Mojo
Mostly harmless
Non-Homeopathic Belladonna
- Thread starter Rodney
- Start date
-
- Tags
- belladonna edgar cayce
Exactly! The systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration are reviews of the entire record on any particular subject, rather than selected records.
Yes. As far as we can tell, it's an accurate measure of the degree of bias present in the field of Ganzfeld research. Bias is not a paranormal effect. I'm suggesting that instead of measuring bias, the researchers make a concerted effort to eliminate bias to see if anything is left.
Can you give an example of paranormal research that has been unjustly rejected - i.e. the evidence supporting the idea is similar to that supporting some conventional idea?
Assuming what you say is true (which I don't),
Yes, that is a good example of the difference between you and me. I don't choose to assume that things are true or not true based on wishful thinking (or at least I try very hard not to and feel contrite (rather than proud) if it happens).
See, you do understand! Money spent on conventional research leads to things like cures for cancer, cures for gastric ulcers and acid-reflux disease, and maybe cures for the common cold. So far, money spent following ideas based on stories and wishful thinking hasn't accomplished anything even remotely close to that.
Linda
Do these systematic reviews include analyzing all RDBPCTs of the possibly harmful effects of consuming coffee and eggs? If so, please direct me to those reviews.
On what basis do you conclude that the Ganzfeld trials have been biased?
How about the Ganzfeld trials?
I will humbly strive for such perfection in the future.
According to -- http://www.preventcancer.com/publications/cancer-gate.php -- "Award-winning author, Samuel S. Epstein, M.D., whose 1978 book The Politics of Cancer shook the political establishment by showing how the federal government had been corrupted by industrial polluters, has written a book that is sure to be of equal consequence. Cancer-Gate: How to Win The Losing Cancer War is a groundbreaking new book. It warns that, contrary to three decades of promises, we are losing the winnable war against cancer, and that the hand-in-glove generals of the federal National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the private “nonprofit” American Cancer Society (ACS) have betrayed us. These institutions, Epstein alleges, have spent tens of billions of taxpayer and charity dollars primarily targeting silver-bullet cures, strategies that have largely failed, while virtually ignoring strategies for preventing cancer in the first place. As a result, cancer rates have escalated to epidemic proportions, now striking nearly one in every two men, and more than one in every three women. This translates into approximately 50 percent more cancer in men, and 20 percent more cancer in women over the course of just one generation."
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
Ah, the famous Daniel Epstein. Why am I not surprised that you are also a fan of his? This is the cancer expert who tells people that turning their blood alkaline will cure or prevent cancer. The one who wants everyone to believe that the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society are in cahoots with everyone he doesn't like. He holds these positions despite the unparalleled success of modern science in the past thirty years.
Of course, one can't tell Dr. Epstein that cancer is a disease mostly of the aged and that its occurence has increased due to the also unparalleled increase in the median life expectancy. No, such details do not insterest Dr. Epstein. He would rather ride the wave of paranoia about big industry and shamelessly promote himself. (Rodney, check out who's behind preventcancer.com.) I'd also like to know which awards Epstein has earned as I've been able to find no list.
Rodney, take my advice. If you ever get cancer, don't go with Eptein or Cayce. Your odds are much better with real medicine. Indulge your fantasies now but you should stop if you ever get in this type of bind.
You've lost me on this. Why are you going on about coffee and eggs?
I've read descriptions of the methods and they allow for the presence of bias. Parapsychologists have described the presence of bias in the Ganzfeld studies (examples - Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman, Louie Savva). And Ray Hyman demonstrated through simulation that even just a few of these flaws (of the amount and kind found in these studies) can lead to the appearance of an effect equivalent to that demonstrated by the metanalyses.
How about the Ganzfeld trials?
What conventional idea are you comparing it to? What conventional idea do you think is unquestioned, even though it is supported by a reasonably equivalent amount of information, just because the idea does not challenge conventional wisdom?
