Can/should we Skeptics in Modern Science?

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

Your problem is that ....

Kumar, your problem is that you have a completely closed mind. Closed to the possibility that your pre-existing ideas might be worng, but also closed to the possibility of acquiring any new knowledge.

Why should we only discuss with you on the assumption that you're right, when you can't provide the slightest scrap of evidence that there's any more to your precious tissue remedies than coincidental recovery and wishful thinking? Why do you persist in asking science to explain something that doesn't exist, when you constantly reject any suggestion that you might learn something from science?

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Rolfe,

OK, as you feel. I was knowing it. Thaks.

 

[Dermanus]

You were believing it. Not knowing it.

 

[Kumar]

I keep asking that question because you still haven't answered it. Including this time.
For all your talk of wanting to use science, when confronted with even the vaguest of scientific approaches you run the other way. Why is that? You know you won't like the answer before you even try?

Haven't I told "Depending upon belief & need of patients & skill of prescriber & observer, differanciating effects should be noticable in cell salts & plain water." It means healing effects in case of cell salts deending upon several factiors as I indicated & no/placebo/self healing effects in case of water.

Now, let me check;

We have observations of a phenomenom. Namely, some people observed that after using modern medicines, illnesses sometimes go away. So let's suppose that modern medicines cures some illnesses. Now, how can we make sure? How about an experiment. Let's take a group of people suffering form the same symptoms, and divide them into two groups say of 10 people each. Then we get 2 preparations made. One is the proper modern medicine & the other is simply blank pills of same appearance & taste. To one group we give the modern medicine, to the other we give the blank pills . But let's not tell them, or their doctors, which group got what.

After some specified time, observer doctors note healing effects & no effects. Supoose there are results of 6:4 & 4:6(6 & 4 respectively positive effects) in group one who were given real medicine & other just given blank medicines respectively. How will you say, medicine really effected. Both 6 & 4 can also be by placebo, initiated self healing, by self immunities or otherwise. Some noticable side/adverse/toxic effects can also be mistaken as effects, which can also influence this picture. Since, current influences & attunments have created lot of belief in modern systems & also given most of attentions, means, systematic & standardization of observations etc.--it can also effect results, otherwise. Tissue remedies might have also shown somewhat similar or better results, if it would had also taken similarily. So we can't compare the proportion of results & make it a point for credit or discredit. Similarities will have to be maintained for getting somewhat compareble or better results.

 

[Kumar]

You were believing it. Not knowing it.

We, & even skeptics, may give preferance/importance to belief, inspite of fat, not knowing those aspects in exact science eg; in God, in parents, in other relatives, in making big & heavy houses, most modernizations, non absolute medicines & concepts etc. You can think of many many such beliefs. You don't do or accept all things with exact science, but still follow belief, observations & other's experiances. Whether people died in Tsumani, were living with science or without science? Why they believed in Sea? Were Tsumani type things not possible in skeptic's POV? Why many people still live near the sea or with other risks indicated in science? Why you live in big house, can't it fall next movement/day/month by any natural or innatural clamity? Why you travel by air? Can't it crash, scientifically? Probably, you mostly move with belief & just can't move without belief.

Alike, I/we/you move in TRS/other systems/modern systems with some good or bad, some belief or non-belief, some benefits & risks...etc.

 

[drkitten]

After some specified time, observer doctors note healing effects & no effects. Supoose there are results of 6:4 & 4:6(6 & 4 respectively positive effects) in group one who were given real medicine & other just given blank medicines respectively. How will you say, medicine really effected.

Because if only 4 got better in the placebo setup, but 6 got better in the experimental setup, then we can assume that four of the six in the experimental setup "self-healed," but the other two can be attributed to the experimental regime.

To do it more formally and thoroughly would require some statistics and probably more subjects.

So we can't compare the proportion of results & make it a point for credit or discredit.

Why not? That's exactly what we can -- and should -- do. And as a result, average human life expectancy has skyrocketed since medicine abandoned pseudoscience like tissue salts.

 

[Mojo]

Now, let me check;

We have observations of a phenomenom. Namely, some people observed that after using modern medicines, illnesses sometimes go away. So let's suppose that modern medicines cures some illnesses. Now, how can we make sure? How about an experiment. Let's take a group of people suffering form the same symptoms, and divide them into two groups say of 10 people each. Then we get 2 preparations made. One is the proper modern medicine & the other is simply blank pills of same appearance & taste. To one group we give the modern medicine, to the other we give the blank pills . But let's not tell them, or their doctors, which group got what.

