Junk Science  - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2010, 06:06:00 pm
content: it amaze me how easily fooled some people are, not this guy thoughenjoy

author: tyblu
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2010, 07:13:53 pm
content: I'm gonna git a hologram tattoo on my forehead so i can be smarter!

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 24, 2010, 07:42:53 pm
content: good find, it's a pity about these mumbo jumbo things as they overshadow and cast doubt on so many genuine things

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 24, 2010, 09:51:53 pm
content: we call them "medicine seller" and they usually sell on the street. when i was a little kid, i onced become the test subject infront of audiences for the claimed to be "power oil". the seller ask me to lean/bend forward and my hands on my knees, he jump on top of my back and make pulsing pushes downward (like riding a horse) until i fall down, and then he put the "power oil" on the back of my knees and do it again, but this time he just sat steadily on top so i wont fall down. and then he demonstrated the power of his "power oil" to the audiences. they have this "jedi power" of very good communication skill and confidence to only a weak mind will believe them. everytime i saw a "medicine seller", reminds me of that sweet memory, and i never trust them ever since. the end.ps: so my advice to kiddies, learn physics and science in school very well. so you wont be fooled by fool people.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2010, 12:33:06 am
content: "Frequency of what?" is exactly the question I want to see asked whenever fraudsters like these, or the hippy-dippy crystal-healing nutjobs start talking about "frequencies" or "vibrations"...

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2010, 12:52:04 am
content: indeed you might like this too thenPart Onehttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7218293233140975017#Part Twohttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4720837385783230047#

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 25, 2010, 02:58:23 am
content: good news just in time for xmashttp://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/12/24/power-balance-ordered-to-remove-misleading-statements/

author: Ferroto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2010, 06:09:21 pm
content: My brother watched a presentation about cold fusion on youtube.It was some guy in a basement with two electrodes in a glass of (heavy water) making an arc. I pointed out that it was a chemical reaction not a fusion reaction that was going on as the Hydrogen and oxygen was being seperated by the current. I also pointed out the law of diminishing returns and explained that the amount of usable energy produced by any given reaction could not exceed the energy used to produce said reaction. After making my point he continued to persist for weeks on end droning on a combination of junk science and actual science that he had no understanding of. I eventually conceded just to make him shut up about it.The more I read about how companys such as Monster profit off of junk science the more I'm tempted to jump onto the gravy train.

author: Longhair
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: December 28, 2010, 11:16:47 pm
content: If anybody has one of those "tests" done, drop the magical object during the press and see what happens.

author: qno
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 10:03:28 am
content: This reminds me of dr. Richard Feinmann's Cargo Cult Science:In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.The rest of this commencement address given in 1974 is available on the internet.google for "Richard Feinmann Cargo Cult"

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 11:44:47 am
content: I have to say that although I agree with him on the whole. However there are a few things out there that have scant explanation and are not accepted by the medical world. For example there is a machine called the Skenar that was developed in Russia during the cold war for use in space. It is an advanced tens machine (infact to call it a tens machine is an insult) with feedback that will modify it's output based on the bodies reaction to it so that unlike a tens machine the patient does not become imune to it and the correct type of signal is given to the body according to the ailment.The important principle about the Skenar is that IT DOES NOT CURE YOU, YOUR OWN IMMUNE SYSTEM DOES. All the skenar does is appropriately trigger the immune system to work for you. Believe it or not after years of drug we have dulled our immune system. Of course if you "decide" that the scenar does not work it won't as it is your own body doing the work.Due to the threat it could pose to traditional medicine it has only been certified in the UK as a painkilling machine, basically they can be sold and used but no gov body will admit what it can do. Yes you can say that some of it is placebo but that's not all it is at all it is much more.I've been around one since I was 15 and have seen it do wondrous things, I wonder what Mr. Dawkins would have to say about it though

