BadPsychics :: Search Results
| 100 Most Recent Posts | 100 Results Found |
|
|
Result 1 of 100:
|  Author | Topic: An open letter to Boots (Read 52 times) |
kensington
Administrator
BPTV Presenter
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/9143/90025291la1.jpg)
Joined: Feb 2008
Gender: Male 
Posts: 905
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 755 |  | Re: An open letter to Boots
« Result #1 Today at 12:22am » | |
Excellent open letter and one I totally agree with. It angers me that pharmacists increasingly push alternative health products which are unproven. They are doing it a lot in Australia where alternative medecine is big business. I met a pharmacist who told me that pharmacies in the past had told him that he needed to push alternative health products and if he did not want to he could leave. He left. It really is a disgrace that places that we are supposed to be able to trust and rely on can sell us this bulls**t. I will do what I can to publicise this letter. Good on ya 
|
"Dont forget to cover your bum, or you'll get a red bum" |
|
|
Result 2 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: An open letter to Boots (Read 52 times) |
Hayley
BP Jr Investigator
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v307/TornPicture/ChalkANDCrayons-10.jpg)
HA! I laugh in the face of humour!
![[homepage]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif)
Joined: Jul 2007
Gender: Female 
Posts: 2,021
Location: Bradford-On-Avon, Wiltshire
Karma: 606 | | Re: An open letter to Boots
« Result #2 Yesterday at 11:59pm » | |
haha. I read the same post about 20 times in an hour, but it's good to be surrounded by like minded people and all that.
|
www.ripodcast.co.uk - Righteous Indignation is the podcast that aims to critically examine extraordinary claims and the people who surround them.
In a closed society where everyone is guilty, the only crime is getting caught. -- Hunter S Thompson. |
|
|
Result 3 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: An open letter to Boots (Read 52 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Re: An open letter to Boots
« Result #3 Yesterday at 11:21pm » | |
I think I'm a little too connected, I've been mailed it via FB from RI and MSS, e-mailed it from Jon and I'm now reading about it on the forum.
Maybe I should leave the house once in a while:)
| |
|
|
Result 4 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: An open letter to Boots (Read 52 times) |
Hayley
BP Jr Investigator
member is offline
HA! I laugh in the face of humour!
Joined: Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,021
Location: Bradford-On-Avon, Wiltshire
Karma: 606 | | Re: An open letter to Boots
« Result #4 Yesterday at 6:30pm » | |
I see you have put the link on the main site 
That's cool.
|
www.ripodcast.co.uk - Righteous Indignation is the podcast that aims to critically examine extraordinary claims and the people who surround them.
In a closed society where everyone is guilty, the only crime is getting caught. -- Hunter S Thompson. |
|
|
Result 5 of 100:
|  Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #5 Yesterday at 6:23pm » | |
The thought had occurred to me on more than one occasion, however I can't believe anyone would be pathetic enough to go to all the effort tgstaldo has gone to just to wind people up.
| |
|
|
Result 6 of 100:
| | Author | Announcement: Samaritans: Lisa’s Story (Read 15 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p134/JonDonnis/nekafka.jpg)
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Samaritans: Lisa’s Story
« Result #6 Yesterday at 5:28pm » | |
Can everyone please
Click Here
And view the new Samaritans TV Advert.
To donate to Samaritans and help them continue to answer every call, 24/7, 365 days a year please visit: www.samaritans.org/lisa
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 7 of 100:
|  Author | Topic: what are you doing right now (8) (Read 13,637 times) |
barb
Baby
Silver Surfer
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.nusuevents.com.au/forum/img/avatars/32.jpg)
if only!
Joined: Nov 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 672
Karma: 33 | | Re: what are you doing right now (8)
« Result #7 Yesterday at 5:09pm » | |
In am hopping mad, out today and missed the post so will have to go to main sorting office to collect my package. S*d it. 
| |
|
|
Result 8 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Can you be too skeptical? (Read 46 times) |
Jigsaw
Member of Excellence
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.ukskeptics.com/graphics/saw.jpg)
I want to play a game.
Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 455
Karma: 50 | | Re: Can you be too skeptical?
« Result #8 Yesterday at 5:03pm » | |
Yesterday at 4:42pm, ADMIN - Jon Donni wrote:My position is I am skeptical of certain claims.
Sound slike a position for me |
|
Then you are wrong.
And you are misrepresenting skeptics and skepticism.
| |
|
|
Result 9 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
barb
Baby
Silver Surfer
member is offline
if only!
Joined: Nov 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 672
Karma: 33 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #9 Yesterday at 4:48pm » | |
Is tgastaldo a troll, I just cannot keep up with his post,they are beyond my dim and distant comprehension. 
| |
|
|
Result 10 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Can you be too skeptical? (Read 46 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Re: Can you be too skeptical?
« Result #10 Yesterday at 4:42pm » | |
My position is I am skeptical of certain claims.
Sound slike a position for me
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 11 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: An open letter to Boots (Read 52 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Re: An open letter to Boots
« Result #11 Yesterday at 4:40pm » | |
good work guys
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 12 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: An open letter to Boots (Read 52 times) |
Hayley
BP Jr Investigator
member is offline
HA! I laugh in the face of humour!
Joined: Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,021
Location: Bradford-On-Avon, Wiltshire
Karma: 606 | | An open letter to Boots
« Result #12 Yesterday at 4:06pm » | |
The Merseyside Skeptics Society have issued an open letter to Alliance Boots calling on Boots to withdraw homeopathy from their shelves.
Please visit the link, show your support and pass it onto your friends. Lets spread the word.
http://www.merseysideskeptics.org.uk/an-open-letter-to-alliance-boots/
|
www.ripodcast.co.uk - Righteous Indignation is the podcast that aims to critically examine extraordinary claims and the people who surround them.
In a closed society where everyone is guilty, the only crime is getting caught. -- Hunter S Thompson. |
|
|
Result 13 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Can you be too skeptical? (Read 46 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Re: Can you be too skeptical?
« Result #13 Yesterday at 4:03pm » | |
Oh and welcome to the forum
| |
|
|
Result 14 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Can you be too skeptical? (Read 46 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Re: Can you be too skeptical?
« Result #14 Yesterday at 4:02pm » | |
If you mean can you be too logical and rational then no I don't think you can. However if by "too skeptical" you mean too overbearing in your debates with others to the point where they simply ignore everything you say, then I think yes, you can.
Its a matter of picking your battles if its just general conversation with friends or colleagues; if someone wants to buy a copper bracelet let them, a lecture on how unscientic they are isn't going to help anyone. However if you meet someone who doesn't want to immunise their child then I think its important to have the debate.
I also think its important to not belittle people or make out that they're stupid. For example most people have simply never considered or investigated psychics and so if asked if they believe them will probably give an answer like "There's probably something in it". Its really unfair (not to mention irrititing and smug) to then harp on to that person about cold reading and confirmation bias. In the same way someone could ask me "How do you think Man U are doing this season?" and seeing as I know absolutely nothing about football beyond the fact that Man U are generally successful I'd go "Probably quite well". I'd be mightly pissed off if that person then ridiculed me and rolled out a load of facts and statistics proving that Man U are doing terribly and I probably wouldn't listen to much more that that person had to say.
| |
|
|
Result 15 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: what are you doing right now (8) (Read 13,637 times) |
Amaris
Administrator
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m78/Hut1891/MABON/Elemental_Goddess__Earth_by_Autumns.jpg)
I hope to always march to the beat of a different drum
Joined: Jan 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,544
Location: Norfolk
Karma: 516 | | Re: what are you doing right now (8)
« Result #15 Yesterday at 2:30pm » | |
Time to get ready for work But at least I have a job to go to so I am grateful for that! 
I do enjoy my job but I just like being at home more! 
|
Religion does three things quite effectively: Divides people, Controls people, Deludes people.
You pray for me and I'll think for you.
CLAIRVOYANT, n. A person who has the power of seeing that which is invisible to her patron, namely that he/she is a blockhead. |
|
|
Result 16 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Can you be too skeptical? (Read 46 times) |
kensington
Administrator
BPTV Presenter
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 905
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 755 | | Re: Can you be too skeptical?
« Result #16 Yesterday at 2:23pm » | |
Yes skepticism is certainly the process of inquiry. For me as a sceptic cynicism is as bad as blind faith and is certainly very different from skepticism though sadly many people mistake the two. Can you be too skeptical? I see no evidence you can
|
"Dont forget to cover your bum, or you'll get a red bum" |
|
|
Result 17 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Can you be too skeptical? (Read 46 times) |
Jigsaw
Member of Excellence
member is offline
I want to play a game.
Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 455
Karma: 50 | | Re: Can you be too skeptical?
« Result #17 Yesterday at 1:10pm » | |
Yesterday at 12:09pm, ADMIN - Jon Donni wrote:| Skepticism is a position not a belief. |
|
Skepticism is not a position (!)
Skepticism is a methodology, a process of inquiry and not the position of non-belief.