Disregarding the validity (or lack thereof) of Epstein's ideas, what does that have to do with what we were talking about? Where do you think the knowledge about preventable causes has come from, if not through conventional research?
Linda
I bloody well hope not. I love eggs. And I love coffee. Or do you mean "coffee and eggs"?
"Regression towards the mean", "selection bias", "sensory leakage", "randomisation errors", "documentation errors", "statistical flaws"
Is there an update? Or has there been no change in 30 years?
So he says it is winnable. Is he saying that it is winnable through Altmed, rather than through EBM?
Prevention of cancer is a separate issue from treatment of cancer.
Anyway, in the last thirty years, there is mammographic screening, colonoscopic screening, blood pressure screening, cholesterol screening, diabetes screening, dietary advice, advice regarding exercise, stress reduction.
ST has already provided the answer to that one.
Ironically, it is because of the success of treating and preventing other forms of disease, that cancer deaths have risen. Look at the rise in life expectancy. A hundred years ago it was 58, now its 80. Sure cancer's on the rise.
According to -- http://www.mercola.com/2003/dec/10/coffee.htm --
"Although coffee is one of the most heavily researched commodities and studies have spanned decades, there is still much controversy surrounding its ill effects, or lack thereof, on health. Study after study is performed--often with conflicting results--and it seems there is always a new study out to discount the last one."
And, according to -- http://www.thecardioblog.com/2006/07/11/eggs-bad-or-not-bad-for-heart-health-which-is-it/ -- "In the 60's, scientists made the discovery of a link between high blood cholesterol levels and heart disease. Because diet can affect blood cholesterol levels, and eggs can raise this level, it was advised people eat fewer eggs to keep the cholesterol levels down. Twenty years later, along comes the Framingham Dietary Study that questioned that eating eggs had any effect at all on blood cholesterol levels."
All of your "parapsychologists" are avowed skeptics of paranormal phenomena. How about the opinions of folks like Dick Bierman, Daryl Bem, and Richard Broughton?
For example, there is an antiparasitic treatment for cows that is designed to increase milk production. However, studies over many years show highly variable results. See -- http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=e2fe3434616793266e1f73a7362fe74b
My point is that countless billions of dollars have been spent on conventional cancer research since President Nixon declared a "War on Cancer" in 1971, and yet we are still a long way from eradicating cancer. Yes, there has been some progress, but the cost/benefit ratio seems exceedingly high. Where would we be now if a tiny portion of this research had focused on Cayce's unconventional ideas regarding cancer, such as that eating almonds can help prevent it? Unfortunately, we don't know, but some of us would like to find out.
Last edited:
It should be assumed that anything on the Mercola site is wrong until confirmed independently.
It would help if you would make the effort to understand the difference between a cohort study and a randomized controlled trial.
Non-skeptical parapsychologists do not deny the existence of bias, only the idea that it can account for all the effects. The purpose of Hyman's simulation was to demonstrate that it can.
Also, two of the parapsychologists I listed did not start out as skeptics.
What component of this is unquestioned?
Okay. Which areas of research would you like to drop in order to fund your studies? Better methods of mammography? Treatment of childhood leukemia? Smoking-cessation programs?
Linda
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
Ah, rodney, you're back! Good cuz you owe me some stuff. Namely:
1. The membership numbers for the JREF and Cayce International.
2. Evidence that Einstein's hypotheses were fully compliant with physics prior to his publishing them.
3. Evidence of uncontrolled bias in randomized double-blind testing.
4. Evidence of a monolithic scientific establishment.
5. The reason Galileo's hypothesis was rejected.
Maybe you forgot these debts but I didn't. How do you justify asking all your various questions of us but fail to honor your tacit obligation to respond to ours?
1. The membership numbers for the JREF and Cayce International.
2. Evidence that Einstein's hypotheses were fully compliant with physics prior to his publishing them.
3. Evidence of uncontrolled bias in randomized double-blind testing.
4. Evidence of a monolithic scientific establishment.
5. The reason Galileo's hypothesis was rejected.
Maybe you forgot these debts but I didn't. How do you justify asking all your various questions of us but fail to honor your tacit obligation to respond to ours?
