StopSylvia.com: first announced

[rorylee]

Even if it's your only chance ?

Experimental treatment = unproven treatment, no matter who is offering it

Kind of a double standard you have here. You would accept the unproven claims of a psychic, ie to be a "lab rat" for a psychic, but not for a treatment that might actually work according to preliminary evidence.

So, if I understand your "logic" correctly, the less evidence for a treatment you will find, the more you're likely to try it ?

I dont understand your thought pattern sorry, dont know how to answer this..

 

[Tricky]

and a rift is created and another cause & effect is done with the citizen being the cause and another rift happens again with the ripoff artist being the cause.

It goes around in circles till someone either stops or moves on, if not expect stuff to happen...

Edit: Oh and 'Psychics' dont play fair.

No one thing can stop it. However, it seems to be the case that people are becoming more skeptical about the claims of psychics and other such frauds. As long as there are gullible humans, such frauds will exist, but they have been dinged pretty good by skeptics lately, which is one reason that Sylvia went ape-**** over Robert's site. It was cutting into her income. Especially after the Anderson Cooper exposure.

Same thing happened to Uri Gellar after Randi demolished his claims on the Johnny Carson show. No, Uri hasn't gone away completely and neither will Sylvia. (See "gullible humans" above.) But more and more people are gaining a resistance to the frauds. To a great extent, we have people like Randi and Robert to thank for that.

 

[Hokulele]

Same thing happened to Uri Gellar after Randi demolished his claims on the Johnny Carson show. No, Uri hasn't gone away completely and neither will Sylvia. (See "gullible humans" above.) But more and more people are gaining a resistance to the frauds. To a great extent, we have people like Randi and Robert to thank for that.

Heh, I was doing a crossword puzzle in a major national newspaper the other day and "Uri" was one of the words. The clue? "Debunked mystic".

 

[Tricky]

Heh, I was doing a crossword puzzle in a major national newspaper the other day and "Uri" was one of the words. The clue? "Debunked mystic".

Heh heh! Culture change is slow and subtle.

 

[bluesjnr]

Reading the contributions from one individual in particular to this thread has brought something home to me and I wish to share it with you all. I'm sure you know this anyway but I feel it is particularly pertinent on this specific topic given the sterling work and body of evidence provided by RL on SB.

There are three levels of ignoramus.

1) Unconscious Ignoramus - The individual is unknowing of the facts, unaware that they are "in the dark". Often when given guidance they will seek enlightenment.

2) Wilful Ignoramus - The individual is aware that the facts are out there but wilfully decides not to seek enlightenment and to remain ignorant in order to allow them to persist with their shaky belief.

3) Pig Ignorant Ignoramus - The worst level of all ignorance and one that has been attained by at least one individual here. This individual lives in a mire of ignorance through choice, beyond self delusion. They go through life tainted by the smell of ignorance. They love to wallow in the cesspit of ignorance and even when taken by the nose to the source of enlightenment would rather XXXX all over it and any proponents of that enlightenment than spend one millisecond studying it. Their motivation stems from No.2 above but goes way beyond that.

Just sayin' is all.

 

[rorylee]

No one thing can stop it. However, it seems to be the case that people are becoming more skeptical about the claims of psychics and other such frauds. As long as there are gullible humans, such frauds will exist, but they have been dinged pretty good by skeptics lately, which is one reason that Sylvia went ape-**** over Robert's site. It was cutting into her income. Especially after the Anderson Cooper exposure.

Same thing happened to Uri Gellar after Randi demolished his claims on the Johnny Carson show. No, Uri hasn't gone away completely and neither will Sylvia. (See "gullible humans" above.) But more and more people are gaining a resistance to the frauds. To a great extent, we have people like Randi and Robert to thank for that.

So one person looking for attention in the public eye gets taken by other, lol funny =].

Fair enough i can see your point, but there are frauds in just about any industry and most dont get the same treatment and some take far larger amounts of money, without giving even the slightest bit of help, whether it be psychology or not.

 

[Tricky]

The doctor is using lab rats to test a treatment, he/her isn't the lab rat.
The 'Psychic' is a lab rat testing his/her abilities on patients, The 'Psychic' is the one under surveillance, not the Doctor.