What is Skepticism?
People who use the terms 'skeptic' and 'skepticism' to indicate their position on matters (be it non-belief, denial or opposition) are simply displaying their ignorance as to what skepticism actually is.
Think of anti-vaccination groups who call themselves 'vaccination skeptics' - they take the position of opposition/non-belief/denial but that's clearly not skepticism (the process of rational inquiry).
| |
|
|
Result 18 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Can you be too skeptical? (Read 46 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Re: Can you be too skeptical?
« Result #18 Yesterday at 12:09pm » | |
You can never be to skeptical.
Skepticism is a position not a belief.
Cynicism is infact the opposite of Skepticism.
I do understand how you feel though, sometimes something is obviously stupid that it is hard to just remain skeptical, when you just want to shout b***cks
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 19 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Can you be too skeptical? (Read 46 times) |
sherbetconspy
Noob Wannabe
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 1
Karma: 1 | | Can you be too skeptical?
« Result #19 Yesterday at 11:41am » | |
Hi all,
As a new member I was wondering if there is such a thing as being too skeptical?
After a dodgy "woo" start many years ago (serves me right for reading Von Daniken) I am now at the other end of the spectrum but am seen by some to be cynical (is there a difference ?)
I will admit that sometimes my arguments become a bit strident when I hear some obvious nonsense but I worry that I may not be getting my case across by being too skeptical.
On the other hand it's difficult to remain silent and listen to some of the B*ll**ks out there.
I would be interested in anyone elses take on this.
| |
|
|
Result 20 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
fluffet
BP Investigator
member is online
![[avatar]](http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c249/SHAZ19743/011-1.jpg)
I can see the pub from up here !
Joined: Apr 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,560
Karma: 347 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #20 Yesterday at 9:57am » | |
Quote:| Well, I already spend a lot of time in dark buildings telling lies to dim women |
|
You know come to think on it so do i , well except my buildings are flourescently bright and the dim appears to be strong in both sexes there
Quote:| Maybe I should get the earring/tan/dental work, then they might stop running away...... |
|
*ponders* You know you might have a cunning plan there, perhaps if i "tangoed" myself up, donned the heels of persuasion, and grinned like a cheshire whilst buttering em up it might afford me some slight chance of imparting anykind of sense or reason into them ?
Maybe if i tried telling them their departed loved ones wanted them to up quit whining and get on with their work rather than their bosses it might win em round ?
Mind you it generally only works when its something they WANT to hear ....pah ...back to the drawing board
|
It pays to keep your eyes open
|
|
|
Result 21 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: It's good to be grumpy (Read 50 times) |
barb
Baby
Silver Surfer
member is offline
if only!
Joined: Nov 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 672
Karma: 33 | | Re: It's good to be grumpy
« Result #21 Yesterday at 8:46am » | |
You and me both Tonia, did not know I was that good.
| |
|
|
Result 22 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: It's good to be grumpy (Read 50 times) |
tonia
Egg
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k123/MorwennaMC/small-1.jpg)
Absolutely Fake, Darling
Joined: May 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 155
Location: London
Karma: 5 | | Re: It's good to be grumpy
« Result #22 Yesterday at 2:37am » | |
'Grumpy makes us think more clearly' Golly gosh and crumbs - no wonder I'm a genius!
|
I see dead people....must be the Scotch
|
|
|
Result 23 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Style Me - Yvette and Karl (Read 144 times) |
tonia
Egg
member is offline
Absolutely Fake, Darling
Joined: May 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 155
Location: London
Karma: 5 | | Re: Style Me - Yvette and Karl
« Result #23 Yesterday at 2:21am » | |
Yvette is doing the exact same thing on MH as she did on Blue Peter - constructing crap out of rubbish - 'cept this time round, she's made sure she hasn't got a good-looking female co-host to steal her thunder.
|
I see dead people....must be the Scotch
|
|
|
Result 24 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Official disclosure of extraterrestrial life is im (Read 73 times) |
tonia
Egg
member is offline
Absolutely Fake, Darling
Joined: May 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 155
Location: London
Karma: 5 | | Re: Official disclosure of extraterrestrial life i
« Result #24 Yesterday at 2:03am » | |
Why is Obama staring at it's arse in less than a presidential manner?
|
I see dead people....must be the Scotch
|
|
|
Result 25 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: R.I.P. Duke Nukem (Read 79 times) |
tonia
Egg
member is offline
Absolutely Fake, Darling
Joined: May 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 155
Location: London
Karma: 5 | | Re: R.I.P. Duke Nukem
« Result #25 Yesterday at 1:49am » | |
One of the first games I ever played. RIP indeed, Sir Duke
|
I see dead people....must be the Scotch
|
|
|
Result 26 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #26 on Nov 25, 2009, 10:44pm » | |
Well, I already spend a lot of time in dark buildings telling lies to dim women, so I'm halfway there! Maybe I should get the earring/tan/dental work, then they might stop running away......
| |
|
|
Result 27 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
fluffet
BP Investigator
member is online
I can see the pub from up here !
Joined: Apr 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,560
Karma: 347 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #27 on Nov 25, 2009, 7:59pm » | |
Quote:| Yep, I was right. Does that make me this site's first Good Psychic? |
|
Now dont you go getting a diamonique earing , spray tan and dental work that would blind at ten paces LYM....anymore of this psychic career consideration and im afraid i will have to don the my tinfoil BS helmet and invoke the intervention siren
|
It pays to keep your eyes open
|
|
|
Result 28 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #28 on Nov 25, 2009, 7:48pm » | |
Nov 25, 2009, 1:05pm, lovelyyoungman wrote:
I also feel sad as I know that you're going to cut up what I say here and indisperse it with %%%% and write thinks like....
"Lovelyoungman (sperm) wrote 'I feel sad'
@@@@ I feel sad that babies are dying because of OB lie#1"
....And then my head will start to hurt again.
|
|
Yep, I was right. Does that make me this site's first Good Psychic?
| |
|
|
Result 29 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
tgastaldo
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 20
Karma: -8 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #29 on Nov 25, 2009, 6:58pm » | |
MISS_TEA CONCLUDED BY ASKING:
One question I would like to know your opinion on is (though I don't share your belief in it): what's the benefit in doctors lying?
#### WAIT A MINUTE. You don't believe OBs/obstetricians are lying? The Four OB Lies are whoppers. OB Lie #1 is self-evident: The pelvic diameters can't both change and not change at delivery.
#### What's the benefit in doctors lying? To ignore the medical literature and senselessly close birth canals up to 30% is obvious CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE which occasionally escalates to CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE.
#### The benefit of lying (and refusing to testify) is that OBs/obstetricians stay out of prison and don't have to pay massive malpractice awards - as long as our medico-"legal" "just us" system (birth trauma attorneys and DAs and AGs) look the other way - babies be damned.
#### MISS_TEA quoted me calling attention to my Open Letter regarding the 2007 Intracranial Hemorrhage in Asymptomatic Neonates study by Looney et al...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/6746b6292cae7566
Quote:
tgastaldo (Noob) wrote: Intracranial hemorrhages are COMMON: One recent MRI study indicated that a whopping 26% of babies suffer unexplained intracranial hemorrhages... |
|
#### Here is the exact cite for the study...
Radiology. 2007 Feb;242(2):535-41. Epub 2006 Dec 19.
Intracranial Hemorrhage in Asymptomatic Neonates: Prevalence on MR
Images and Relationship to Obstetric and Neonatal Risk Factors1
http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/abstract/242/2/535
Christopher B. Looney, BS, J. Keith Smith, MD, PhD, Lisa H. Merck, MD,
MPH, Honor M. Wolfe, MD, Nancy C. Chescheir, MD, Robert M. Hamer, PhD
and John H. Gilmore, MD
#### Here is a URL for my Open Letter to Looney et al.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/6746b6292cae7566
#### Here is an excerpt of my Open Letter to Looney et al.
Quote:#### Back to LA Times reporter Maugh's discussion of Looney et al.
The Carolina researchers studied 88 newborns, an average of three
weeks after birth. Seventeen of the 65 who underwent vaginal delivery
suffered small hemorrhages in the brain, but none did of the 23 who
had C-sections.
"Neither the size of the baby or the baby's head, the length of the
labor, nor the use of vacuum or forceps to assist the delivery caused
the bleeds," said Dr. John H. Gilmore of UNC, lead author.
"It's just the process of being born," he said. The skull has not yet
become solid, and the bone plates overlap with each other. Passage
through the birth canal compresses the plates, tearing small blood
vessels, he said....
WHAT?!
#### I don't get Dr. John H. Gilmore's logic. If John thinks that
skull compression is causative, then skull size - and size of the
PELVIS - likely play a role in the brain injury. |
|
#### MISS_TEA OFFERED SOME QUOTES FROM THE 2007 LOONEY ET AL STUDY AND WROTE:
So the study is suggesting that ICH [intra-cranial hemorrhage] and/or trauma has always been a factor in vaginal birth and nowhere in it did it specify exactly which sort of birth each woman undertook so there is no way we can make any assumption between ICH and semi-sitting/dorsal.