After some specified time, observer doctors note healing effects & no effects.

OK, you've got the idea about how a double-blind test is carried out, although you'd probably need a bigger sample size for reliable results.

Supoose there are results of 6:4 & 4:6(6 & 4 respectively positive effects) in group one who were given real medicine & other just given blank medicines respectively. How will you say, medicine really effected. Both 6 & 4 can also be by placebo, initiated self healing, by self immunities or otherwise.

This is precisely why a control group is used. Both groups are treated in exactly the same way apart from the fact that one group is given the real remedy. This means that the same environmental effects will be present for both groups, and the placebo effect will operate to the same degree in both groups. Remember, the placebo effect will also work on the group given the real remedy.

Some noticable side/adverse/toxic effects can also be mistaken as effects, which can also influence this picture.

This sort of test is not designed to identify unusual side effects, although if a remedy has substantially worse outcomes than placebo there's certainly a problem with it!

Since, current influences & attunments have created lot of belief in modern systems & also given most of attentions, means, systematic & standardization of observations etc.--it can also effect results, otherwise. Tissue remedies might have also shown somewhat similar or better results, if it would had also taken similarily.

Indeed they might. So why not test them to see if they actually work before going ahead with wild theorising as to how they might work?

So we can't compare the proportion of results & make it a point for credit or discredit.

Yes we can.

 

[Mojo]

Sorry - double post.

 

[Rolfe]

The above data indicate elemental/chemical composition of human body.

Why, so they do.

However, Kumar, your statement was that

how mostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies, on dry/burned ash analysis?Dr. Sch.'s TRS, got indications for deciding 12 tissue salts by looking at this analysis.

That is a completely different statement. You still have not shown any of us what analysis Schüssler was looking at, what specimens of what different parts of the bodies were involved, or that the results showed "mostly similar salts".

How about it?

Flume has posted something which Schüssler might have looked at, but that isn't "different parts of human bodies", it is two different fractions of blood. And the results aren't "somewhat similar", because one fraction was mainly cells and so contained a great deal of potassium, while the other fraction was almost cell-free, and so had relatively little potassium and a great deal of sodium.

But it seems that you would rather insult me than produce your evidence.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

Because if only 4 got better in the placebo setup, but 6 got better in the experimental setup, then we can assume that four of the six in the experimental setup "self-healed," but the other two can be attributed to the experimental regime.
To do it more formally and thoroughly would require some statistics and probably more subjects.
Why not? That's exactly what we can -- and should -- do. And as a result, average human life expectancy has skyrocketed since medicine abandoned pseudoscience like tissue salts.

Effects can differenciate on individual basis. We can get such results i.e. 6:4 & 4:6(even 3:6 & 2:6 can also be comparable in view of atterntion & belief difference in case of TRS) in case of TRs applications. If we get this, then probably you will say it is by placebo & not real effects. On this respect pls note seriously & dynamically that "self healings with magnitude initiation" can be most important consideration in healing by any system. Even if, we believe in holy water--which initiate our self healing/immunity--then holy water can be considered as 'medicine/healing substance, not just plain water. Antibiotics/vaccines, if can work by improving our immunity can be thought, somewhat alike 'initiation of self healing.

 

[Kumar]

Mojo,

Pls look at possibilities that in consideration of 'self healing/immunity or 'initiated self healing/immunity AND individual different effects, any number of positive & negative results can be thought as self healing, placebo or real effects. How to measure real effects without healing consideration, is to be thought. It can be therefore thought, that it can be bit difficlut to measure absolutely in science--whether a real effect, a placebo or a self healing.

Rolfe,

You can ask flume to post ,salts indicated for different parts. I think I have previously given this detail. Anyway, books on this system can be much usefull for you--for knowledge or for discussions.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Effects can differenciate on individual basis. We can get such results i.e. 6:4 & 4:6(even 3:6 & 2:6 can also be comparable in view of atterntion & belief difference in case of TRS) in case of TRs applications. If we get this, then probably you will say it is by placebo & not real effects. On this respect pls note seriously & dynamically that "self healings with magnitude initiation" can be most important consideration in healing by any system. Even if, we believe in holy water--which initiate our self healing/immunity--then holy water can be considered as 'medicine/healing substance, not just plain water. Antibiotics/vaccines, if can work by improving our immunity can be thought, somewhat alike 'initiation of self healing.

*sigh*

Kumar, try to understand this concept:

Let us assume that holy water works because our belief in it initiates self-healing.