I think you should direct your educational efforts toward the media, which tends to report all study results similarly. In any event, I'm still looking for an overall analysis of RDBPCTs.
That's what Blackmore claims, but I have my doubts. As far as Savva goes, it's pretty clear he changed his position in a heartbeat. At one point, he believed that a spirit could attack someone, then suddenly he was debunking psi research at the ripe old age of 28.
I would think the fact that this antiparasitic treatment has been used for so many years is a good indication that it is accepted as being productive. Perhaps "unquestioned" is too strong, but it's certainly placed in a different box than psi research by the scientific establishment
I don't think it's a question of ceasing all funding in any of these areas, although I find smoking cessation advertising to be a complete waste of money. If you can arrange to put me in charge, I'll get the studies done in not time with no cutback in true conventional research.
When was I away?
"Anecdotal" evidence suggests the JREF membership is considerably lower than that of the Association for Research and Enlightenment (as opposed to "Cayce International", which doesn't exist, as far as I know). However, I am willing to listen to "non-anecdotal" evidence that will prove me wrong.
I never said that, but I did say that those hypotheses were much more consistent with the worldview of the scientific establishment than the hypothesis that Cayce could somehow tap into some type of universal wisdom.
I'm still looking for an analysis that supports Linda's belief that randomized double-blind testing is "almost always" accurate. That doesn't mean that I'm against such testing -- to the contrary, I support it. Nonetheless, bias can creep in, which is essentially Linda's criticism of psi research.
I did not use the word "monolithic", but there clearly is a bias toward the mechanistic, materialistic worldview among mainstream scientists in our era, just as there used to be a bias against that worldview in the Middle Ages.
For the same reason that the psi hypothesis is rejected now: It was too far outside the existing scientific worldview.
As you desired, Master.
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
When was I away?
You answered several of Linda's posts before you decided to tackle mine. And there was an all-too-brief period when you didn't post at all. Raise my hopes...
Is anecdotal evidence your sole specialty? Don't you ever have direct evidence for anything you say? Anyway, care to post said anecdotal evidence?
I used Cayce International to designate the worldwide ARE organization. Strange that you would demand non-anecdotal evidence from me while you are perfectly satisfied by foisting anything you (*&)(& well please on me, rodney.
No, that's not what you wrote. This is whay I meant by your bobbing and weaving. You claimed that a scientific establishment exists that refuses to consider hypothesis that do not conform with their current beliefs. Here is the non-anecdotal evidence:
Post 406:
Post 412:
Just to be fair, here's some classic backtracking from #417:
From 421:
And so on and so on and so on... Seems you like to claim there is a scientific star chamber when it suits you and not at other times. So which one is it? No, never mind. Just explain to me how Einstein's hypothesis that distance and time were variable was in any way more shocking than some faker spouting already-known medical treatment?
And I've already told you that's a moot point. As you can propose no better system, all you have to know is that RDBT is the gold standard right now. You don't have to understand it and it isn't Linda's duty to educate you. Willingly or not, you put your life into the hands of RDBT every single day. If you don't like that or don't believe it, go back to school and study up good.
Monolithic was the word I used. Tell me how a scientific establishment could so effectively quash your hero's "contributions" if it were not monolithic. And, yes, science has settled into the comfortable practice of dealing with provable fact. Deal with it. It ain't gonna change until you prove us wrong. Let me reiterate that cuz I like it so: YOU PROVE US WRONG. Got it? It's up to you and whatever support you can muster to provide evidence that cayce had anything of value to offer, not the other way around. Science owes you nothing.
Linda has been very patient with you on this point. No, that's not the reason. The reason is, rodney, that a hypothesis is the very incipient stage of a theory. At the time they are proposed, there is insufficient evidence for hypotheses to command acceptance from scientists. That is the reason Gailieo's hypothesis was not accepted and it is also the reason for Einstein's hypothesis not being accepted. By and by, evidence in favor of successful hypotheses mounts to the point that they are accepted. Cayce's hypotheses have not been accepted because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest they are true. Simple, no?