So psychics "know" they have these healing powers but refuse to let them be studied so that the powers can be shared for the good of the world, simply because they don't want to be "lab rats"?

Is there something that is the opposite of the Hippocratic Oath that healing psychics have to sign?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Fair enough i can see your point, but there are frauds in just about any industry and most dont get the same treatment and some take far larger amounts of money, without even the slightest bit of help, whether it be psychology or not.

I'm surprised to learn that there are frauds in each industry that people don't assail or debunk. Can you mention any by name?

Is there something that is the opposite of the Hippocratic Oath that healing psychics have to sign?

"First provide no evidence."

 

[Tricky]

So one person looking for attention in the public eye gets taken by other, lol funny =].

Fair enough i can see your point, but there are frauds in just about any industry and most dont get the same treatment and some take far larger amounts of money, without even the slightest bit of help, whether it be psychology or not.

Do you have the same disdain for people who try to reveal tax frauds as you do for those who try to reveal psychic frauds? Is it possible that you are saying the because other people engage in dishonesty, it is pointless to try to expose dishonesty? I have a real problem with that kind of moral statement.

 

[Steve001]

Originally Posted by krazyKemist
Even if it's your only chance ?

Experimental treatment = unproven treatment, no matter who is offering it

Kind of a double standard you have here. You would accept the unproven claims of a psychic, ie to be a "lab rat" for a psychic, but not for a treatment that might actually work according to preliminary evidence.

So, if I understand your "logic" correctly, the less evidence for a treatment you will find, the more you're likely to try it ?

I dont understand your thought pattern sorry, dont know how to answer this..

What they are saying is, if it fits your particular philosophical perspective then believe it regardless of whether there's truth to it.

 

[Mojo]

Is it possible that you are saying the because other people engage in dishonesty, it is pointless to try to expose dishonesty?

With language and communication skills like rorylee's it's possible that he might be saying almost anything.

 

[rorylee]

Do you have the same disdain for people who try to reveal tax frauds as you do for those who try to reveal psychic frauds? Is it possible that you are saying the because other people engage in dishonesty, it is pointless to try to expose dishonesty? I have a real problem with that kind of moral statement.

Well i dont like tax, if you can get away with it, sure do it that doesn't harm anyone but themselves and the government if caught, but i dont endorse it, nor care if someone finds them doing it(its a different skill base), if thats what your getting at. The different can be said with 'Psychics' if they are a fraud and telling someone their grandma is saying 'this' which is a bunch of crap, instead of saying something only the grandchild and grandma would know and not the 'Psychic'.

 

[Tricky]

Well i dont like tax, if you can get away with it, sure do it that doesn't harm anyone but themselves and the government if caught, but i dont endorse it, nor care if someone finds them doing it(its a different skill base), if thats what your getting at.

It sounds very much like you DO endorse it "if you can get away with it". I'm learning more and more about your moral code.

The different can be said with 'Psychics' if they are a fraud and telling someone their grandma is saying 'this' which is a bunch of crap, instead of saying something only the grandchild and grandma would know and not the 'Psychic'.

If psychics did this and only this and did it for free, I'd have no problem with it. It would be pretty benign. But instead, they do things like claim to heal people. Or claim that they know where their missing children are. Or they charge outrageous sums from greiving people who are desperate to hear from their loved ones. That is not benign. Such people are criminals in my mind, and people like Robert who have exposed them as criminals are the kind of crime-fighters I respect very much. I respect them much more than people who think it is okay to steal "if you can get away with it."

 

[krazyKemist]

I dont understand your thought pattern sorry, dont know how to answer this..

I have a feeling you don't understand what science is.

By describing someone as a "lab rat", I'm assuming you're saying he/she is a subject of an experiment.

The point of doing an experiment is to know something. There is nothing mysterious or nefarious about this - it is simply an extension of the process everybody uses to deal with the outside world. For instance, this is the way you learned to walk. Without knowing anything about gravity, you tried different ways to stand and move forward; some worked and others did not. Your walking today is a result of these early experiments. In medicine, the same process was and is used to know what works and what does not.

Therefore, an "experimental treatment" is a treatment about which we don't know whether it works or not.

