of seriosity as I was a child [all other did not because whatever a scientist found some years later there were new studies who said he was wrong. when you observe history of science, from the old cultures to know, it is really disgusting. and: a modern scientist never is but a physician or chemist or doctor or historian. they do not know anything about essence of things -which would make them understand about all varieties of science-. That was and is my point of view. Not yours. And that's entirely ok. It's fine we are not redundant.]
no studies known by me.
music can balance the energy centers of the body, by this harmonise-strengthen the whole system and help it to recover quickly. but that all belongs to a whole concept that is foreign to you.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

that is it: you are focused on the chemical or what substancies. there is a difference about the frequency, not about the substancies. the frequency is a huge matter, that is not only in the ration but also in the emotions. you may know that music can have a mighty impact on the emotions of people, f.ex.

Please specify one remedy and say what its frequency is in Hertz. It would be interesting to know how that frequency was measured, so please explain that as well.

Thanks.

 

[Satra]

Oh, he said 'tonguers'. My bad.

Hey, mister sorry: I just looked it up - it's "native speakers". but I'm sure you understood what I meant, so the goal was reached.
but we can continue the discussion in French or German, if that helped you? Or in which language besides your mother tongue would you be able to have such a discussion?
I'm sorry my Spanish is not better than my English and the emphasis during my years of Latin was on translating from Latin into German, so it would not serve for our purpose.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

music can balance the energy centers of the body, by this harmonise-strengthen the whole system and help it to recover quickly. but that all belongs to a whole concept that is foreign to you.

Do you know someone called Kumar?

 

[Rolfe]

Again wiki: "Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist."
so I don't see what I may have interpreted wrong. ?
it was not me who pretended to be an atheist.

Who has pretended to be an atheist? Nobody in this thread that I can see.



Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

There are people I know very well and who are absolutely fond of their compagnon. They would never accept to give him something that does not work on him.

Just as well most animal owners aren't like that or there would be a lot more dead dogs out there.

BSM, do you often have to declare to your clients that something will definitely "work" before they allow you to treat their pet?

No, me neither.

Now you know what, Satra. I have tried homoeopathy, and it didn't work. I have had lots and lots of people come to me and tell me that they have tried it and it didn't work.

How do we find out which of us is right?

Rolfe.

 

[steenkh]

that is it: you are focused on the chemical or what substancies. there is a difference about the frequency, not about the substancies.

Interesting theory. Your problem is that

a) there is no effect to prove, because it has already been shown convincingly by many studies that homoeopathy does not work, so your are really inventing a theory for how it could work if it worked.
b) nobody, not even homoeopaths can tell any two homoeopathic remedies from each other (if they are based on the same soluble). If you lost the label on a glass of homoeopathic pills, nothing on earth can make you find out what homoeopathic magic is supposed to be infused in those pills, not even by trying it out on patients!
c) You claim that there is a difference in in your new magic property "frequency", but you cannot show such differences in "frequency". You cannot show such differences in homoeopathic rememdies, and you cannot show it in any other substance either. A part of your claim is that these "frequencies" can be used to store complex information from a chemical substance that is no longer there, and, even more astonishing, impart that magical information to the body once it is digested.

the frequency is a huge matter, that is not only in the ration but also in the emotions. you may know that music can have a mighty impact on the emotions of people, f.ex.

Please show a single illness other than psychological illnesses that can be cured by music.

a modern scientist never is but a physician or chemist or doctor or historian. they do not know anything about essence of things

Neither do you. There is no such thing as "essence".

music can balance the energy centers of the body, by this harmonise-strengthen the whole system and help it to recover quickly. but that all belongs to a whole concept that is foreign to you.

It is not just foreign to me, but the entire concepts of "frequencies", "essence", "energy centers", and "harmonising" are non-existent. You are not able to show any of these concepts to exist. They are nice-sounding nonsense that covers the fact that you prefer to treat illnesses by doing nothing. But on the other hand, if that "works" for you, you'll be just fine!

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

BSM, do you often have to declare to your clients that something will definitely "work" before they allow you to treat their pet?

I do risk boring clients about the powers of self-deception, regression to the mean and coincidental recovery. At least, I can say that my treatments have some backing in science so that my error rate is kept low.

Mind you, they probably get even more bored when I explain about Negative and Positive Predictive Values of laboratory tests and other diagnostic procedures when I try to explain why, even though their animal is insured and I am a money-grubbing bastard, it is still a bad idea to run every possible diagnostic test with no clear idea why we are doing them. I hasten to add that the actual words "Negative and Positive Predictive Values of laboratory tests" have, however, never passed my lips in that context.

I like to think of this being the thing called informed consent that alt.meddlers seem to be utterly unfamiliar with.