Mojo
Mostly harmless
Actually, the problem was that it was too far outside the existing religious worldview. And taking the piss out of the Pope didn't help, either. The existing "scientific worldview", such as it was (Copernicus, William Gilbert?) didn't have any real problem with it.
I think you should make an effort to educate yourself, using people who know what they are talking about as sources.
I think this is a lie. You have demonstrated over and over and over again that you will reject any information that I provide to you, regardless of how perfectly it fulfills your criteria. For example, in the Homeopathic Cough Medicine thread, first you asked for evidence that cough medicine was effective. When that was provided, then it was "but I want evidence that particular 'mixtures' are effective." When that was provided, then it was, "but I want evidence that particular brand name formulations of particular mixtures are effective." When that was provided, you simply dropped that part of the thread, waiting for enough time to pass for you to simply go back to repeating your initial assertions as though no contradictory information had already been presented to you.
Knowing that you are ultimately going to reject any information I provide on the overall accuracy of RCT's, I think you actually much prefer the opportunity to reject it at an early stage.
Have you never had an epiphany?
However, to make you happy, I will rephrase my sentence.
"Parapsychologists have described the presence of bias in the Ganzfeld studies (examples - Charles Honorton, Ray Hyman, Dean Radin)."
The reason it is placed in a different box is because the evidence supporting it is dramatically different. The studies looking at milk production as an outcome are the final step in a long series of research understanding the physiology of milk production, parasitology, and therapeutics. It is the tip of an iceberg. On the other hand, none of that kind of information underlies the Ganzfeld studies, so the only evidence for the effect is contained within the studies - no independent evidence exits. It is like a rowboat floating on the surface. The tip of the iceberg and the rowboat my occupy the same volume above the surface of the water, but the total volume of the iceberg and the rowboat are quite different.
I don't think it's a question of ceasing all funding in any of these areas, although I find smoking cessation advertising to be a complete waste of money. If you can arrange to put me in charge, I'll get the studies done in not time with no cutback in true conventional research.
If money is spent on your research, then it is not available to be spent on other research, despite your pretense otherwise. If your drug is tested, that means a drug that may treat childhood leukemia is not tested. These sorts of trade-offs have to be made all the time, but at least they are usually directed by the strength of the evidence underlying the idea in conventional research - i.e. the ideas that are more likely to be fruitful are the ideas that are more likely to be tested.
Linda
Did you miss the part where I said that my answer was nonsensical because it's a tautology?
Woohoo, another tautology.
Linda
Please define "direct evidence."
I already cited the Wikipedia article. And I never said I had conclusive proof that the A.R.E. has more members than the JREF, but there are 37 Edgar Cayce Centers around the world and I don't see anything comparable in the JREF.
You can use whatever you want, but I've never heard the A.R.E. refer to its worldwide organization as Cayce International.
That's okay, I'll explain it again anyway: There is a scientific establishment that is extremely biased against evidence for the paranormal because accepting that evidence would shatter the establishment's prevailing worldview. Fortunately, however, the establishment doesn't have as much control as it would like, and so ideas outside that worldview are promulgated.
It wasn't in any way more shocking because it wasn't inconsistent with the mechanistic, materialistic worldview of the scientific establishment.
So when was the right time to accept Galileo's and Einstein's hypotheses? Please give me the year that you would have accepted each hypothesis.
So how does one determine which credentialed authority knows what (s)he is talking about?
Except that a number of medical authorities are on record as stating that cough medicines are generally ineffective.
No, I'm just trying to determine how accurate RCTs actually are.
Not in the way Louie Savva seems to be claiming. It seems more logical to me that something disillusioned him, rather than him having an epiphany.
But, of the three, only Hyman doubts the overall findings of Ganzfeld studies.
By that logic, you will never accept the findings of Ganzfeld studies, no matter how airtight they are.