An experimental treatment is not defined as "something pointy-headed scientists do". It's simply an unproven treatment, no matter who is providing it. You are an experimental subject if you submit yourself to an unproven treatment, no matter who is doing it. If the person doing the experiment is not recording anything, then he/she is a sloppy experimenter and you're submitting yourself to a useless experiment - one from which the experimenter will not learn anything.

There is no evidence that a psychic will heal you. Claims are not evidence. Anecdotes are no data. Belief proves nothing.

In contrast, a legitimate experimental treatment must have some preliminary evidence going for it before a doctor is allowed to try it on humans. Things like encouraging results on animals, for example.

You would be willing to be an experimental subject ("lab rat") for a psychic, but not for a doctor. In other words, you would go for the treatment option that has less evidence going for it, the one that statistically has the least chance of working.

To me that is like choosing to play Russian roulette with all chambers loaded, hoping for a misfire, versus playing with only one bullet.

 

[Alice Shortcake]

I've just played a small but (I hope) worthwhile part in exposing the lies of an English "healer" named Adrian Pengelly. I don't think for a moment that Pengelly, who last week pleaded guilty to three charges under the Cancer Act and Consumer Acts, will just disappear from the scene, but I DO have the satisfaction of knowing that he now has a criminal record and the evidence is out there for anyone who googles his name to find for themselves.

THIS is why it's vital for anyone disgusted by the exploitation of desperate and gullible people to take action against loathesome con artists like Browne and Pengelly. If you sit back and do nothing in the vague hope that a government agency/investigative journalist will do the work for you...well, don't hold your breath. The UK's Trading Standards Authority, who were responsible for taking Pengelly to court, doesn't employ people to trawl through websites in the hope of spotting an illegal claim to cure cancer; newspaper editors know that woo is big business and don't like upsetting their readers' belief systems. Robert Lancaster's Stop Sylvia site was an inspiration to me and I'm sure to many others.

 

[rorylee]

It sounds very much like you DO endorse it "if you can get away with it". I'm learning more and more about your moral code.


If psychics did this and only this and did it for free, I'd have no problem with it. It would be pretty benign. But instead, they do things like claim to heal people. Or claim that they know where their missing children are. Or they charge outrageous sums from greiving people who are desperate to hear from their loved ones. That is not benign. Such people are criminals in my mind, and people like Robert who have exposed them as criminals are the kind of crime-fighters I respect very much. I respect them much more than people who think it is okay to steal "if you can get away with it."

When it comes to governments my moral code is a bit different, since i dont have respect there, but when it comes to the way we treat people, im different and so on.

The thing is though, if they really can do it, tested their abilities and put into practice, it can pretty much become a full-time job, as you studied it like you would with anything else and in this society you need money to live, whose blame is that? money makes people do weird things.

But i should mention im against anyone who does it, due to a simple biblical phrase, unless your willing to reap the rewards from it lol.

 

[rorylee]

I'm surprised to learn that there are frauds in each industry that people don't assail or debunk. Can you mention any by name?



"First provide no evidence."

So in short, you think everyone tells the truth?

 

[AvalonXQ]

So in short, you think everyone tells the truth?

No. I think those that defraud others get called on it all across the board.
You seem to be arguing that psychics are getting singled out and everyone else is getting a free pass. I think the problem is the opposite: psychics have often been given a free pass, and they and their followers get defensive when we start actually holding them to their claims like we do in other arenas.

 

[rorylee]

No. I think those that defraud others get called on it all across the board.
You seem to be arguing that psychics are getting singled out and everyone else is getting a free pass. I think the problem is the opposite: psychics have often been given a free pass, and they and their followers get defensive when we start actually holding them to their claims like we do in other arenas.

In a sense they do, like you said they have 'followers' who believe in their abilities, whether or not its experienced first hand or just simple faith in them, they do have followers. Which isn't the same for frauds in other 'industries'.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In a sense they do, like you said they have 'followers' who believe in their abilities, whether or not its experienced first hand or just simple faith in them, they do have followers. Which isn't the same for frauds in other 'industries'.

Frauds in other industries often have "followers" (a better term would be "marks"). And they're often debunked, the followers fall away, and the frauds are arrested or at least fade into obscurity.
Sound familiar?