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 01:17:26 pm
content: Personally I think modern science as a whole is a bit arrogant.There seems to be an assumption that our current level of knowledge is advanced enough to explain away new ideas or approaches to things just because they don't fit into modern science at present. eg, "Modern science says that X treatment or idea cannot possibly work, so therefore it doesnt work"I also agree with what Simon said that if you "decide" something isn't going to work then it probably wont, or wont work as well.Which is an interesting concept, i think it applys to more areas than we think. I do wonder if modern science misses seeing links between things simply because the people looking don't have an open mind.After all, if you think about "100% pure science" (for lack of a better term), its all about ordered experimentation and logic, there isn't any room for creativity or intuitive leaps. Obviously modern science isn't actually like that, people are creative and people make up the world of modern science adding their own creativity. But if science is based around this pure science idea then its limiting itself quite a bit by denying the value of a creative scientific mind.All i mean is that i think creativity among other things are needed to make fast scientific progress and currently they doesn't really fit well in the science world which likes everything all logical and mathematical.

author: Sionyn
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 02:03:31 pm
content: yep lets not forget the timeswhen red lead was used to colour sweetsor when radium was sold for its 'powers of rejuvenation'http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/offbeat-news/10-radioactive-products-that-people-actually-used/1388truely a time when ignorance was bliss

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 02:16:47 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 29, 2010, 11:44:47 ami read this as Skenar DOES CURE YOU. another thing is placebo, some people may say it as a lie, but for me... it is a cure... for some people.Quote from: Simon on December 29, 2010, 11:44:47 amdrug is a lie. yet it is certified by medical.Quote from: Psi on December 29, 2010, 01:17:26 pmlet the sci-fi movies do the job so we can enjoy 2in1 purpose (harnessing creativity and enjoying the movie, other than bringging our girlfriend along), not for profit makers that claim its working, which in truth there is no scientific or statistical proof of it.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 02:38:50 pm
content: Drugs can be of help there is no denying that but they are not the only way, usually if I get a headache it is because I am worried about something or upset about something. I don't go and take a pill I try and sort out the problem, either that being physically sorting something or working out in my head what the matter is.You read correctly Shafri, the scenar in itself does NOT cure you, you immune system does the work but the machine triggers it. Our bodies are rather complex and even science will admit we only know a fraction about how the brain works.As an example after my operation to rebuilt my lip and open the airways through my pallet I broke out in a mouth full of ulcers, it was so painful that I could not eat or get a good nights sleep, I used the scenar and it eased the pain and allowed me to sleep, the pills I was given were not really helping a lot (and they cost me), or at least were not helping me sleep although probably having a long period effect in healing.unfortunately it is hard to draw the line between having a little faith and putting stuff to rigorous examination based on the little we know, and the fraudsters and quacks make this task a lot harder. For example the same company that was marketing the skenar in england were also selling (made by another company) a computer program called "computer clear" that was supposed to stop all the bad radiations from computers. Now being of sane mind and technical background I though 1) the actual computer that works at low voltage anyhow and does not make powerful emissions is in a metal earthed case, so I call BS there, 2) the only thing that does cause harm is the CRT monitor but you cannot send any "good stuff" to the monitor to cancel it as that would affect the image unless you used the blank spots when the beam make a return. I wrote all of this to the company and the guy wrote back and said that he was unable to answer my questions that were of too technical a nature and he gave me the address of the program maker so that I could write to them. I did so and got.... NO REPLY, now the company marketing this were the same selling the skenar and many other "alternative stuff" but really the only thing they sold that I ever had faith and well judged trust was the skenar.It pains me to know that i have a friend who only has the use of one arm: recently the other just went useless, she can feel in it but it is powerless, I could probably treat that or a more competent skenar practitioner could but I'd be worried about getting sued if her family decided I'd done her harm later if things got worse. All because profits get in the way of the medical community actually taking this device and giving it the merit it deserves. I have seen a similar problem cured when my grandmother went deaf in one ear because of a hictus, doctors told her she would never hear from it again. After a treatment with the skenar she was able to hear from it again, this was supposedly unrepairable nerve damage. She was also given 3 months to live due to a heart condition and died 5 years later after having a pacemaker for 1 that prevented the use of the skenar.......