#### Actually, since most vaginal births are semisitting or dorsal - and since both of these positions close the birth canal up to 30% - and since none of the c-section births manifested a brain bleed - we may be able to make such an assumption.
Also, if 26% of births have ICH (keep in mind this was a small study and the sample size was limited) then 74% were without major problems to the baby.
#### Looney et al. indicated that 100% had no problems, as in their title: Intracranial Hemorrhage in Asymptomatic Neonates.
#### Also, there was this in the LA Times article
Quote: But, he added, "there was no evidence clinically to indicate that
anything had happened to the babies' brains."
#### Most neonatal brain bleeds are asymptomatic/clinically silent,
according to neurologists quoted below. |
|
#### MISS_TEA CONTINUED
Even if this trauma was linked to your claim that the birth canal is knowingly and with malevolence closed [up to 30%] that doesn't immediately denote chiropractic methods as worthwhile. It's a separate issue.
#### False. Part of chiropractic is knowing when NOT to manipulate the spine. Manipulation of babies' spines with the birth canal senselessly closed up to 30% is ABSOLUTELY CONTRAINDICATED.
#### NON-SPINAL chiropractic (education) is indicated, so I am adjusting here and elsewhere.
#### MISS_TEA ASKED:
would you mind linking us to a precise study that actually references this as 30% (?)
#### Here are the quote and cite: "[T]he outlet increases with moulding by approximately 20-30 per cent." [Russell JGB. Moulding of the pelvic outlet. J Obstet Gynaec Brit Cwlth 1969;76:817-20.
#### Here is some context - it was in my Open Letter to Looney et al. noted in some of my Bad Psychics posts...
Quote: >>>>>BEGIN excerpt of Dr. Gastaldo's 2005 post http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/a0c50d715eccdb85
In 1991, Australian physicians Gudgeon and Jarrett rubberstamped
Lilford and Gupta¹s 1989 verdict that British radiologist
JGB Russell must have been a victim of "subconscious observer bias"
when he
calculated that a "massive" (Lilford and Gupta¹s word) 20-30% of
pelvic
outlet area is denied when sacroiliac motion is denied...
Gudgeon and Jarrett claimed that they had verified that Lilford and
Gupta et
al. (1989) had "refuted" Russell's "massive" 20-30% figure. [Gudgeon
CW,
Jarrett J. Pelvimetry: a squatter's view. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol
1991;31(3):221-2. C/O Editor/Professor Norman Beischer, Dept. OB/GYN,
Mercy
Hospital for Women, Clarendon St., East Melbourne, Victoria, AUSTRALIA
3002]
Gudgeon and Jarrett [1991] claimed they had "reproduced" the
transverse
pelvic outlet diameter study of Russell [1969], "using the
radiographic
methods described in [Russell's] report"; but except for using
Russell's
seated positioning, Gudgeon and Jarrett somehow FAILED to use most of
the
methods described in Russell's report.
For example, Gudgeon and Jarrett utterly failed to make reference to
[the fact that]
British radiologist JGB Russell mathematically combined Borell and
Fernström's 1-2 cm average recumbent "hanging by her knees" sagittal
diameter increase (a linear measurement), with his own 7 mm average
"sitting...leaning forward" transverse diameter increase (another
linear
measurement)...
Gudgeon and Jarrett failed to make reference to how Russell
mathematically
calculated that allowing the sacrum and pelvis to move affords a
20-30%
potential increase in pelvic outlet AREA: "[T]he outlet increases
with
moulding by approximately 20-30 per cent." [Russell JGB. Moulding of
the
pelvic outlet. J Obstet Gynaec Brit Cwlth 1969;76:817-20. Dr. JGB
Russell,
consultant radiologist, 23 Anson Road, Victoria Park, Manchester M14
5BZ
ENGLAND, 061-224-0006.]
Given that Gudgeon and Jarrett blindly accepted Gupta and Lilford's
1989
fraudulent AP outlet increase figures ("Russell's suggested degree of
increase in outlet area was...refuted by Lilford et al."), it is no
surprise
that Gudgeon and Jarrett concluded that their findings were consistent
with
those of Lilford et al.: "Increases of 1-2% only have been found in
this
and other series quoted in this study, our findings being consistent
with
those of Lilford et al. in their larger series."
Garbage in; garbage out.
Gudgeon and Jarrett somehow also failed to mention that, in 1973,
Ohlsén
studied Borell and Fernström¹s original "hanging by her knees" (1957)
x-rays
and verified Russell¹s 20% figure. [Ohlsén H. Moulding of the pelvis
during
labour. Acta Radiol Diag 1973;14:417-434]
More garbage: Gudgeon and Jarrett did not quote the "other series"
that they
claimed to have quoted; and oddly, Gudgeon and Jarrett graciously
excused
Russell for having used "the posterior sagittal diameter
measurement...[which was]...the standard teaching at that time...and
has
been replaced by the pubosacral measurement...used by Lilford et al."
In fact, Russell did not mention, in any papers cited by Gudgeon and
Jarrett, a "posterior sagittal diameter measurement." Russell did,
however,
openly cite Borell and Fernström who used a pubosacral measurement.
"The question remains," wrote Gudgeon and Jarrett, "from where could
the
suggested increases of 20-30% come?"
Where indeed.
IS JGB RUSSELL THE PROBLEM?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/91498ea4d4def6a6
In 1982, Russell suggested that the minor transverse sacroiliac
"rocking"
motion he had demonstrated in 1969 (7mm) was more important than
Borell and
Fernström's rotational motion (1-2 cm). This highly questionable
suggestion
augmented Russell's equally questionable 1969 inference that women
sitting
on their tailbones could offer "all the diameters" (the "extra" 30%
of
pelvic outlet area) just by pulling back on their legs. ("The mother
who
pulls hard her knees cranially...and the midwife who pushes on the
mother's
feet are increasing all the diameters of the outlet." [Russell 1969])
If Russell meant to state that women should pull on their knees
cranially
sufficiently to roll themselves off their sacra, he should have said
so
specifically. His lack of clarity on this point - and his failure to
cite
Borell and Fernström in his oft-cited 1982 paper - are perhaps the
most
important reasons semi-sitting has been thought (erroneously) to fully
open
the birth canal.
In this latter regard...
British obstetricians Liu (Univ. Nottingham) and Fairweather (Univ.
College,
London) erroneously suggest that sitting/lying on the sacrum
("lithotomy
position propped up with pillows") is like squatting and allows
maximal
sagittal outlet diameter:
"The squatting posture is well suited to delivery. A patient adopting
the
lithotomy position propped up with pillows and legs drawn back
essentially
achieves this posture..." [Liu DTY and Fairweather DVI. Labour Ward
Manual.
2nd ed., 1991, Butterworth Heinemann Ltd., Linacre House, Jordan
Hill,
Oxford 0X2 8DP, p. 27]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/91498ea4d4def6a6
Norman Beischer, MD, who published Gudgeon and Jarrett, once guessed
that 10 to 15% of stillbirths are just fine
right before delivery...
In reply, Britain's evidence-based medicine guru Sir Iain Chalmers
took
Norman to task for guessing about such things...
Interestingly, Chalmers stated in Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy
and
Childbirth (1992) that radiographic evidence indicates that squatting
increases pelvic outlet diameter...
But after Chalmers (and his co-author Enkin)
were informed by me that the radiographic evidence more clearly
indicates that standard delivery positions CLOSE the pelvic outlet,
mention
of these radiographic studies was eliminated from the 1995 edition of
Guide
to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth.
When I noted for Enkin that no one squatted in the 1957 study by
Borell and Fernström - and that the 1957 study by Borell and
Fernström
actually in effect demonstrated that standard medical delivery
positions
jam the sacral tip up to 4 cm into the fetal skull - Enkin responded
by
telling me that "the Lilford group" - (as noted above, Gupta and
Lilford offered women "the pututive benefits of squatting" and then
squashed
fetal skulls in a 1989 trial of squatting) - had refuted Borell and
Fernström's "radiological reports...of an increased sagittal
diameter."
Ultimately, Enkin deleted mention of the radiological
reports from the 1995 edition of Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy
and
Childbirth.
When I called Chalmers to complain about Enkin's behavior, Chalmers
told me that until there is scientific evidence that it is beneficial
to inform women of the radiographic evidence that sacral tips are
being
jammed up to 4 cm into fetal skulls, women should not be informed of
this
evidence. Additionally, Chalmers pointed out that he was no longer
an
editor of Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth.
>>>>>END excerpt of Dr. Gastaldo's 2005 post http://groups.google.com/group/
misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/a0c50d715eccdb85 |
|
#### MISS_TEA CONTINUED...
Semi-sitting is not the best position for birth because it's not an upright position, I agree,
#### No. Semisitting is ABSOLUTELY CONTRAINDICATED - especially once the baby is stuck and forceps/vacuums are used to pull - because semisitting closes the birth canal up to 30%.
but it is the best position for medical access.