 

[Satra]

Just as well most animal owners aren't like that or there would be a lot more dead dogs out there.

BSM, do you often have to declare to your clients that something will definitely "work" before they allow you to treat their pet?

No, me neither.

Now you know what, Satra. I have tried homoeopathy, and it didn't work. I have had lots and lots of people come to me and tell me that they have tried it and it didn't work.

How do we find out which of us is right?

Rolfe.

I remember you having written something like this ("I am an a-homeopathist as I am an a-theist"), no matter where, can have been another thread. If I should have mixed you up with another writer, then I beg your pardon.

It's a question of frequency, maybe? But did those persons had the adequate homeopathic medicament? Didn't they have peppermint or similar essential oils around? As far as I heard, that makes a homeopathical treatment useless.

Perhaps you are wrong? Perhaps I am wrong?
- Perhaps we are both right? Thought of that possibility? Who knows.
I know it can work. You know it can not work. We can not reconstruct the conditions in detail. That's all.

 

[Rolfe]

Perhaps you are wrong? Perhaps I am wrong?
- Perhaps we are both right? Thought of that possibility? Who knows.
I know it can work. You know it can not work. We can not reconstruct the conditions in detail. That's all.

No, we cannot both be right. It is not possible for two mutually exclusive propositions to be simultaneously true. If you wish to deny logic to that extent, then I don't think anyone here can help you.

You strongly believe it can work. I strongly believe it does not work. One of us is wrong.

Now, how might we proceed so as to find out more?

Rolfe.

 

[fls]

I'm sorry to bring this up,* but does any of this really deserve a response?

Linda

*I know...I've been guilty of the same myself, don't tell me how to waste spend my time, it educates the lurkers, it helps to organize my thoughts/words for when it really may make a difference, maybe we can get through to it, blah, blah, blah

 

[Satra]

Interesting theory. Your problem is that

a) there is no effect to prove, because it has already been shown convincingly by many studies that homoeopathy does not work, so your are really inventing a theory for how it could work if it worked.

that is your opinion. not ultimate truth. besides: and, if I have a problem, that has nothing to do with it^^. And I don't expect you to have a problem with or by your view.

b) nobody, not even homoeopaths can tell any two homoeopathic remedies from each other (if they are based on the same soluble). If you lost the label on a glass of homoeopathic pills, nothing on earth can make you find out what homoeopathic magic is supposed to be infused in those pills, not even by trying it out on patients!

where's the problem about it? there is none.

c) You claim that there is a difference in in your new magic property "frequency", but you cannot show such differences in "frequency". You cannot show such differences in homoeopathic rememdies, and you cannot show it in any other substance either. A part of your claim is that these "frequencies" can be used to store complex information from a chemical substance that is no longer there, and, even more astonishing, impart that magical information to the body once it is digested.

nothing new about frequency. and it has few to do with chemistry but more with the planetary influence (for which an example are the tides. and that following to some periods plants drink more or less and the amount of different "agents" in them varies, laundry gets more or less clean, hair is more or less strong, etc. etc). You didn't notice that, I suppose? Not my fault if you don't look around you. Or do you live in another reality / do we live in different realities? Sometimes I think that is the only explication. Who knows.

Please show a single illness other than psychological illnesses that can be cured by music.

Don't need that.
Yes: music works much on the emotions. you seem to think emotions are less real, less important than physis? Emotional diseases are quite common in our era, as I heard. Emotions and physis are or can be linked. Observe a person who suffers from anorexia f.ex.. That is a complex of emotional an physical problems. The emotions have an influence on our physis = body.

Illness in my concept is a disharmonie in the spirit. at a certain state it affects the body. so (still in my concept) something that harmonises the entire system of a human will have a positive impact on his health in general.
It will help his system to cope with stress and to harmonize mental or emotional problems which would materialize as physical diseases one day if they remained or even got nourrished.

Neither do you. There is no such thing as "essence".

Mister omniscient meant to enunciate that the essence of all is that there is no essence of all. Mister Omniscient also being Mister "prove it to me", I wonder if he also means to have a real proof for that omniscient theory, theoretical omniscience or what it ever may be.

Ok, that is your point of view. Nice. Visibly it is not mine. Do we need to have a problem about that? I decided: no.
What happens with the world if we don't agree with each other?? er... nothing. the way to make something change would have been to agree.
so I'll just continue to enjoy my frozen blueberries with goatmilk-creamcheese with roasted almonds and chestnuthoney and you will hopefully have an as splendid time.

It is not just foreign to me, but the entire concepts of "frequencies", "essence", "energy centers", and "harmonising" are non-existent. You are not able to show any of these concepts to exist. They are nice-sounding nonsense that covers the fact that you prefer to treat illnesses by doing nothing. But on the other hand, if that "works" for you, you'll be just fine!

