Breatharianism test

[arthwollipot]

It is not the two days without food, but the two days without losing an ounce.

Is that what breatharians claim? Remember, you have to test them on their claim, not on what you think they should be able to do.

As far as I know, the breatharians claim that when you stop eating, you will lose weight for a while, but then you will stabilise.

 

[Vortigern99]

What about Therese Neumann? She made it a little longer than 2 days without food and water - she lasted until her death, 40 years without food or drink. She just ate one little wafer a day (only if it was blessed). The Nazis didn't get her but they tried.

A medical doctor went to disprove this phony who claimed she ate nothing.

".... In July 1927 a medical doctor and four Franciscan nurses kept a watch on her 24 hours a day for a two-week period. They confirmed that she had consumed nothing except for one consecrated sacred Host a day, and had suffered no ill effects, loss of weight, or dehydration. Montague Summers in the "Physical Phenomenon of Mysticism" speaks of her supernatural ability to survive long periods without food or water. ..1940...Therese refused German ration cards saying she had no need of food or drink."

Silly little peasant women. When they were out sight seeing the country side she would get a good laugh when others needed to stop to get something to eat and drink. The doctor witnessed this Saint himself what was he to do?

And for someone who kicked the food habit, one day she would lose several pounds of blood (wounds of Christ) and by the next she regained her body weight. Over a million people observed her in this bleeding spectacle on most Fridays (not so much during the war years but before and after).

No she didn't.

 

[twob]

No she didn't.

Dumb little peasant woman. How dare her! Living by the light of God! The nerve! And showing this off to over a million people! You know things like this just disrupt the way people view the world. We all know a person must eat don't we?

 

[Vortigern99]

Dumb little peasant woman. How dare her! Living by the light of God! The nerve! And showing this off to over a million people! You know things like this just disrupt the way people view the world. We all know a person must eat don't we?

Your sarcasm isn't convincing me of your claims. Got anything else? Starts with an "e", ends with a "-vidence"?

 

[jsfisher]

Dumb little peasant woman. How dare her! Living by the light of God! The nerve! And showing this off to over a million people! You know things like this just disrupt the way people view the world. We all know a person must eat don't we?

Yes, most of us seem to grasp that basic reality.

 

[ddt]

What about Therese Neumann? She made it a little longer than 2 days without food and water - she lasted until her death, 40 years without food or drink. She just ate one little wafer a day (only if it was blessed). The Nazis didn't get her but they tried.

A medical doctor went to disprove this phony who claimed she ate nothing.

".... In July 1927 a medical doctor and four Franciscan nurses kept a watch on her 24 hours a day for a two-week period. They confirmed that she had consumed nothing except for one consecrated sacred Host a day, and had suffered no ill effects, loss of weight, or dehydration. Montague Summers in the "Physical Phenomenon of Mysticism" speaks of her supernatural ability to survive long periods without food or water. ..1940...Therese refused German ration cards saying she had no need of food or drink."

According to this book[/URL (in German)], there's a lot wrong with that claim:
(a) she was not confined to her home, but could go where she wanted. This made real 24 hours observation virtually impossible;
(b) the doctor was devoted to her, and the nurses were not up to the task of handling an hysteric, being respectively an OR nurse, an X-ray nurse, a dentist's nurse and an administrative nurse;
(c) one of the nurses bluntly said to the author: "Resi eats", she was convinced of this;
(d) analysis of urine samples showed signs that she had been eating;
(e) the Regensburg bishop wanted a real observation in a clinic, but she refused;
(f) she also stopped sending in urine and stool samples.

So, yes, a swindle.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

As far as I know, the breatharians claim that when you stop eating, you will lose weight for a while, but then you will stabilise.

Wouldn't it be sufficient for them to warrant that when they start the test they are at the point of stability?

 

[dafydd]

What about Therese Neumann? She made it a little longer than 2 days without food and water - she lasted until her death, 40 years without food or drink. She just ate one little wafer a day (only if it was blessed). The Nazis didn't get her but they tried.

A medical doctor went to disprove this phony who claimed she ate nothing.

".... In July 1927 a medical doctor and four Franciscan nurses kept a watch on her 24 hours a day for a two-week period. They confirmed that she had consumed nothing except for one consecrated sacred Host a day, and had suffered no ill effects, loss of weight, or dehydration. Montague Summers in the "Physical Phenomenon of Mysticism" speaks of her supernatural ability to survive long periods without food or water. ..1940...Therese refused German ration cards saying she had no need of food or drink."

Silly little peasant women. When they were out sight seeing the country side she would get a good laugh when others needed to stop to get something to eat and drink. The doctor witnessed this Saint himself what was he to do?

And for someone who kicked the food habit, one day she would lose several pounds of blood (wounds of Christ) and by the next she regained her body weight. Over a million people observed her in this bleeding spectacle on most Fridays (not so much during the war years but before and after).

Did you know that the word gullible is not in the dictionary?

 

[dafydd]

Your sarcasm isn't convincing me of your claims. Got anything else? Starts with an "e", ends with a "-vidence"?