#### False. Medical access suggests that the baby will be helped. Closing the birth canal up to 30% then pulling with forceps/vacuums is medical INSANITY - with a sordid twist: As I have noted, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/ACOG's Shoulder Dystocia training video demonstrates a version of McRoberts maneuver that keeps the woman on her sacrum - keeps the birth canal closed up to 30%!
Medics don't want this better access so they can enjoy the show or unleash their psychopathic urges upon your baby's head - they want better access so they can help with the birth's complications.
#### The urge of medical doctors to stay out of prison and avoid massive malpractice awards is not "psychopathic" - but it is real - hence the Four OB Lies.
All birthing positions have advantages and disadvantages and
#### Closure of the birth canal up to 30% (most births) and KEEPING the birth canal closed when forceps/vacuums are used to pull (1 in 10 births) is not a mere "disadvantage" to the baby - or to the mother.
#### Even if there were an advantage to keeping the birth canal closed up to 30% when babies get stuck, obstetricians should ASK. Instead, they are LYING to cover-up.
claiming that this one's disadvantages outweigh the benefits and are intentionally practiced to harm the baby or even purposefully cause their deaths is ignorant. Or just willfully manipulating the 'information'.
#### Senselessly closing the birth canal up to 30% when the baby gets stuck and forceps/vacuums are used to pull (1 in 10 births) is ABSOLUTELY CONTRAINDICATED. Lying to cover-up is obviously criminal.
Can you provide us with evidence for these deaths occurring during that birthing position?
#### First, focus on mere "difficult vaginal delivery." As I have previously indicated, one Austrian obstetrician writes:
"It is established obstetric teaching that a narrow pelvic outlet
predisposes to a difficult vaginal delivery..."
--Ass-Ärztin Dr. Andrea Froschauer-Frudinger et al. via
andrea.frudinger@... [Froschauer-Frudinger et al. Br J Obstet
Gynaecol 2002;109(11):1207-12]
#### OBSTETRICIANS THEMSELVES indicate that closing the birth canal FAR LESS than 30% can KILL.
You don't provide proficient evidence/studies/scientific links/medical journals for the most extreme pieces of 'data' you give.
#### Perhaps the "most extreme piece of data" is the fact that OBGYNs are LYING instead of INFORMING women that they are senselessly keeping birth canals closed up to 30% when babies get stuck.
One question I would like to know your opinion on is (though I don't share your belief in it): what's the benefit in doctors lying?
#### See above.
#### MISS_TEA, for the sake of the baby, if you give birth in the future, PLEASE don't let the obstetrician close your birth canal (most births) and don't let the obstetrician KEEP your birth canal closed up to 30% if the baby gets stuck and forceps/vacuums are used to pull (1 in 10 births).
#### Please tell pregnant friends and relatives about the obvious ongoing obstetric crime.
LOVELYYOUNGMAN WROTE:
MissTea you have my utmost admiration (and a Karma)...for presenting a far better case than I have over the last few days.
#### I agree. MissTea presented a far better case than lovelyyoungman.
But mainly you have my admiration for the fact that you've seen the bizarre rantings over the last couple of pages and you're still prepared to wade in on this. Fair play.
#### Lovelyyoungman PRETENDS that it is "bizarre" for me to "rant" about the mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation crime of allopathic CAM practitioners called obstetricians.
#### He writes:
Todd, rejoice, you have browbeaten me into submission and you're right, you have reduced me to ad honinem attacks.
#### At least your ad hominem attacks are humorous.
But ask yourself this, after your many posts on here all I have in my brain is something vague about 30% birth canal openings, so was it worth it?
#### Yes. A few others have been reading.
I have little idea of the point your trying to make other than its something to do with "tiny spinal columns".
#### OBGYNs are keeping birth canals closed up to 30% as they pull with vacuums/forceps - sometimes pulling so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal CORDS.
I would genuinely be interested to know more about the subject but find any debate with you instantly becomes confrontational and nonsensical. Others on here have had a similar experience.
#### Ad populum attacks are also fun.
Your approach to getting your message out is a very bizarre and indirect one,
#### Actually, I am quite direct.
I think fluffet puts it far better than me in the thread "God as the best psychic - ancient anti-Semitism".
#### I think EVERYONE puts things far better than you - LOL!
You also genuinely come across as someone with a mental health problem, that wasn't meant as a dig, it was said out of genuine concern. If you're not mentally ill then I seriously think you need to reconsider how you present your evidence/argument.
#### Lovelyyoungman, I thank you for your genuine concern; but I think you would do better to study my posts more carefully and show some concern for the mental health of babies being obviously abused by OBGYNs. No doubt their massive birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation crime - and the routine temporary baby asphyxiation/permanent amputation of up to 50% of baby blood volume (which I haven't discussed much) - are causing mental problems in some babies.
I feel sad for you as you obviously believe passionately in what you do but it has become very apparent that you simply don't have the skills to put your message across effectively.
#### Don't feel sad. Go take a walk. Walking is uplifting.
I also feel sad as I know that you're going to cut up what I say here and indisperse it with %%%% and write thinks like....
#### LOL. Thanks for writing lovelyyoungman. I feel sad that babies are dying because of OB lie#1"
....And then my head will start to hurt again.
#### Think how a BABY feels as its head is forced through a birth canal senselessly closed up to 30%
| |
|
|
Result 30 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #30 on Nov 25, 2009, 4:26pm » | |
MissTea you have my utmost admiration (and a Karma). One, for presenting a clearly thought out argument based on analysis of the evidence. Two, for presenting a far better case than I have over the last few days. But mainly you have my admiration for the fact that you've seen the bizarre rantings over the last couple of pages and you're still prepared to wade in on this. Fair play.
| |
|
|
Result 31 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
Miss_Tea
Glint in fathers eye
member is offline
Joined: May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 25
Karma: 3 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #31 on Nov 25, 2009, 2:34pm » | |
tgastaldo (Noob) wrote:
Intracranial hemorrhages are COMMON: One recent MRI study indicated that a whopping 26% of babies suffer unexplained intracranial hemorrhages
You mean the study that ended with this discussion of their results:
"We found that 26% of asymptomatic neonates delivered vaginally had ICH * at MR imaging, and this finding suggests that ICH is a fairly common consequence of a normal vaginal delivery. ICH has been thought to be unusual in full-term neonates (1,8,20–27), though the results of this study and those of the study of Whitby et al (28) suggest otherwise. "
"In our study, neither assisted vaginal delivery nor evidence of neonatal birth trauma could be used to predict the presence of ICH; most (13 of 17, 76%) of the cases of ICH were in the setting of nonassisted vaginal birth. This finding is in agreement with that of Whitby et al (28), who described nine neonates with asymptomatic hemorrhage; in six of the nine neonates, hemorrhage was associated with assisted delivery; in only two of nine neonates with subdural hemorrhages, external birth trauma was an associated finding. The authors concluded that a subdural hematoma was not necessarily associated with obvious birth trauma."
"Our findings indicate that vaginal birth may be inherently traumatic to the neonatal brain and can result in a spectrum of ICHs, which include subdural hematomas and subarachnoid, intraparenchymal, and germinal matrix hemorrhages. Holden et al (16) pointed out that retinal hemorrhage also is observed in 20%–40% of newborns and that red blood cells often are found in the cerebrospinal fluid of newborns, and these findings indicate that there is trauma after vaginal birth. The long-term consequences of these hemorrhages are unknown at this time, though it is likely that small subdural hemorrhages resolve quickly without substantial consequence."
*(ICH refers to intracranial hemorrhages)
So the study is suggesting that ICH and/or trauma has always been a factor in vaginal birth and nowhere in it did it specify exactly which sort of birth each woman undertook so there is no way we can make any assumption between ICH and semi-sitting/dorsal. Also, if 26% of births have ICH (keep in mind this was a small study and the sample size was limited) then 74% were without major problems to the baby. Even if this trauma was linked to your claim that the birth canal is knowingly and with malevolence closed (would you mind linking us to a precise study that actually references this as 30%) that doesn't immediately denote chiropractic methods as worthwhile. It's a separate issue.
Semi-sitting is not the best position for birth because it's not an upright position, I agree, but it is the best position for medical access. Medics don't want this better access so they can enjoy the show or unleash their psychopathic urges upon your baby's head - they want better access so they can help with the birth's complications. All birthing positions have advantages and disadvantages and claiming that this one's disadvantages outweigh the benefits and are intentionally practiced to harm the baby or even purposefully cause their deaths is ignorant. Or just willfully manipulating the 'information'.
Can you provide us with evidence for these deaths occurring during that birthing position? You don't provide proficient evidence/studies/scientific links/medical journals for the most extreme pieces of 'data' you give.
