OS 0 1 2, Global Dialectic for the Internet

Bubblefish said:
First off, and this reply is serious and respectful, so please take it as such, I am not Dr. Lo's agent or publicist. If you cant find any of his work on the web, I dont have any to offer you.

He did say, and i informed you of this on the thread, that in a few months there is going to be something published regarding this current project in a peer reviewed journal, and when it is published, I will provide the links.
In the other thread you claimed that his evidence for qi had already been published in peer-reviwed journals. If, as is implicit in your posts, you are in regular communication with him, it should be a simple matter for you to ask him for the references. If the articles exist, I'm sure he'll know where they were published.
 
Ah, so he WAS reading it, and you were merely his mouthpiece. Fine. What can I say that isn't pointing out the bleeding obvious about who played who...

Probably not much

"WE" are interested?

yes. I am helping Dr. Lo translate his project into media, and we are looking for the proper direction to go in.

Is he seriously considering you as a partner in this little escapade?

It appears that way.

Or do you just think that's what he is going to do.


I can only take the man at his word. It's his decision to do this, or not. I just pitched him the idea.

Would you care to buy a bridge?

sure. have any cheap offers you know of? maybe we can go in 50/50

Also, did you know the word "gullible" is not in the dictionary? [/B]

I thought the only word not in the dictionairy is 'supercaliffadulousexpealitouscous'
 
Mojo said:
In the other thread you claimed that his evidence for qi had already been published in peer-reviwed journals.

Dr. Lo has a theory regarding Qi that he calls 'water clusters'. According to him, he had his research paper published and reviewed a few years back. I have no more information than that. I brought that up in the other forum because someone asked if he ever published any of his work, and from what he told me, he has.

I dont know much about how that all works, but as I understand it, he does not own the copyright on the paper. He has a hard copy of the review, and it clearly is not available on the web, so I dont know what to tell you.

Dr. Lo doesnt really care if anyone here believes it or not, nor I, and there is no need for him to prove the research he has done to an online community that has already overstepped their bounds and contacted one of his peers with a deluge of email, which is disrespectful.

If, as is implicit in your posts, you are in regular communication with him, it should be a simple matter for you to ask him for the references.

I could ask him allot of things. but since he already asked me to close out the discussion on his research, then that would clearly violate his request, now wouldnt it?

Perhaps if this was a more respectful community, and the members here didnt spend so much time trying to trash a man and contact his peers, dr. lo would be more open to addressing your questions. Since this appears as a hostile community that is only interested in trashing a respected man's character, I really dont see why he should go out of his way to digitize a copy of his work and go through all that effort so you can just trash him further.

this is not a community that can be trusted. There were only two members here that were polite and respectful, the rest of you are vulgar, rude, and only interested in proving your own convictions, nothing more.

If the articles exist, I'm sure he'll know where they were published.

Yeah, me too.
 
The only references that I can find to the good Doctor as he relates to the topic at hand are reviews of his book, The Biophysics Basis for Acupuncture & Health, published in 2004 by Dragon Eye Press. Here's the review from the Research Council for Complimentary Medicine (http://www.rccm.org.uk/camrn/books.aspx?id=78):

"Dr Shui Yin Lo provides a long awaited and important bridge between Western science and Chinese medicine. He brings together massive scientific evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture and meridian theory, from current studies done in Japan, the US, China, the UK, Sweden and Germany, and puts it into a quantum physics framework. The result is a unified molecular biological and quantum physical view. This book sheds new light on the interconnectedness of mind, body and spirit. Meridians are seen to be the most fundamental system of human being, governing all other systems. It is proposed that meridians are made up of a polarized media which is likely to be water clusters. These water clusters align to form an electric field throughout the network of meridians. When the water clusters align to form an electric field throughout the network of meridians. When the water clusters fall out of allignment, qi is blocked and the body is in pain ir becomes sick. Acupuncture, moxibustion and qigong can align the water clusters. Once they are aligned, qi flows and the body heals. Through conscious interaction with the meridian system, as in the practice of qi gong, one can attain higher levels of energy and vibrant health."