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 02:58:22 pm
content: drug will relax you but not cure you, thats why i call it a lie as a curer. headache will pass by, whether you use drug or not, but for cronic desease, it will get worse and you will not notice it due to the drug (painkiller). dont trust your doctor 100%, they know not everything, but dont deny them either.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 04:45:44 pm
content: It's true that drugs don't cure you directly but they can help your immune system and body to deal with diseases. For example if you're vomiting all your food and water back up, the doctor may give you an anti-emetic drug to help you keep your food down. Without the drug or being placed on a drip you'll die from dehydration and your body will have no chance in fighting the virus, with it you'll keep your food and water down, giving you a fighting chance. So as far as the patient is concerned the anti-emetic drug is a cure because the feel better after having the injection.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 05:21:12 pm
content: drugs do have their place, to reject them entirely is as bad as those who will only place any merit in drugs

author: cybergibbons
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 09:51:24 pm
content: Quote from: Psi on December 29, 2010, 01:17:26 pmI think this demonstrates a lack of understanding of what science and the scientific method are. Science doesn't need to explain why or how something happens, it can just show that something does or doesn't happen without attributing any explanation at all. It's got little to do with creativity or leaps - you can test any hypothesis you want, it's just that often people promoting quackery don't want to test them for a reason only known to themselves.I'd be interested to see a decent study into this scenar thing mentioned by Simon, but it's looking dubious.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 10:12:16 pm
content: Quote from: cybergibbons on December 29, 2010, 09:51:24 pmThen I suggest you ask the powers at be, I'd be only too happy to see a study done, when the machine was designed 20-30 years ago it was a serious matter of Russian military/space program because they did not want to take the weight of lots of pills into space and didn't want to contaminate the water as getting drug chemical out is difficult and in space water is recycled, remember it was cold war time and the aim was to conquer space.I have seen result of a study they did at the time it released where it was stated the illness, the number of people treated and the proportion cured, improved or not helped at all, over 90% (I think 98-99% but can't remember) benefited from the treatment program, at least 80% were cured, i think cancer maybe was less than 80% but that is hardly surprising.I'm sure there are many practitioners out there making absurd claims about it and talking a lot of mumbo jumbo to sell it or sessions using it. There are also a number of versions now available. I have in my possession one of the original machine made in Russia and as a family we ended up owning another 3 that were made in the Netherlands by a company called Ritmedic who obtained a license to manufacture them making availability and repair less of a problem, these are a slight upgrade to the original machine although fundamentally the same. Later followed a couple of "self help" versions I never liked as they relied on a few leds to give indication of the treatment instead of the display of figures the original one and it's upgrade had. Now you can get them with bigger displays that are more graphical, I don't know if the program has been changed at all or if it is just "added graphics".The actual device is quite simple, it relies of 2 atmel MCU's and a handful of discrete parts with a couple of logic gate chips, I would guess that one MCU runs the display and the other generates the signals.As for me, I've seen it in action for over 10 years and the help and cures it has offered my family cannot be explained away with placebo, of course as it triggers the brain to make you immune system work if you dead set against it working, well: that's you loss

author: cybergibbons
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 10:22:12 pm
content: It's an odd one, I'll give you that. I can only find one study that is of very low quality, and I can only infer from the way it is written that the writers were looking for a positive outcome (not saying that the study is biased though). The principle hasn't attracted the same level of dispute as homeopathy, which I find strange as there are a lot of clearly biased (in the positive direction) websites about it.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 10:22:54 pm
content: science is essentially based on observing to start with and of what we don;t know forming theories and then trying to validate those theories with experimentation or further more specific observation