One question I would like to know your opinion on is (though I don't share your belief in it): what's the benefit in doctors lying?
| |
|
|
Result 32 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
tgastaldo
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 20
Karma: -8 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #32 on Nov 25, 2009, 1:44pm » | |
MORGANP WROTE:
And there was me thinking the 'God as the best psychic' thread was difficult to understand.
#### It's SORT of difficult to understand I must concede. Ancient Romans said everyone had to worship the state gods unless they had an ancient religious tradition; so Christians grabbed Judaism and "explained" the infant penis slicing ritual as God's punishment of the Jews for killing his son - 1,000 years before his son was born - hence my "God as the best psychic" title which I should have made clear was tongue-in-cheek.
Lovelyoungman you have the patience of a saint mate. I just cannot be ars*d wading through Todds posts here and try to make sense of them - I'm only 47 and got my life ahead of me yet.
#### LOL! Good sense of humor! On a less humorous note... Some babies don't have ANY life ahead of them. They are killed by the birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation crime of allopathic CAM practitioners called obstetricians.
| |
|
|
Result 33 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
morganp
VIP Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 777
Location: Edinburgh
Karma: 526 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #33 on Nov 25, 2009, 1:24pm » | |
And there was me thinking the 'God as the best psychic' thread was difficult to understand. Lovelyoungman you have the patience of a saint mate. I just cannot be ars*d wading through Todds posts here and try to make sense of them - I'm only 47 and got my life ahead of me yet.
morganp
|
The plural of anecdote is not data |
|
|
Result 34 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #34 on Nov 25, 2009, 1:05pm » | |
Todd, rejoice, you have browbeaten me into submission and you're right, you have reduced me to ad honinem attacks.
But ask yourself this, after your many posts on here all I have in my brain is something vague about 30% birth canal openings, so was it worth it? I have little idea of the point your trying to make other than its something to do with "tiny spinal columns". I would genuinely be interested to know more about the subject but find any debate with you instantly becomes confrontational and nonsensical. Others on here have had a similar experience.
Your approach to getting your message out is a very bizarre and indirect one, I think fluffet puts it far better than me in the thread "God as the best psychic - ancient anti-Semitism". You also genuinely come across as someone with a mental health problem, that wasn't meant as a dig, it was said out of genuine concern. If you're not mentally ill then I seriously think you need to reconsider how you present your evidence/argument.
I feel sad for you as you obviously believe passionately in what you do but it has become very apparent that you simply don't have the skills to put your message across effectively.
I also feel sad as I know that you're going to cut up what I say here and indisperse it with %%%% and write thinks like....
"Lovelyoungman (sperm) wrote 'I feel sad'
@@@@ I feel sad that babies are dying because of OB lie#1"
....And then my head will start to hurt again.
| |
|
|
Result 35 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
tgastaldo
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 20
Karma: -8 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #35 on Nov 25, 2009, 12:13pm » | |
My current replies follow these symbols ^^^^
LOVELYYOUNGMAN WROTE:
Deeeep breath, ok here goes:
Quote:
@@@@ I was protesting the bizarre OBGYN birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation practice long before I ever heard about the liars Singh and Ernst.
Yes you might have been,
^^^ There is no "might" about it. A simple google search will prove it.
but my point is that WHEN you heard about Singh and Enrnzt's criticism of chiropractic you began to attack them.
^^^^ False. I did not attack them. As you quoted me,
Quote:
@@@@ I am targeting their LIES.
So you admit you're not "targetting the practice". Thankyou.
^^^^ No, I AM targeting the practice - by targetting their practice of lying by omission.
^^^^ As I wrote in another thread....
Quote:
#### 1. Singh criticizes relatively infrequent, relatively gentle manipulators of babies' spines (doctors of chiropractic) for claiming to treat infant colic; and ignores the most prolific manipulators of babies' spines - the allopathic CAM practitioners/obstetricians who are committing sometimes-fatal mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation child abuse that may cause infant colic; and
#### 2. Singh fails to IDENTIFY the most prolific manipulators of babies' spines as allopathic CAM practitioners by simply/fraudulently defining alternative medicine as therapy not used by conventional doctors on p. 1 of Trick or Treatment.
#### Singh is continuing conventional medicine's old "you're quacks; we're not" libel under a "nicer" name: "CAM"/Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Skeptics are going along with the gag - drinking with the latest promoter of the "you're quacks; we're not" libel - the child-abuse-perpetuating Singh. (Or perhaps he and Edzard Ernst, MD just haven't received or read my emails. Perhaps. Maybe The Leicester Mercury's "journalist-activist" Simon Perry just didn't read my emails before emailing me saying he was "very annoyed." (?) Jon Donnis - who pejorized my emails as spam but invited me to post here - indicated he had bcc'd Simon Perry - but never said whether Simon ever got back to him. I am looking forward to Simon Perry's articles in the Leicester Mercury.) |
|
Quote:
@@@@ "COMPLETELY UNINTELLIGIBLE"?
Yes, yes and yes for many reasons but then main one being that in the middle of a normal sentence you do this OBGYNS LIE about the 30% opening of the birth canal and all forceps and CAM unproven conventional medicine blah blah blah......Instead of sticking to the point. You do not need to keep restating your claims about birth canals.
^^^^ Talk about completely unintelligible! SHOW me where I have not been "sticking to the point" - use those famous quote tags!
Quote:
@@@@ Most medical procedures are allopathic CAM (unproven) therapies - with many being CRIMINAL allopathic CAM therapies - like for example birth-canal-closing (most births) and birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation when babies get stuck and forceps/vacuums are used to pull (1 in 10 births) - with OBGYNs (obstetricians) LYING to cover-up.
See what I mean?
^^^^ NO - I have STATED the point - clearly - lucidly.
The incredibly long sentences with multiple sub-clauses do not help either.
^^^^ Here - try this...
^^^^Most medical procedures are allopathic CAM (unproven) therapies.
^^^^ Many are CRIMINAL allopathic CAM therapies.
^^^^ for example birth-canal-closing (most births) and birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation when babies get stuck and forceps/vacuums are used to pull (1 in 10 births).
^^^^ OBGYNs (obstetricians) are LYING to cover-up.
Quote:
Erm, ok. I'd invite you to take a look at any conventional (another word for conventional would be "proven") treatment
@@@@ That's the LIE. Conventional does NOT mean proven.
This bit made me laugh, it makes you sound about 7yrs old.
^^^^ Laughter is the best medicine. 7-year-olds understand the simple birth-canal-closing biomechanics of semisitting delivery. I suspect 7-year-olds might also understand that - contrary to your claim - conventional does not mean proven.
I am aware that the definition of conventional and proven are not the same,
^^^^ This was not apparent from your words.
however in this case the two words could be interchangeable.
^^^^ They could be - but they aren't.
This isn't a "LIE", it is simple fact. Conventional medicine is proven to work, that is why it is conventional medicine.
^^^^ FALSE. Most conventional medicine has NOT been proven.
^^^^ You deleted the relevant dialogue...
Quote:Erm, ok. I'd invite you to take a look at any conventional (another word for conventional would be "proven") treatment
@@@@ That's the LIE. Conventional does NOT mean proven.
and then look at some peer reviewed journals and the randomised double blind trials within them.
That's where you'll find your evidence for "conventional" medicine.
@@@@ Yes there is good science for SOME of what medicine does...
@@@@ But MOST of conventional medicine remains untested - with conventional medicine LYING to cover-up/promote allopathic CAM (unproven) therapies.
@@@@ Conventional medicine isn't just lying about the birth-canal-closing allopathic CAM therapy.
@@@@ Conventional medicine lies to promote the allopathic CAM therapy called "vaccination."
@@@@ NOTE: Like most doctors of chiropractic, I am NOT opposed to vaccination. I am just opposed to MANDATORY vaccination and opposed to MDs and CDC LYING about vaccination thereby fraudulently promoting it - like for example MDs and CDC fraudulently promoting vaccination using PLANNED endangerment of VACCINATED children during disease outbreaks. Vaccinations are only ATTEMPTED immunizations. Vaccinated-but-not-immunized children are not protected/sent home during disease outbreaks. It is unconstitutional to only protect/send home vaccine-exempt children during disease outbreaks. There is the related spectacle of MDs and CDC fraudulently failing to promote the most prolific IMMUNIZERS - breastfeeding mothers - failing to explicitly inform the world that breastfeeding mothers scan for pathogens and manufacture specific immunizations which they administer via their breasts on a daily basis. MDs and CDC are missing a golden opportunity to promote both the majority of immunizations (breastfeeding) and the majority of ATTEMPTED immunizations (vaccinations). What woman informed that she can IMMUNIZE her baby daily (and reportedly make MD-needle-vaccinations work better) - is going to fail to at least ATTEMPT to breastfeed? It's mass IMMUNOLOGIC child abuse to go along with the birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation mass PHYSICAL child abuse crime of OBGYNs/obstetricians.
Quote:
#### Your straw man argument train of thought just took a dirt road.
No it didn't.
@@@@ Yes it did. You are WRONG to say "another word for conventional would be 'proven'" - you are only repeating Singh's lie.