Do you really think all of the money spent on conventional cancer research has been well-spent? And how about the money spent on anti-smoking ads? Has that been well-spent?
Slimething
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2006
- Messages
- 3,790
Non-anecdotal, relevant, en pointe facts directly corroborative of claim.
So, what was your point in bringing it up? BTW, the JREF is not a bilking organization. Hence, no need to franchise collection points.
I told you that I used the term to refer to the international version of the ARE. Are you a few bricks short of a load?
No, what you mean is that, now challenged, you will change it to a less falsifiable claim.
Here we go again. Please, pretty please with a cherry on top, reveal to us. O rodney, any evidence existing for the paranormal. BTW, if it ever existed, the worldview of any scientific establishment has been shattered many times before so they're probably used to it. I'll also let you in on a little secret in that I'm a scientist and have no clue whatever of any such entity. Do you have a mailing address for them? If it's as effective in keeping crap like cayce out of modern medicine, I would love to join.
Insofar as non-scientific ideas are promulgated, that doesn't take much, as you have already proven repeatedly. All one needs to do is ignore all facts and believe whatever one wants. Pretty easy. Even you can do that!
Again, please post direct evidence that the notion of relative timespace was accepted in physics prior to Einstein's hypothesis. You keep on repeating that it was consistent but, you see, you're wrong!!
So, please enlighten us with anything that will support your statement.When my reservations had been adequately addressed. Can't give you the dates because I wasn't there at the time. Maybe cayce was? Ask him.
Global Warming is a case in point. You would rely on the consensus position of experts in the area of climatology and related fields. They will always qualify their certaintly in the conclusion. For example, the evidence for and against anthropogenic global warming, comes out in favour with a probability of about 10% that this conclusion is incorrect. If you are not going to rely on these experts to give you the odds, who are you going to rely on.
This was my point in that thread, but I have since assimilated the difference between public policy and the what the actual results of clinical trials tell us. The results of clinical trials can be confusing and contradictory to the lay person (though not for a scientist trained to evaluate and compare clinical trials). The public needs a safe, take home message. An unfortunate side-effect is incomplete knowledge of the details.
Probably what you need is a comparison between anecdotal evidence and RCTs. There is really no comparison. RCTs, by their very nature, win hands down.
Probably not at present. But you do not know that before you start out. The thing is that the effort needed and needs to be made. The accumulated research could lead, in the furture, to a generic cure. An analogy would be pure (so called, by some, "useless") research in the physical sciences which have led to pretty well everything you see around and in front (your computer!) of you.
Who can tell for sure? In Australia, there is an intensive effort to advertise against smoking and to ban adds promoting cigarettes (on tv, radio, billboards, sporting venues), and to ban smoking in restaurants, workplaces etc. Cigarette boxes must carry a picture graphically illustrating the harmful effects of smoking and a message about the harmfull effects of smoking. All of these measure, and probably others have resulted in a reduction of smoking rates from 58% males in 1964 to 21% males in 2001 (female smoking peaked at 33% in 1976, but has fallen to 21% in 2001)
Last edited:
That's a whole 'nother topic, and one of great interest to me. It is one of the essays in my queque (if I ever get my act together).
However, in this case, I'm talking about eschewing the lay press as a source of expert information, and instead going to regular educational sources, such as textbooks, for basic information/education on things like "what is a cohort study?"
Exactly. Trying to summarize a wealth of information into a single sentence means that you will necessarily be wrong. It is silly to cling to the simplified version when you have the opportunity to understand the details and move closer to a more accurate understanding.
The weighing of the evidence indicates that statement is false. Or in other words, I'll believe it when I see it.
Yes. Accepting that the findings represent psi depends upon belief, rather than reason.
I have specifically stated otherwise.
I don't know. Much progress has been made. I'm sure some of the studies performed were not useful, as it is inevitable and even necessary that some of the areas explored will be dead-ends. If you're not making mistakes, you are missing opportunities.
What's that got to do with it?
Linda