A brief mention of his research is made at the bottom of this article: http://www.healthyroads.com/mylibrary/data/pelletier/chapter8/p_homeopathy.asp

ETA: On first glance, this seems like kind of a mish-mash of several different topics and alternative health practices. I don't mean to impugn the good doctor's name or work, but without being willing or able to shell out $60 US for the book, what is different about this approach to the others that it resembles?

ETAagain: I just CANNOT spell today.
 
ETA: On first glance, this seems like kind of a mish-mash of several different topics and alternative health practices. I don't mean to impugn the good doctor's name or work, but without being willing or able to shell out $60 US for the book, what is differnet about this approach to the others that it resembles?

I dont know, I have not read the book. It is a fascinating topic, and Dr. Lo has done a lifetime of research on it.

But since he is a research scientist, he may be aware that much of his writing is not for the 'gentle reader', and I am certainly not qualified to comment on his research, or how it relates to other studies and tests.

I do know that every question based in skepticism that I have asked Dr. Lo he has answered to my satisfaction.

thank you for posting that link.
 
Bubblefish said:
I thought the only word not in the dictionairy is 'supercaliffadulousexpealitouscous' [/B]

I'm afraid that word IS in the Oxford English Dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/l/longestword.html


Did you really think that's the ONLY word not in the Dictionary?

REALLY? Because that's a just plain naieve and ridiculous position to hold.

Or are you trying to be a smartass? You're not very good at it; being smart is a prerequisite.
 
Bubblefish said:
Dr. Lo has a theory regarding Qi that he calls 'water clusters'. According to him, he had his research paper published and reviewed a few years back. I have no more information than that. I brought that up in the other forum because someone asked if he ever published any of his work, and from what he told me, he has.

I dont know much about how that all works, but as I understand it, he does not own the copyright on the paper. He has a hard copy of the review, and it clearly is not available on the web, so I dont know what to tell you.

Dr. Lo doesnt really care if anyone here believes it or not, nor I, and there is no need for him to prove the research he has done to an online community that has already overstepped their bounds and contacted one of his peers with a deluge of email, which is disrespectful.



I could ask him allot of things. but since he already asked me to close out the discussion on his research, then that would clearly violate his request, now wouldnt it?

Perhaps if this was a more respectful community, and the members here didnt spend so much time trying to trash a man and contact his peers, dr. lo would be more open to addressing your questions. Since this appears as a hostile community that is only interested in trashing a respected man's character, I really dont see why he should go out of his way to digitize a copy of his work and go through all that effort so you can just trash him further.

this is not a community that can be trusted. There were only two members here that were polite and respectful, the rest of you are vulgar, rude, and only interested in proving your own convictions, nothing more.
I'm not asking for references in order to "trash" anyone's reputation or character. I'm asking for the references so that people can judge his work on this matter for themselves. That, as I'm sure Dr. Lo will confirm, is how science works.
 
scribble said:
I'm afraid that word IS in the Oxford English Dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/faq/language/l/longestword.html

i didnt see that word there.

Also, 'aint aint a word cuz it aint in the dictionairy too..

Did you really think that's the ONLY word not in the Dictionary?

you tell me.

REALLY? Because that's a just plain naieve and ridiculous position to hold.

ahh, thank you for enlightening me.

Or are you trying to be a smartass?

moi?

You're not very good at it; being smart is a prerequisite.

apparently, my humor is incoherent to you. to get my humor, being smart is a prerequisite. until then, your part of the show.

say cheeze.
 
Mojo said:
I'm not asking for references in order to "trash" anyone's reputation or character. I'm asking for the references so that people can judge his work on this matter for themselves. That, as I'm sure Dr. Lo will confirm, is how science works.

Yes, and as i said previously, in a few months, a published peer reviewed paper will be posted, thus granting your request.

Hope that finally resolves this issue.
 
See, I learn from my mistakes, and recognise patterns. The first one was based on foolish hopes, the second was based on observation.
 
Chris O. said:
See, I learn from my mistakes, and recognise patterns. The first one was based on foolish hopes, the second was based on observation.


I'm sure your very talented.
 

Back
Top Bottom