@@@@ As I've previously noted:
@@@@ In 1989, British obstetrician Richard J. Lilford noted that obstetrics
"amounts to uncontrolled experimentation."
@@@@ See Lilford RJ. State of the obstetric art. The Lancet
(Nov18)1989:1205-1207. Reviewing Chalmers I,
Enkin M and Keirse MJNC (eds.). Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth
Oxford: Oxford University Press 1989 Pp 1516 (2 vols) ISBN 0-192615580
@@@@ In 1976, distinguished epidemiologist Kerr White reportedly told the clinical staff at Wellington Hospital in New Zealand that 15% of physician interventions were evidence based; after which distinguished epidemiologist Archie Cochrane reportedly called out, "Kerr, you’re a damned liar, you know it isn’t more than 10%." [Kerr personal communication to Iain Chalmers, 1992. Quoted in Johnathan Ellis, Ian Mulligan, James Rowe, David L. Sackett. Inpatient general medicine is [sic; see below] evidence based. The Lancet (Aug12)1995;346:407-10]
@@@@ In 1978, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress estimated that "only 10 to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial."
[Ellis et al. 1995.]
@@@@ In 1979, Williamson et al. concluded that fewer than 10% of common medical practices for three subspecialties of internal medicine have any foundation in published research. [Williamson JW, Goldschmidt PG, Jillson IA. Medical practice information demonstration project: final report. Baltimore, MD: Policy Research, 1979. Cited in Ellis et al.
1995.]
@@@@ In 1983, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress repeated its estimate that "only 10 to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial." [Office of Technology Assessment of the Congress of the United States. The impact of randomized clinical trials on health policy and medical practice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983. Cited in Ellis et al. 1995.]
@@@@ Epidemiologist Kerr L. White issued a challenge at meetings of the Health Advisory Panel to the US Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. He challenged doctors to provide better evidence than the 10-20% figure - but "No-one could." [White K. Evidence based medicine (letter). The Lancet (Sep23)1995;346:837-8. Kerr L. White, 2401 Old Ivy Road, 1410, Charlottesville, VA 22903-4858.]
@@@@ In "countless addresses and conferences" afterwards, epidemiologist White "often challenged others to provide better evidence but none was forthcoming." [Kerr 1995]
@@@@ In 1991, the editor of the British Medical Journal noted that a health care conference in Manchester, UK, had been told that "only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence."
[Smith R. Where is the wisdom..." the poverty of medical evidence. BMJ 1991;303:798-99. Cited in Ellis et al. 1995]
@@@@ In 1992, the same editor of the British Medical Journal further lamented the paucity of solid scientific evidence for most medical interventions. [Smith R. The ethics of ignorance. J Med Ethics 1992;18:117-18. Cited in Ellis et al. 1995]
@@@@ In response to this apparently "gloomy" and "depressing" state of affairs, the A-Team, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine studied their own medical behavior for one month and determined that "more thannb half" of their care was evidence based, thus "support[ing] the view that learning how to practice evidence-based medicine is not just an academic exercise but CAN influence clinical decisions." [Ellis et al. 1995, emphasis added.]
@@@@ Ellis et al. concluded, "We do not know how far our experience in one month on a general medical service is generalisable" - and then they erroneously titled their paper, "Inpatient general medicine IS evidence based" (emphasis added).
@@@@ According to Ellis et al. [1995], members of the A-Team, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine are: Jonathan Ellis, Ian Mulligan, James Rowe, David L. Sackett, Ben Box, Laura Burgoyne, Camille Caroll, Jo Chikwe, Gerry Christofi, Derralynn Hughes, Katie Jeffrey, Rowena Jones, Sharon Peac*ck, Moyra Reid, Kopal Tandon, Clare Wood-Allum, and Sebastian Walter. (Correspondence should be sent to: Prof David L. Sackett, FRCP, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, Oxford-Radcliffe NHS Trust, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.) |
|
We are never going to agree on this topic
^^^^ Yes - you are going to ignore evidence that I am correct.
and I'm not even going to start on your vaccination statements.
^^^^ How convenient... If you ever start, you will find I am right: MDs and CDC are fraudulently promoting vaccinations using PLANNED endangerment of VACCINATED children during disease outbreaks - not to mention lying by omission about breastfeeding thereby denying massive numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations. MDs and CDC are mostly ANTI-immunization. Strange but true.
Quote:
Quote:
#### Your straw man argument train of thought just took a dirt road.
No it didn't.
@@@@ Yes it did. You are WRONG to say "another word for conventional would be 'proven'" - you are only repeating Singh's lie.
Um, when you said my train of thought had "taken a dirt road" you weren't referring to the sentence above as I hadn't written it then.
^^^^ Sorry for the mix up. Your train of thought has taken a dirt road.
I'd also be interested to know why you haven't adequately responded to Fluffet's question about the motivation of obstetricians. You have stated nowhere what gain they might have for continuing this practice that is apparently so dangerous.
^^^^ I responded quite adequately. Their motivations are staying out of prison and not paying massive malpractice judgements. Obstetricians can't stop because stopping is tantamount to admission of criminal negligence - failure to read their own literature - which sometimes escalates to criminally negligent homicide - some babies DIE from the senseless birth-canal-closing. Obstetricians can continue to commit their sometimes-fatal mass child abuse crime because we live under a medico-"legal" "just us" system where birth trauma attorneys and district attorneys look the other way - babies be damned.
To be honest Todd, I'm a little worried for you,
^^^^ Be worried for the babies that people like you would rather engage in ad hominem attack than speak out.
from the appearance of your letters it sounds very much like you are in the middle of a manic episode. It might be an idea for you to visit your local Doctor and request a Mood Stabiliser and perhaps some Benzodiazepines and a atypical anti-psychotic.
^^^^ Thank you for the free online psychiatric diagnosis and treatment recommendation.
^^^^ It's sort of like an allopathic CAM practitioner/obstetrician closing a birth canal up to 30% and when the baby gets stuck KEEPING the birth canal closed up to 30% then pulling with forceps/vacuums - perhaps offering a "generous" vagina slice/episiotomy - perhaps one "generously" performed clear to the rectum - an "episioproctotomy."
^^^^ Lovelyyoungman, you are being "lovely" (and cute with your online psychiatric diagnosis) - babies be damned.
| |
|
|
Result 36 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
traceyg
VIP Member
member is offline
Joined: May 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 607
Karma: 105 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #36 on Nov 25, 2009, 9:41am » | |
Nov 24, 2009, 7:13pm, buttonhole wrote:
Lol!
The reason I came here is to spark debate not have the third degree .
Admin remember there is no such thing as bad publicity. You are doing these psychics a great service in advertising on the main site. |
|
However if anyone's got an ounce of common sense in their brain and read the main site we would totally disregard your comments.
| |
|
|
Result 37 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Jim Jeffries- I swear to God (Read 21 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Jim Jeffries- I swear to God
« Result #37 on Nov 24, 2009, 11:35pm » | |
Just caught the last half of this HBO special Jim Jeffries "I swear to God". He is a very funny man but also makes some good points about religion/atheism, well worth checking out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5f_eQcc-wk
This is a good clip but cuts out at the point where Ed Byrne really has the Christian Voice man on the ropes.
| |
|
|
Result 38 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
Hayley
BP Jr Investigator
member is offline
HA! I laugh in the face of humour!
Joined: Jul 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,021
Location: Bradford-On-Avon, Wiltshire
Karma: 606 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #38 on Nov 24, 2009, 9:58pm » | |
If that's the sort of publicity that the so-called psychics are after then they've got problems. Then again, we already knew that
|
www.ripodcast.co.uk - Righteous Indignation is the podcast that aims to critically examine extraordinary claims and the people who surround them.
In a closed society where everyone is guilty, the only crime is getting caught. -- Hunter S Thompson. |
|
|
Result 39 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
buttonhole
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Karma: -2 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #39 on Nov 24, 2009, 7:13pm » | |
Lol!
The reason I came here is to spark debate not have the third degree .
Admin remember there is no such thing as bad publicity. You are doing these psychics a great service in advertising on the main site.
| |
|
|
Result 40 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #40 on Nov 24, 2009, 7:03pm » | |
Deeeep breath, ok here goes:
Quote:
@@@@ I was protesting the bizarre OBGYN birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation practice long before I ever heard about the liars Singh and Ernst. |
|
Yes you might have been, but my point is that WHEN you heard about Singh and Enrnzt's criticism of chiropractic you began to attack them.
Quote:
@@@@ I am targeting their LIES. |
|
So you admit you're not "targetting the practice". Thankyou.
Quote:
@@@@ "COMPLETELY UNINTELLIGIBLE"?
|
|
Yes, yes and yes for many reasons but then main one being that in the middle of a normal sentence you do this OBGYNS LIE about the 30% opening of the birth canal and all forceps and CAM unproven conventional medicine blah blah blah......Instead of sticking to the point. You do not need to keep restating your claims about birth canals.