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 29, 2010, 10:32:05 pm
content: Quote from: cybergibbons on December 29, 2010, 10:22:12 pmThe main problem is that after the project was abandoned by the Russian government (they wanted to make it water proof that proved hard and then funds were cut) and went commercial it lost full support. The machine I have is actually poorly made for something that cost £1500 in it's day although it has worked fine for 10 years and they have a life expectancy of 4 years. Translation of the documentation and related information has been patchy and of poor quality, the official English manual is not that easy to understand as the interpreter was obviously not fluent in English and so made a bit too much of a direct translation versus a proper interpretation of it. I think for this reason there may now be a fair bit of "cult stuff" out there that is a bit dubious. Being a government thing it was tested by the Russians but because no European country will do a test and validate it it remains in limbo. I wonder how many government ministers in each European country have a lot of interest in pharmaceutical companies, if it became main stream (the actual electronics in it only have a value of about £20 so they could be cheaply mass produced) the drug industry would take a serious hit and that's a fact !

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 12:59:22 am
content: Quote from: cybergibbons on December 29, 2010, 09:51:24 pmNot really, i understand scientific methods, well.. I understand them enough. I'm not claiming to be an expert.I'll try and to put what I was trying to say another way... The framework of modern science is quite slanted towards the left side of the brain, if you look at all the things someone applying a scientific approach might do in their work you can see that a large percentage are left brain functions. All I'm saying is that I think science should be a balance between the left side and the right side-(which is creative and intuitive). I think the current state of relying more on the left side is resulting in ideas and concepts being rejected, analysed or proved/disproved incorrectly.Basically, what science should be, and what it is, aren't the same, and it's limiting us.(in my opinion, obviously your free to disagree)Quote from: cybergibbons on December 29, 2010, 09:51:24 pmWithout a little understanding in the particular field of science where the effect lies you can't really design a proper test for it. When these effects lie in a field of science that doesn't exist yet then things get dismissed as being fake just because they fail tests, tests that can't follow any standards for a field of science because it doesn't exist yet.

author: Time
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 02:28:44 am
content: What ideas and concepts are you talking about that are being rejected? Its not like a bunch of people get together and vote how science works. This "slant"ing is just part of the natural order of things. If you think creativity and abstract thinking is not plentiful when talking about the cutting-edge-brink-of-our-knowledge (i.e. theoretical physics) than you simply know nothing about what is cutting-edge-brink-of-our-knowledge. If there is anything hindering the scientific research community its bureaucratic systems and financial issues. Its definitely not the mindset of the scientific community.You guys are throwing around this very generalized term, "science". Theoretical thinking is much different than the rigorous methodology that is experimentation.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 07:01:32 am
content: I should clarify, im not really talking about theoretical physics or string theory or any of the theoretical math areas.I'm talking about the methodology used to prove and disprove ideas.Quote from: Time on December 30, 2010, 02:28:44 amWell they kind of do in terms of the methodology, it's not something that was discovered, it has been invented and improved over time. It will continue to improve as new methods and test are discovered and new areas of science are discovered requiring different methodologies.Quote from: Time on December 30, 2010, 02:28:44 amSo it's that way just because that's the way it is? I've never found that to be a good answer to any question.

author: Time
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 07:43:11 am
content: Quote from: Psi on December 30, 2010, 07:01:32 amThe scientific method has not changed and will not change. Its practically common sense to approach some hypothesis with the notion of controls and variables and repetition. You were probably doing it in every day life before it was formally introduced to you as a method. I know I was. If you can formulate a better method for proving or disproving a theory than you should probably write for publication. Those elements are the very rudimentary notions of the process and it is adapted to the different theories accordingly. I can start naming famous experiments if you want. If you think it is inadequate but can't provide another alternative that is just indicative of your lack of understanding, simply put.The theory itself dictates the path of experimentation.If you theorize an idea than you should be able to say "If this is true than we should be able to do X and observe Y as a result" and that is where all experimentation is born, regardless of methodology.QuoteWhat is a good answer? Its not like the scientific community is full of conspirators who are just trying to make everyone think a certain way. In fact, its the exact opposite. You should probably get more in touch with modern science journals and technical proceedings. You would probably be pretty impressed with how progressive thinking has evolved since the Slovay conference era. Those guys changed everything and brought new light on thinking.