Now you believe in holy water, so I give you some water, and say: "This is holy water, Kumar, it will heal you." So you feel better. We do this to a large group of people, and they all feel better. Now, what REALLY happened was that only half of them got holy water. The rest got plain unholy tab water. Al lbelieved the same and were treated the same, right? So what is the ONLY difference betwen the groups? The holiness of the water, right? So if the group that really got holy water improve more than the group that only thought they got holy water, then it indicates that holyness of water has an effect. If not, it indicates that only belief matters.

OK?

Edited to add: Oh, and antibiotics don't work by improving our immunity, they actually KILL bacteria. Both antibiotics and vaccines can be shown to work whether you believe in them or not.

Hans

 

[Vikram]

Antibiotics/vaccines, if can work by improving our immunity can be thought, somewhat alike 'initiation of self healing.

Antibiotics do not improve our immunity. Antibiotics destroy bacteria and do so even in a dish in a lab. In fact, that's how the first antibiotic was discovered.

 

[Rolfe]

You can ask flume to post ,salts indicated for different parts. I think I have previously given this detail. Anyway, books on this system can be much usefull for you--for knowledge or for discussions.

You have never posted this before, in detail or otherwise. In fact, I don't think you have the information at all. If I'm wrong about this, then please link to the post in question, or post the data. This is the very heart of your claims. That

mostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies, on dry/burned ash analysis?Dr. Sch.'s TRS, got indications for deciding 12 tissue salts by looking at this analysis.

Now, show us this analysis that Schüssler looked at, and demonstrate that the results were as you claim.

As far as looking at books is concerned, you first. You have come here asking all sorts of extremely basic and elementary science questions, all of which are well-addressed in modern books currently in print and available to buy over the Internet. I have linked to a few of these for you in the past. But you refuse to do even the most basic study to investigate your ideas.

This is your interest. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to show us what you're talking about.

Rolfe.

 

[Mojo]

Mojo,

Pls look at possibilities that in consideration of 'self healing/immunity or 'initiated self healing/immunity AND individual different effects, any number of positive & negative results can be thought as self healing, placebo or real effects. How to measure real effects without healing consideration, is to be thought. It can be therefore thought, that it can be bit difficlut to measure absolutely in science--whether a real effect, a placebo or a self healing.

Kumar, please read Hans's most recent post in this thread, which addresses precisely this point.

 

[Kumar]

*sigh*

Kumar, try to understand this concept:

Let us assume that holy water works because our belief in it initiates self-healing.

Now you believe in holy water, so I give you some water, and say: "This is holy water, Kumar, it will heal you." So you feel better. We do this to a large group of people, and they all feel better. Now, what REALLY happened was that only half of them got holy water. The rest got plain unholy tab water. Al lbelieved the same and were treated the same, right? So what is the ONLY difference betwen the groups? The holiness of the water, right? So if the group that really got holy water improve more than the group that only thought they got holy water, then it indicates that holyness of water has an effect. If not, it indicates that only belief matters.

OK?

Edited to add: Oh, and antibiotics don't work by improving our immunity, they actually KILL bacteria. Both antibiotics and vaccines can be shown to work whether you believe in them or not.

Hans

Do you believe that any medicine or healing substance can behave differently in different people inspite all having same symptoms--I mean, are effects can be dependent on individual basis, more or less?

Mr.Hans, Vikram,

Can you tell me briefly, how madern medicines work? Whether, by direct effect or by changing any of the body's system/function?

Rolfe,

I think I have indicated previously, otherwise flume can copy from the book with him & tell you here. If you want me to type again , I will do that on your request.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe,

I think I have indicated previously, otherwise flume can copy from the book with him & tell you here. If you want me to type again , I will do that on your request.

Consider yourself requested. I want to know what evidence you have for your statement that

mostly similar salts are/were found in several specimens of differant parts of humans bodies, on dry/burned ash analysis?Dr. Sch.'s TRS, got indications for deciding 12 tissue salts by looking at this analysis.

Rolfe.

 

[Kumar]

"INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS OF CELLS.