Quote:
@@@@ Most medical procedures are allopathic CAM (unproven) therapies - with many being CRIMINAL allopathic CAM therapies - like for example birth-canal-closing (most births) and birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation when babies get stuck and forceps/vacuums are used to pull (1 in 10 births) - with OBGYNs (obstetricians) LYING to cover-up. |
|
See what I mean?
The incredibly long sentences with multiple sub-clauses do not help either.
Quote:
Erm, ok. I'd invite you to take a look at any conventional (another word for conventional would be "proven") treatment
@@@@ That's the LIE. Conventional does NOT mean proven.
|
|
This bit made me laugh, it makes you sound about 7yrs old. I am aware that the definition of conventional and proven are not the same, however in this case the two words could be interchangeable. This isn't a "LIE", it is simple fact. Conventional medicine is proven to work, that is why it is conventional medicine. We are never going to agree on this topic and I'm not even going to start on your vaccination statements.
Quote:
Quote:
#### Your straw man argument train of thought just took a dirt road.
No it didn't.
@@@@ Yes it did. You are WRONG to say "another word for conventional would be 'proven'" - you are only repeating Singh's lie. |
|
Um, when you said my train of thought had "taken a dirt road" you weren't referring to the sentence above as I hadn't written it then.
I'd also be interested to know why you haven't adequately responded to Fluffet's question about the motivation of obstetricians. You have stated nowhere what gain they might have for continuing this practice that is apparently so dangerous.
To be honest Todd, I'm a little worried for you, from the appearance of your letters it sounds very much like you are in the middle of a manic episode. It might be an idea for you to visit your local Doctor and request a Mood Stabiliser and perhaps some Benzodiazepines and a atypical anti-psychotic.
| |
|
|
Result 41 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Common cold may hold off swine flu (Read 45 times) |
fluffet
BP Investigator
member is online
I can see the pub from up here !
Joined: Apr 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,560
Karma: 347 | | Re: Common cold may hold off swine flu
« Result #41 on Nov 24, 2009, 6:59pm » | |
There has been a slightly worse than a cold but not exactly full blown flu "thing" going about in my area and workplace since about August, i got it myself and was laid low totally for about three solid days followed by a week of cold like symptoms.
This seems to be the pattern its taken with most others i know who had it as well, many of them feared they had swine flu intially and called the lines etc to be told to stay put, sit it out and based on a list of questions they have (a friend works on the nhs line) they advise if you require tamiflu or are suspected of having swine flu. Bare in mind these call takers are in no way qualified medics doctors or nurses as a requirement , its purely follow a set of questions , tick the boxs then based on the answers decide if the caller has swine flu or not.
The epidemic we expected of swine flu up here seems to never quite have happend on the scale it was predicted (thankfully) but the number of cases of this "cold/slight fluey/type undescribed virus" thing that hits hard for three or four days then lessens into a cold has in my work place alone affected over 60 out of about 100 staff over that period of time.Absense figures for the same period of time last year where cold/flu was stated as the reason were at least 30% lower....quite a jump.
Out of roughly 100 people in the department not one contracted swine flu, out of almost 600 in the building one person got it with four suspected cases that turned out not to be swine flu.
I cant help but wonder if theres some truth in this article then that this "virus" which has been widespread has somehow prevented or detered the swine flu from spreading as predicted.
Or could it perhaps be that many more people actually DID have a strain of Swine flu but went undiagnosed due to the request not to go to the doctors or misdiagnosis from the NHS helplines.
So far the worst cases or even deaths have occured in people with other health complications or pregnancies etc ....could it be possible that in a healthy adult with no other complications it has a lesser effect and can be confussed as just a bad cold or normal flu ?
What i dont get is these viruses that docs endlessly diagnose us with appear to spread like wild fire in the same ways that we were told swine flu could and would be spread so why are we being as lucky as to only have limited cases of swine flu in comparison ?
It could be exactly for the reasons the article states ?
|
It pays to keep your eyes open
|
|
|
Result 42 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #42 on Nov 24, 2009, 5:45pm » | |
So you have ignored every point i have made, ignored every question i have asked, and instead you now play the victim.
Well done.
I will now leave this thread just for you and I wont comment further as it seems pointless talking to someone who is so closeminded to anyone elses opinions, and simply refuses to partake in a conversation.
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 43 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
tgastaldo
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 20
Karma: -8 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #43 on Nov 24, 2009, 5:17pm » | |
Does EVERYONE believe the "conventional means proven" lie promoted by Singh and Ernst in Trick or Treatment - or is it just Lovelyyoung man?
Singh and Ernst are lying by omission - criticizing apparently bogus spinal manipulation by non-MDs as they ignore sometimes-fatal ABSOLUTELY CONTRAINDICATED spinal manipulation by allopathic CAM therapists (OBGYNs/obstetricians)...
Bad Psychics Founder JON DONNIS is promoting the liars - babies be damned.
See below.
Lovelyyoungman quoted me:
Quote:| ### Actually, it IS coincidence that Singh and Ernst happen to have criticized my profession. I myself criticize my profession for remaining silent about the bizarre OBGYN birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation practice - just like I criticize Singh and Ernst for the same thing. |
|
@@@@@ Lovelyyoungman began his response...
Ok, for arguments sake I'll accept that it is complete coincidence that a Chiropractor is attacking 2 people who have extensively criticised chiropractic.
@@@@ I was protesting the bizarre OBGYN birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation practice long before I ever heard about the liars Singh and Ernst.
But that still doesn't address my original point which was that you're not targetting the practice as you claim, you're targetting Singh and Ernst. Clearly.
@@@@ I am targeting their LIES. Clearly. On p. 1 of Trick or Treatment they offer their simple definition lie/"trick" - "our definition of an alternative medicine is any therapy that is not accepted by the majority of mainstream doctors" - which is really only a continuation of conventional medicine's "you're quacks; we're not" lie.
@@@@ "COMPLETELY UNINTELLIGIBLE"?
Quote:
#### Lovelyyoungman (Sperm), you're creating a straw man. I never said Singh and Ernst need to "round up ALL the pro and cons on a subject as large as 'medicine.'"
#### What I've said is that Singh and Ernst are PRETENDING that conventional medicine is mostly "scientific" - when in fact conventional medicine is mostly CAM (unproven) - with much of conventional medicine being CRIMINAL unproven/CAM therapy - like for example the SOMETIMES FATAL birth-canal-closing/SPINAL MANIPULATION child abuse crime of OBGYNs that likely CAUSES infant colic and sends parents to chiropractors for GENTLE spinal manipulation in an attempt to stop babies from crying so much after birth.
Most people would agree.
#### Hopefully, most people can see your straw man argument.
It wasn't straw man argument as much as me misunderstanding what you are trying to say. Which isn't surprising considering your arguments are almost completely unintelligeable. |
|
@@@@ My arguments are SIMPLE.
For that reason I'll state first what I think you're trying to say before I reply to it:
You think that most of conventional medicine is unproven and that Singh and Ernst have ignored this.
@@@@ Most medical procedures are allopathic CAM (unproven) therapies - with many being CRIMINAL allopathic CAM therapies - like for example birth-canal-closing (most births) and birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation when babies get stuck and forceps/vacuums are used to pull (1 in 10 births) - with OBGYNs (obstetricians) LYING to cover-up.
Erm, ok. I'd invite you to take a look at any conventional (another word for conventional would be "proven") treatment
@@@@ That's the LIE. Conventional does NOT mean proven.
and then look at some peer reviewed journals and the randomised double blind trials within them.
That's where you'll find your evidence for "conventional" medicine.
@@@@ Yes there is good science for SOME of what medicine does...
@@@@ But MOST of conventional medicine remains untested - with conventional medicine LYING to cover-up/promote allopathic CAM (unproven) therapies.
@@@@ Conventional medicine isn't just lying about the birth-canal-closing allopathic CAM therapy.
@@@@ Conventional medicine lies to promote the allopathic CAM therapy called "vaccination."
@@@@ NOTE: Like most doctors of chiropractic, I am NOT opposed to vaccination. I am just opposed to MANDATORY vaccination and opposed to MDs and CDC LYING about vaccination thereby fraudulently promoting it - like for example MDs and CDC fraudulently promoting vaccination using PLANNED endangerment of VACCINATED children during disease outbreaks. Vaccinations are only ATTEMPTED immunizations. Vaccinated-but-not-immunized children are not protected/sent home during disease outbreaks. It is unconstitutional to only protect/send home vaccine-exempt children during disease outbreaks. There is the related spectacle of MDs and CDC fraudulently failing to promote the most prolific IMMUNIZERS - breastfeeding mothers - failing to explicitly inform the world that breastfeeding mothers scan for pathogens and manufacture specific immunizations which they administer via their breasts on a daily basis. MDs and CDC are missing a golden opportunity to promote both the majority of immunizations (breastfeeding) and the majority of ATTEMPTED immunizations (vaccinations). What woman informed that she can IMMUNIZE her baby daily (and reportedly make MD-needle-vaccinations work better) - is going to fail to at least ATTEMPT to breastfeed? It's mass IMMUNOLOGIC child abuse to go along with the birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation mass PHYSICAL child abuse crime of OBGYNs/obstetricians.