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 08:53:30 am
content: Things that are proven to be 100% true or false via observation and experimentation don't involve much imagination or creativity. What involves creativity is designing experiments to prove theories. Another thing which requires creativity is coming up with theories to test i.e. imagination tends to fill in gaps in knowledge, just look at all of the theories about how the dinosaurs lived, what they ate, their lifespan and even their mating systems, a good proportion of it is guesswork based around some fossil remains. As with other areas of science some theories seem pretty solid: the dinosaurs evolved from reptiles and are the ancestors to modern birds but most are just speculative: whether they were warm/cold blooded, average lifespan, egg incubation period, parental care, colour ect.Quote from: Simon on December 29, 2010, 10:32:05 pmI'll try to keep an open mind about whether the machine works or not but I don't see that as a valid reason for it not being accepted, the same way that free energy is not being suppressed because of governments wanting to support the oil companies.If the pharmaceutical company sponsored suppression theory is correct then their wouldn't be so many drugs which were released then later found to be dangerous or detrimental and banned causing huge losses for the drug companies. Most governments in Europe also have some sort of universal health system, like our NHS, so they would most likely save huge amounts of money if a super cure all was discovered causing the pharmaceutical industry to go bankrupt. Look at it another way, the governments are buying a service from the drug companies, if they do a bad job (produce ineffective.dangerous products) they get whipped and if someone else can do the job cheaper and more effectively the government stop using them: the NHS are continuously looking for more cost effective treatments and will switch from one drug to another to save money.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 08:58:00 am
content: Quote from: Time on December 30, 2010, 07:43:11 amQuote from: Time on December 30, 2010, 07:43:11 amThese two statements are pretty much exactly what im talking about, assumptions that something we know now is the whole story, that the scientific method cannot possibly be wrong or need changing in the future. If the Slovay conference era changed everything and brought new light on thinking then it's arrogant for science to assume that in 10/100/1000 years there wont be another event that changes human understanding in science again with the same or a greater degree.And as such, we shouldn't always be assuming that modern scientific methods will work for new problems. Sure, they are all we have at present, but i believe there are too many assumtions being made.Of course this is just my opinion. I'm not trying to force my view on anyone else, just explain what my view is.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 09:04:58 am
content: Quote from: Hero999 on December 30, 2010, 08:53:30 amWell the other thing when dealing with governments is they have to keep people happy so probably stick to traditional methods. I don't know why the Skenar has not gained the recognition it deserves but I know it can do many good things, it's no miracle machine no more than drugs are and so far has proved completely harmless (before people get ready to cal in lawyers to sue). But then we live in a world of ignorance and denial of how things should be, be it for money or just because we want them to be so and so and don't want to hear of a better way that does not suit our thinking. If you ever fancy trialling it give me a shout

author: cybergibbons
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 10:45:21 am
content: Psi, I think the problem is that you don't understand what the scientific method means - it isn't "scientific methods". They are the fundamental principles used to investigate and build knowledge, and are based on sound logical reasoning. You can test any hypothesis using the scientific method - it doesn't matter how ridiculous.Take homeopathy - where many high quality studies show that it is no better than placebo. These studies do not try to explain how homeopathy works - they simply try to see if it does work. The proponents of homeopathy say that science doesn't understand homeopathy and start the mumbo-jumbo about frequencies and memory. The point is that science often doesn't need to know how.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 12:14:47 pm
content: Quote from: cybergibbons on December 30, 2010, 10:45:21 amagree, many knowledge have been discovered this way, or simply just by coincidences. only a few very deep knowledge (mostly in pure particle physics afaik) have been predicted through concrete mathematical formulation or mastermind's imagination. guess who discovered electricity? and how? as long as it does work, science will find a way to convert it into concrete reasoning.

