On 10/18/10 2:06 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob Officer".@. wrote in message ...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 03:27:58 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:
"Bob Officer".@. wrote in message ...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 21:14:35 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:
"Bob Officer".@. wrote in message ...
On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:55:43 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
wrote:
What you're describing john sounds like the patriarchal culture, where the macho men reign by secrecy, authoritarian
regimes,
hierarchical systems and brute force.
However, that doesn't sound like science at all. All the science that counts is published in publicly available journals,
often
available at libraries or over the internet for free. The abstracts (summaries) of the articles are almost always available
for
free.
Ah yes, but Jeff, only certain health research is considered worthy of funding.
Yes, research which shows promise.
No, research which doesn't threaten big pharma.
Who decides what is and what isn't worthy of funding?
Well I guess you would actually look at avenues which haven't been
explored. After all how many times do you spend money to find the
evidence doesn't support Iridology or some other already explored
avenue shown to be a failure?
That was a rhetorical question bob.
It didn't look like one, Carole. I actually thought it was a
sarcastic question but a good one. I gave a good answer.
Since we know the structure of the iris is fixed in a person to the
extent it can be used for identification using iris scans, It pretty
much places the practice of iridology into the area of
pseudoscience...well not even really pseudo science, but pure
bull****.
We don't know that the iris is fixed bob.
yes we do.
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/TechReports/UCAM-CL-TR-635.html
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_det...csnumber=38750
http://www.irisbase.com/ - non-functional
http://google.com/patents?id=KRkpAAAAEBAJ
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/users/jgd1000/irisrecog.pdf
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jgd1000/patrec.pdf
http://www.cbsr.ia.ac.cn/users/zfhe/publications.html
http://iris.nist.gov/ICE/ICE_2005_Re...0March2006.pdf
According to a book that I have called The Science and Practice of Iridology by Bernard Jensen, where he consistently talks about
iris changes caused by both disease and healing.
Evidence please. A self-serving book doesn't count.
When the health is deteriorating the irises get murkier with more overlay of signs of
toxins, the lesions get darker, there may be more nerve rings, probably more clumping of fibres. However, under a healing regime
the
lesions are said to get lighter in color and eventually can disappear.
and the Research and evidence to back this claim is where, so I can
examine these data set? That's right they claim is all based on
here-say, and what is now a considered a falsified assumption.
The body of evidence and data is sufficient that the assumption upon
which iridology is based is false.
Yes bob, we all know about conventional statistics and how reliable they can be.
It is a well known fact that many people as they get older develop murkier irises with discolouration and acid overlays, not to
mention the scurf rings and arcus senilis (the arc of senility) - you know that while arc that goes between 11 and 1 oclock on the
iris.
So? Prove that this makes iridology accurate.
How many times does one spend time, money and effort to explore
avenues which have proved fruitless, Carole? How many times does it
have to be pointed out to you that, Claims based only on post hoc
fallacies (like your cell salt cures) fall apart under the most
simple examination and questioning.
This isn't the fault of the therapies bob, but of the researchers.
No if an avenue is shown to false, or the claims falsified, as in
iridology how many times do you revisit blind canyons of beliefs
which are contradicted by evidence?
I wouldn't believe it was false by anything told to me by an allopath for starters, and wouldn't believe everything told to me by a
failed iridologist either because the healing effects depend on the methodology used to achieve it. If the method is no good, no
healing = no iris change.
The iris doesn't change because of disease. If I am incorrect, provide
good evidence that I am wrong.
If you pick up a rock and drop it 1000 times measuring the rate of
fall and you come up with a rate for acceleration, how many more
times to continue to test the rate?
You're the expert on rocks bob.
That doesn't follow the conversation. It only shows that you don't have
a clue about what we're talking.
1. where is the evidence you had a fungus infection. (slides)
2. where are the evidence you no longer have fungus growth (slides)
3. where are the control subjects in the double blind test using a
placebo. (I would even accept a simple masked test at this point)
You see how quickly your claim fails the most simplistic of razors.
Not really bob. The beauty of my system is that anybody can test it
for themselves and there is no substitute for firsthand
experience.
That isn't how science and evidence works. The condition might have
past or faded without cell salt intervention. That's why double blind
test are conduction to couple the effect and cause and solution.
I don't care how science or evidence works because I do it my own way.
Then you have no place in misc.kids or misc.kids.health or sci.med.
That's the beauty of using a tool called science, when you are done
the results are available for anyone to test or examine.
Except when the data is manipulated which happens often enough.
See Fraud in Drug Testing at http://www.pnc.com.au/~cafmr/online/...ch/drug2a.html
And, you can still test and examine the evidence. And, you can do your
own tests.
So, you think iridologists are 100% honest and only want to help people?
The ugliness of your result is it simple your say-so, without
evidence or any real result. (it is called empty hand waving)
No the ugliness of your science is that people have to rely on "experts" and "reliable sources" which aren't often either expert or
reliable.
No, the beauty of science is that anyone can access the papers at the
library or over the internet and read the research reports. Any theory
can be changed if there is enough support for the new theory. Even the
theory of gravity was changed.
We all know there is massive suppression of alternative remedies,
so a person is literally forced to investigate these things for
themselves anyway.
No we don't, Carole. that is multiple fallacy statement, (post hoc +
agrement from popularity fallacy) When you start off with a
declarative (we all know / all right thinking people / the smart
people say it is red light that the rest of the statement is also
fallacious in nature and should be examine carefully.
There is massive suppression of alternative remedies.
Its not called "The Medical Racket" for nothing.
And there is almost no support for the vast majority of them. Would you
take your car to a mechanic who says he thinks that pushing in a pedal
twenty times fixes the clutch without any evidence? Then why would you
believe a iridologist? Oh, because you are easily fooled into believing
in con-med (conjecture based medicine).
The Developing American Medical Racket
http://www.ahealedplanet.net/medicine.htm
Do you think every conjecture-based medicine (con-med) person is based
in science, honest and trust-worthy? I don't. Only a fool would think
that con-med people are all honest.
The rest of your statement is an argument is more defective in logic.
If it is suppressed how do you know about it? If it is suppressed why
are the book stores and book sellers shelves lined with books on
alternative (conjecture based) medicine?
You wish.
In other words, you can't answer the question.
You see Carole, you statements fall apart when examined, because
being illogical and poorly constructed fallacies.
No they don't.
Actually, they do. Too bad you're too stupid to see it.
Get you money back on the IQ test which you took, it must have been
defective, and Carole, you are no "Mastermind".
How's the alzheimer's going?
Nice comeback. You should print it out so you don't forget it.
Jeff