The principal inorganic materials of nerve-cells are magnesia phos., Kali phos., Natrum and Ferrum:- "Muscle-cells contain the same, with the addition of Kali mur. Connective tissue-cells have for their specific substance Silica, while that of the elastic tissue-cells probably calcarea flour. In bone cells we have calcarea flour and Magnesi phos. and a large proportion of calcarea phos. This latter is found in small quantities in the cells of muscle, nerve, brain and connective tissue. Cartilage and mucous cells have for their specific inorganic material Natrum mur, which is found also in all solid and fluid parts of the body. Hair and the crystalline lens contain among other inorganic substances, also ferrum. The carbonates, as such, are, according to Moleschott, .without any influence in the process of cell-formation. "

Some Recent bit refined indications are :-

"CF: a vital constituent of the elastic fibres, the surface of bonds, of vascular walls and connective tissue.
CP: a predominent mineral salt in the blood plasma, bonds,gastric juice and saliva.
CS: present in liver, bile and the mucous membrane.
FP: is found essentially in blood (HB).
KM: predominent in blood corpuseles, the ICF, and also in cells of the nerves and muscles.
KP: vital in the formation and maintainence of the cells of the brain and is also present in the tissue forming substance.
KS: is essential in the cells of the epithelium, muscles, nerves and in the ICF. Carrier of oxygen as well as of organic material. It furnishes vitality of the epithelial tissues.
MP: an important constituent of muscles, nerves , brain and bone cells.
NM: the vital salt is present in the blood plasma and fluids which surround the cell structures throughout the body.
NP: is predominant in the blood and the ICF, and to a lesser extent in cells of muscles and nerves.
NS: an important constituent of ICF where it surfs to regulate the quantity of the water in the tissues. Vital to normal glandular function.
Silicea(Silicic Acid): is present in the human body in comparatively very small quantities. It is an important constituent of the connective tissues, skin, hair and nails."

Rolfe, These are tissue constituent as given in TRS's referance. The first one is given in book "Twelve Tissue Remedies" & 2nd one some refined recent indications. Other referances also indicate somewhat alike it. You may have to tell, how these are indicated in salt forms onash analysis. You may also grossly match, if presence of atomic constituent of salts are grossly correct in any form( ionic or compound) of any salt in any tissue/cell or not?

 

[rppa]

Do you believe that any medicine or healing substance can behave differently in different people inspite all having same symptoms--I mean, are effects can be dependent on individual basis, more or less?

No.

Antibiotics may affect different strains of the same bacterium differently. But that has to do with the bacterium, not the person.

 

[Rolfe]

"INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS OF CELLS.

The principal inorganic materials of nerve-cells are magnesia phos., Kali phos., Natrum and Ferrum:- "Muscle-cells contain the same, with the addition of Kali mur. Connective tissue-cells have for their specific substance Silica, while that of the elastic tissue-cells probably calcarea flour. In bone cells we have calcarea flour and Magnesi phos. and a large proportion of calcarea phos. This latter is found in small quantities in the cells of muscle, nerve, brain and connective tissue. Cartilage and mucous cells have for their specific inorganic material Natrum mur, which is found also in all solid and fluid parts of the body. Hair and the crystalline lens contain among other inorganic substances, also ferrum. The carbonates, as such, are, according to Moleschott, .without any influence in the process of cell-formation. "

Some Recent bit refined indications are :-

"CF: a vital constituent of the elastic fibres, the surface of bonds, of vascular walls and connective tissue.
CP: a predominent mineral salt in the blood plasma, bonds,gastric juice and saliva.
CS: present in liver, bile and the mucous membrane.
FP: is found essentially in blood (HB).
KM: predominent in blood corpuseles, the ICF, and also in cells of the nerves and muscles.
KP: vital in the formation and maintainence of the cells of the brain and is also present in the tissue forming substance.
KS: is essential in the cells of the epithelium, muscles, nerves and in the ICF. Carrier of oxygen as well as of organic material. It furnishes vitality of the epithelial tissues.
MP: an important constituent of muscles, nerves , brain and bone cells.
NM: the vital salt is present in the blood plasma and fluids which surround the cell structures throughout the body.
NP: is predominant in the blood and the ICF, and to a lesser extent in cells of muscles and nerves.
NS: an important constituent of ICF where it surfs to regulate the quantity of the water in the tissues. Vital to normal glandular function.
Silicea(Silicic Acid): is present in the human body in comparatively very small quantities. It is an important constituent of the connective tissues, skin, hair and nails."

Rolfe, These are tissue constituent as given in TRS's referance. The first one is given in book "Twelve Tissue Remedies" & 2nd one some refined recent indications. Other referances also indicate somewhat alike it. You may have to tell, how these are indicated in salt forms onash analysis. You may also grossly match, if presence of atomic constituent of salts are grossly correct in any form( ionic or compound) of any salt in any tissue/cell or not?

This is not an anaylsis. At best it is a summary. What Flume posted about blood cells and plasma was an analysis, it gave actual amounts measured in the two fractions of blood. What you have just typed is meaningless because there are no numbers.

Rolfe.