author: Time
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 03:45:58 pm
content: How they approach theoretical ideas changed. How they tested these theoretical ideas did not change and will never change. 1000 years ago intellectuals were doing it the same way scientists will be doing it 1000 years from now. It has never changed and will never change.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 05:42:20 pm
content: Quote from: Time on December 30, 2010, 03:45:58 pmsimilar to sex industry.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 05:49:14 pm
content: shafri, what is your problem with science? i think plenty of it went into the skenar which you have suddenly taken a liking too, you can't have it both ways and science made your electronics and photography possible

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 06:35:38 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on December 30, 2010, 05:49:14 pmi dont have any, do you? is it wrong to compare science with sex? they both never changedjust as Time said. maybe you are taking this topic seriously.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 06:56:33 pm
content: me no I'm not taking it seriously, you did start earlier on a rant about not trusting science and was endorsing the skenar, yet this was developed with science. As to how science works and a debate about that I'm none the wiser, it's science and works the way it does...

author: Zero999
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 09:18:30 pm
content: Oh well, I'll throw in my opinion.I've Googled the skenar and there doesn't seem to be much information about it. From what I gather it's an electrostimulation device with feedback. I'm no doctor but just going from what I've read, I can't see it being useful for much other than pain control and perhaps muscle stiffness. I don't see how it could help the body fight something like the common cold but I suppose making the patient feel more comfortable might help. The fact that this is allegedly developed by the Russians doesn't really add much weight to it. Russia is pretty corrupt and if it's a scam, it wouldn't surprise me if the Russian government are making a lot money out of it.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 09:32:21 pm
content: it was not "allegedly" developed in Russia, I WAS, I've watched this thing go from hard to come by with the russians not being too helpful in supplying info (a large language barrier, plus just being funny) to it's establishment in europe, I can't speak for the more modern machines, it was taken from russia as one model and has been further developed but that was probably only in graphical output and overall control. You do actually have to learn to use one of these. The original developers carried out tests. As i said because people don't understand it they start making up explanations that start to venture into pseudo science, if someone had an atmel chip programmer their welcome to come and try and read the code off the two chips, I'd love to know whats in there.As I said I've seen it perform and I'm no less skeptical than the next man. Unfortunately the european medical bodies won't take it seriously and test it, and to flip the coin, what are they afraid of ? if it is junk it is junk, but I don't think so. It's really funny that we as a being have survived relatively well for thousands of years and then all of a sudden when you think of it there are not many people left that don't take pills to make their live bearable if not survive in some cases.As I said I've seen this machine from all aspects as a patient and treating family members, I can't deny what I have witnessed and if placebo explains it away well then, what the fuck are medicines for if the body is so powerful to not need them because "the idea" is enough to put into place life saving cures ?oh and the russian goverment have nothing to do with it anymore, the scams that come out of russia are none existant babes that want to marry you not miracle health cures. Like I said i suspect the development of it was also cold war fueled when america and russia were racing to be the first to establish space dominion.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 09:45:52 pm
content: Quote from: cybergibbons on December 30, 2010, 10:45:21 amHow would someone go about proving through scientific method that they love their partner?It's not so easy to apply logical reasoning to emotions and emotions seem to be important in some of the areas of new age medicine. We know they are somehow important for the placebo effect.Quote from: cybergibbons on December 30, 2010, 10:45:21 amHomeopathy is actually a good example. I'm not really trying to imply that it works or doesn't work, but I did see a scientific study on homeopathy that was a good example of some of what i'm talking about. If you've ever read a pamphlet on homeopathy or maybe just the text on the bottle you sometimes see instructions like "keep away from bright light" or "keep away from strong smells" even sometimes "Keep away from strong emotion".In the study they showed homeopathic solutions being prepared in a laboratory in a clear glass beaker under bright laboratory lights. Not exactly the best way to test something with supposid requirements for a dark environment. Laboratories are also often full of chemical or cleaning smells which is against the so called "instructions" as well. The final warning about keeping it away from strong emotion is also interesting as I would expect the scientists testing it were definitely experiencing that, be it 'for' or 'against' or excited about finding out, or angry that they were being forced to waste their time testing it.If it happened to turn out eventually that the emotions of the person conducting the experiment are important for some experiments then reproducing other peoples results starts to get a bit tricky.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 30, 2010, 11:48:43 pm
content: Anyone interested in this area should readBen Goldacre's bookBad Science.For a taster there is achapter onlinethat didn't make the first edition for legal reasons