I can do much be doing something that in your definition is nothing, yes.

Your concept shows and refers to a part of reality, my concept shows and refers to a part of reality.

You're going just by ratio. you won't understand that way what I refer to. The intellectual, rational approach does not help here. To go further and understand what I and other persons refer to, it's not enough.
And in fact: you need not to go further. You have found what you believe in and don't search for any further truth.
If your fully satisfied by it, it's optimal.
For me this place is a place of exchange. Not a place of combat with a winner at the end.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Negative information: Those ideas and concepts held by an otherwise mentally competent person which are not just wrong, but also impair that person's ability to learn.

 

[Satra]

*giggle*

 

[steenkh]

that is your opinion. not ultimate truth.

Scientific consensus is hardly a mere matter of opinion.

where's the problem about it? there is none.

You do not find it a problem that you cannot tell one homoeopathic preparation apart from another? Why do homoeopaths have so many remedies, when nobody see a difference?

nothing new about frequency. and it has few to do with chemistry but more with the planetary influence (for which an example are the tides.

You were talking about some sort of atomic or subatomic frequency. Orbiting planets clearly have a frequency, and it is well-known that it has an effect on life on Earth. Just what relevance does this have for homoeopathy?

laundry gets more or less clean, hair is more or less strong, etc. etc)

Unsubstantiated rubbish.

Or do you live in another reality / do we live in different realities?

Hardly. There is only one reality. But it is quite possible that you do not live in a reality at all.

Yes: music works much on the emotions. you seem to think emotions are less real, less important than physis?

No. Of course not. Emotions are chemical reactions in your head. Very physical. And there are also a number of problems that can be solved merely by appealing to the emotions, like pain, as when mommy blows on a hurting spot on her child.

Emotional diseases are quite common in our era, as I heard.

But this is not very relevant in a discussion about homoeopathy.

Emotions and physis are or can be linked. Observe a person who suffers from anorexia f.ex.. That is a complex of emotional an physical problems. The emotions have an influence on our physis = body.

Yes, obviously. But it is irrelevant for our discussion.

Illness in my concept is a disharmonie in the spirit.

Spirits do not exist. And the disharmony concept is just bogus. Is malaria a disharmony? Does the plasmodium parasite that causes malaria have its own "harmony"? There are homoeopaths who claim that homoeopathy can cure malaria.

It will help his system to cope with stress and to harmonize mental or emotional problems which would materialize as physical diseases one day if they remained or even got nourrished.

And the genes that cause people to have diabetes and many other diseases have no influence?

Mister omniscient meant to enunciate that the essence of all is that there is no essence of all. Mister Omniscient also being Mister "prove it to me", I wonder if he also means to have a real proof for that omniscient theory, theoretical omniscience or what it ever may be.

I have no claim to omniscience, whereas your "harmony" concept surely sound to me as an attempt at omniscience ...

For me this place is a place of exchange. Not a place of combat with a winner at the end.

I have been at this place for many years, and I can only agree: there is rarely a winner or loser in these debates.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Please specify one remedy and say what its frequency is in Hertz. It would be interesting to know how that frequency was measured, so please explain that as well.

Thanks.

Satra, you conform to a very similar pattern witnessed all over the alt.meddling internet environment. You write vacuous thousand word posts about nothing but fail to answer simple, precise questions.

So, friend-of-Kumar, please be so kind as to answer my question. Remember to express your answer in correct units of measurement.

 

[Satra]

Satra, you conform to a very similar pattern witnessed all over the alt.meddling internet environment. You write vacuous thousand word posts about nothing but fail to answer simple, precise questions.

So, friend-of-Kumar, please be so kind as to answer my question. Remember to express your answer in correct units of measurement.

I am not informed knowing any Kumar, but ok...??

I did not answer explicitly to this post, expecting what I said in others: it is nothing you can measure with your ratio.
So, for you, it IS nothing.
You don't take into consideration that there is more than (your) ratio. Fine, as you don't need to.
But there is more. Not in your perception and conscience perhaps, but in the conscience and perception of many other people.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I did not answer explicitly to this post, expecting what I said in others: it is nothing you can measure with your ratio.
So, for you, it IS nothing.
You don't take into consideration that there is more than (your) ratio. Fine, as you don't need to.
But there is more. Not in your perception and conscience perhaps, but in the conscience and perception of many other people.

I'm sorry, but you have used the word "frequency" which has a very plain meaning. It is expressed in cycles per second or some similar set of units. Please specify what you mean by the word frequency and explain clearly why it cannot be expressed appropriately in cycles per second.

If you cannot measure this "frequency", please explain why do you use the word "frequency"? How have you defined what this frequency is?

Satra, you are the one who brought up this concept, it is tiresome and disingenuous if you object to being made to justify it.