Do you mean that a tall story is not evidence? You shock me!

 

[pakeha]

According to this book[/URL (in German)], there's a lot wrong with that claim:
(a) she was not confined to her home, but could go where she wanted. This made real 24 hours observation virtually impossible;
(b) the doctor was devoted to her, and the nurses were not up to the task of handling an hysteric, being respectively an OR nurse, an X-ray nurse, a dentist's nurse and an administrative nurse;
(c) one of the nurses bluntly said to the author: "Resi eats", she was convinced of this;
(d) analysis of urine samples showed signs that she had been eating;
(e) the Regensburg bishop wanted a real observation in a clinic, but she refused;
(f) she also stopped sending in urine and stool samples.

So, yes, a swindle.

It's never anything else but a swindle.
Or a suicide induced by swindlers.

 

[ddt]

It's never anything else but a swindle.
Or a suicide induced by swindlers.

Of course it is. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't look into the claim that she was observed 24/7 and debunk that.

 

[arthwollipot]

Wouldn't it be sufficient for them to warrant that when they start the test they are at the point of stability?

Yes, but you will have to take that into account when developing the protocol. Also, you will have no monitoring of the beginning period, since you have agreed that you are only monitoring the stable period.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Yes, but you will have to take that into account when developing the protocol. Also, you will have no monitoring of the beginning period, since you have agreed that you are only monitoring the stable period.

Well, unless there is something to the claims of breatharians that shouldn't matter.

It occurs to me though that the main reason for rejecting such tests, as mentioned before, is that JREF won't agree to a test that endangers anyone and accepting such an agreement would mean they were agreeing that the subject was already in a dangerous state.

 

[ddt]

Well, unless there is something to the claims of breatharians that shouldn't matter.

It occurs to me though that the main reason for rejecting such tests, as mentioned before, is that JREF won't agree to a test that endangers anyone and accepting such an agreement would mean they were agreeing that the subject was already in a dangerous state.

Not necessarily. The JREF accepting the challenge does not mean that the JREF actually believes the applicant has done the things they claim before the JREF test. And as you can see from many of the threads on this forum with applicants, there is very, very little evidence that any of the applicants actually tried to do home-run tests resembling the test set-up they hammered out with the JREF. It's a pity, actually, that the spate of such threads has dried up lately.

 

[Craig B]

Dumb little peasant woman. How dare her! Living by the light of God! The nerve! And showing this off to over a million people! You know things like this just disrupt the way people view the world. We all know a person must eat don't we?

Yes we do. Therese Neumann was well known for other things which don't immediately suggest she lived by the "light of God".

Visiting Therese was not a sight for the faint-hearted. Veteran silent movie star, Lilian Gish, paid a visit to her in 1928, as part of her preparation for an acting role. She was appalled to find Therese sitting up in bed, wearing a bloodstained nightdress, with bloodied bandages wrapped around her head and hands, and babbling wildly about religion. She said afterwards that she could have fainted at the sight of her.

http://sjhstrangetales.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/the-very-strange-life-of-therese-neumann/

 

[petrov2500]

Well, unless there is something to the claims of breatharians that shouldn't matter.

It occurs to me though that the main reason for rejecting such tests, as mentioned before, is that JREF won't agree to a test that endangers anyone and accepting such an agreement would mean they were agreeing that the subject was already in a dangerous state.

It is perfectly understandable that the JREF would reject any test where if a person lacks the claimed ability, harm would result. What about the opposite? What if the test will only cause harm if the person does have an ability (let's say the claimant says they can cause serious harm to a person by staring at them, for example). Suppose further that the person to be harmed is a friend of the claimant and has agreed to be harmed as part of the test. Would the JREF accept such a test?

 

[rjh01]

It is perfectly understandable that the JREF would reject any test where if a person lacks the claimed ability, harm would result. What about the opposite? What if the test will only cause harm if the person does have an ability (let's say the claimant says they can cause serious harm to a person by staring at them, for example). Suppose further that the person to be harmed is a friend of the claimant and has agreed to be harmed as part of the test. Would the JREF accept such a test?

I think the only way to find out is to ask JREF. I have never seen such a claim being made.

 

[wardenclyffe]

It is perfectly understandable that the JREF would reject any test where if a person lacks the claimed ability, harm would result. What about the opposite? What if the test will only cause harm if the person does have an ability (let's say the claimant says they can cause serious harm to a person by staring at them, for example). Suppose further that the person to be harmed is a friend of the claimant and has agreed to be harmed as part of the test. Would the JREF accept such a test?

It's possible. It would probably depend on the nature of the harm. Applicants frequently must provide a trusted friend for mind reading tests. This would probably be a similar test. Causing a friend to have a headache would be one thing. Causing the friend to be shot by a distant sniper would be another.

Ward

 

[zooterkin]

There was a claimant who said they had the ability to cause someone to wet themselves, and I believe that was tested; you might say that was causing harm.

 

[Jim_MDP]

There was a claimant who said they had the ability to cause someone to wet themselves, and I believe that was tested; you might say that was causing harm.

I was going to mention her.

Ninja'd