author: cybergibbons
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2010, 08:24:46 am
content: Quote from: Psi on December 30, 2010, 09:45:52 pmThis can all be accounted for in a randomised controlled trial, or studied independently and isolated from the main hypothesis.You can study the efficacy of preparing homeopathic remedies in the lab vs a normal preparation bought from a homeopath or shop.You can double or triple-blind a trial to isolate problems with people knowing what they are administering, taking, or analysing.You can have the remedy prepared and administered by a random selection of people, or even investigate if a remedy given by a for/against person will have any effect. There are a lot of studies into this kind of area - for example, I recall a study where the efficacy of a placebo administered by a real doctor, an actor acting as a doctor, a nurse, and a "normal" person was investigated. Indeed, it did cause the efficacy to vary.As a complete aside, if a homeopathic remedy cannot be made in a sterile and/or mass production environment, then discussing it's efficacy is a moot point as it will never get used. Also, I'd take strong issue with the storage and sales of most homeopathic remedies - normally in a chemists under bright lights, next to the aromatherapy oils. If they are this badly affected by such things, why don't the manufacturers stipulate that the products are stored correctly in the shop?

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2010, 08:36:36 am
content: Quote from: cybergibbons on December 31, 2010, 08:24:46 amYou make a good point about the sales in shops next to aromatherapy oils.With regard to the lighting issue, they are sold in dark glass bottles which i can only assume is done to take care of the lighting issue.

author: mikeselectricstuff
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2010, 09:32:36 am
content: Quote from: Psi on December 31, 2010, 08:36:36 amNo, it's to fool buyers into thinking they're real medicines.

author: cybergibbons
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: December 31, 2010, 10:36:25 am
content: Quote from: Psi on December 31, 2010, 08:36:36 amBoots here has them in clear bottles, marked "Keep in a cool, dark place away from strong smells or flavours".

author: quantumfall
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 01, 2011, 03:50:33 am
content: Quote from: cybergibbons on December 30, 2010, 10:45:21 amScience knowledge is limited to what has been discovered by the "Scientific Method" which is to find the truth. As Richard Feynman said "Guess, test or compair to reality if wrong start again" you can find out things but a deeper understanding may be found later. Newtonian gravity to Einsteins gravity models as an example. A deeper reality may come out later it dose not mean the first theory / explanation is wrong but there maybe more depth discovered later. Science finds facts but the facts may change later it never can say its the only fact as a better theory may come along later. It can not say we know how things are full stop. If you see what I mean.Homeopathy / placebo effect this proves that it could all just be the placebo effect, better than nothing I suppose.Just as an aside I would like to say that I think the pharmaceutical companys look for long term sales of drugs to treat symptoms rather than cures as its more profitable. As they do the research and employ the tallented people this is evil I think. Some cheap herbal / traditional treatments are very effective I would think but the pharmaceutical companys want to get them banned to have a monopoly situation.Some natural pesticides like neam tree extracts are also under threat, I can't remember exactly why or where but they are lobbying to get them banned because they want to sell commercial products instead, this is all junk science as well. Not that natural substances are automatically safe or better but we should have the choice and information.