Quote:
#### Your straw man argument train of thought just took a dirt road.
No it didn't.
@@@@ Yes it did. You are WRONG to say "another word for conventional would be 'proven'" - you are only repeating Singh's lie.
@@@@ As I've previously noted:
@@@@ In 1989, British obstetrician Richard J. Lilford noted that obstetrics
"amounts to uncontrolled experimentation."
@@@@ See Lilford RJ. State of the obstetric art. The Lancet
(Nov18)1989:1205-1207. Reviewing Chalmers I,
Enkin M and Keirse MJNC (eds.). Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth
Oxford: Oxford University Press 1989 Pp 1516 (2 vols) ISBN 0-192615580
@@@@ In 1976, distinguished epidemiologist Kerr White reportedly told the clinical staff at Wellington Hospital in New Zealand that 15% of physician interventions were evidence based; after which distinguished epidemiologist Archie Cochrane reportedly called out, "Kerr, you’re a damned liar, you know it isn’t more than 10%." [Kerr personal communication to Iain Chalmers, 1992. Quoted in Johnathan Ellis, Ian Mulligan, James Rowe, David L. Sackett. Inpatient general medicine is [sic; see below] evidence based. The Lancet (Aug12)1995;346:407-10]
@@@@ In 1978, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress estimated that "only 10 to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial."
[Ellis et al. 1995.]
@@@@ In 1979, Williamson et al. concluded that fewer than 10% of common medical practices for three subspecialties of internal medicine have any foundation in published research. [Williamson JW, Goldschmidt PG, Jillson IA. Medical practice information demonstration project: final report. Baltimore, MD: Policy Research, 1979. Cited in Ellis et al.
1995.]
@@@@ In 1983, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment of the U.S. Congress repeated its estimate that "only 10 to 20% of all procedures currently used in medical practice have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial." [Office of Technology Assessment of the Congress of the United States. The impact of randomized clinical trials on health policy and medical practice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983. Cited in Ellis et al. 1995.]
@@@@ Epidemiologist Kerr L. White issued a challenge at meetings of the Health Advisory Panel to the US Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. He challenged doctors to provide better evidence than the 10-20% figure - but "No-one could." [White K. Evidence based medicine (letter). The Lancet (Sep23)1995;346:837-8. Kerr L. White, 2401 Old Ivy Road, 1410, Charlottesville, VA 22903-4858.]
@@@@ In "countless addresses and conferences" afterwards, epidemiologist White "often challenged others to provide better evidence but none was forthcoming." [Kerr 1995]
@@@@ In 1991, the editor of the British Medical Journal noted that a health care conference in Manchester, UK, had been told that "only about 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence."
[Smith R. Where is the wisdom..." the poverty of medical evidence. BMJ 1991;303:798-99. Cited in Ellis et al. 1995]
@@@@ In 1992, the same editor of the British Medical Journal further lamented the paucity of solid scientific evidence for most medical interventions. [Smith R. The ethics of ignorance. J Med Ethics 1992;18:117-18. Cited in Ellis et al. 1995]
@@@@ In response to this apparently "gloomy" and "depressing" state of affairs, the A-Team, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine studied their own medical behavior for one month and determined that "more thannb half" of their care was evidence based, thus "support[ing] the view that learning how to practice evidence-based medicine is not just an academic exercise but CAN influence clinical decisions." [Ellis et al. 1995, emphasis added.]
@@@@ Ellis et al. concluded, "We do not know how far our experience in one month on a general medical service is generalisable" - and then they erroneously titled their paper, "Inpatient general medicine IS evidence based" (emphasis added).
@@@@ According to Ellis et al. [1995], members of the A-Team, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine are: Jonathan Ellis, Ian Mulligan, James Rowe, David L. Sackett, Ben Box, Laura Burgoyne, Camille Caroll, Jo Chikwe, Gerry Christofi, Derralynn Hughes, Katie Jeffrey, Rowena Jones, Sharon Peac*ck, Moyra Reid, Kopal Tandon, Clare Wood-Allum, and Sebastian Walter. (Correspondence should be sent to: Prof David L. Sackett, FRCP, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, Oxford-Radcliffe NHS Trust, Headley Way, Headington, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.)
@@@@ I wrote to Lovelyyoungman:
Quote:
#### Go back and READ.
@@@@ Lovelyyoungman "responded":
I really don't want to, it gives me a headache.
@@@@ You aren't the only one ignoring the obvious - allowing OBGYNs/obstetricians to give BABIES headaches - and worse.
@@@@@ ON ANOTHER THREAD titled "God as the best psychic - ancient anti-Semitism"...
http://moh2005.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=religion&action=display&thread=7574
@@@@@ KENSINGTON echoed Jon Donnis' criticism of my use of "silly" symbols and offered this lame excuse for failure to respond, writing,
Thanks for your latest post but the "silly symbols" really do make it hard to follow. Please do copy and paste as others do so we can follow what you say better and give an appropriate response
@@@@ I had written: "it is a pain to hit the button and copy and paste when I can QUICKLY use "silly" symbols to distinguish your words from mine."
@@@@ JOHNNO (Jon Donnis?) replied:
Please have a negative Karma. It's less of a pain
@@@@ Yes, I noticed that negative karma thing - cute - but cute ad hominem attack is not substantive criticism.
Quote:
@@@@ BEGIN EXCERPT OF MY POST TO WHICH KENSINGTON IS APPARENTLY FAILING TO RESPOND...
http://moh2005.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=religion&action=display&thread=7574
@@@@ JON DONNIS ASKED...
How am I looking the other way?
@@@@ I ANSWERED...
@@@@ You uncritically promote liars, Singh and Ernst, whose definition trick - on p. 1 of Trick or Treat - is to pretend that most of conventional medicine is not alternative (unproven) CAM therapy. (CAM = Complementary and Alternative Medicine. CAM is just a "nicer" name for conventional medicine's ongoing "you're quacks; we're not" game.)
I have no interest in Obstetricians etc.
@@@@ Laws in virtually every jurisdiction indicate that when children are being abused, EVERYONE should take an interest and report. You should have interest in the mass child abuse crimes of allopathic CAM practitioners called obstetricians and the fact that the liars Singh and Ernst are covering-up a massive birth-canal-closing/SPINAL MANIPULATION child abuse crime of these allopathic CAM providers, not to mention their other obvious crimes.
I expose psychics, i poke fun at religion, i report on bad homeopathy.
@@@@ You FAIL to expose the MEDICAL religion by uncritically promoting the liars who, via a definition trick on p. 1 of Trick or Treat promote the lie that conventional medicine is by definition not CAM (unproven) therapy.
I have never once spoken out against or for Chiropractors, it is not my area of interest or knowledge.
@@@@ False. You are interested in a liar (Singh) who - via a definition trick on p. 1 of Trick or Treat - is promoting conventional medicine's "you're quacks; we're not" lie which is being used to denigrate ALL of chiropractic. Yes, it was wrong of the British Chiropractic Association/BCA to attempt to economically punish Singh for his apparently true statement indicating that the BCA happily promote bogus spinal manipulation treatments for infant colic/persistent infant crying without a jot of evidence.
@@@@ But similarly it is wrong for Singh to LIE BY OMISSION - ignore my true statement that allopathic CAM therapists LIE to promote ABSOLUTELY CONTRAINDICATED spinal manipulation services that kill the occasional baby and likely cause infant colic/peristent infant crying and thereby cause parents to seek the apparently bogus spinal manipulation treatments.
And why should it be upto me to speak out against such things
@@@@ Why? You are being offered EVIDENCE that Singh is a liar by omission whose definition trick on p. 1 of Trick or Treat perpetuates conventional medicine's "you're quacks; we're not" lie...
@@@@ You are being offered evidence that the liar Singh is covering up conventional medicine's mass birth-canal-closing/SPINAL MANIPULATION child abuse crime - among other obvious allopathic child abuse crimes...
@@@@ ALL persons - not just those who call themselves "skeptics" - need to speak out and not just blithely promote the presentations of the liar.
just because you see me as a prominent skeptic?
@@@@ YOU put yourself out there as a prominent skeptic. Your twitter bio says: "Bio...Derek Acorah once called me the UK's most famous internet skeptic."
http://twitter.com/jondonnis
I make no money doing this, i lose money every month hosting my sites.
@@@@ I lose money every month pointing out the lies of people like Singh - as you ignore the obvious lies and PROMOTE the liar.
I do not do lectures, or arrange meetings or events.
@@@@ You uncritically promote the LIAR'S lecture/presentation.
I just run a website, ok that websites network happens to be the biggest in the UK but that doesnt make me a prominent skeptic.
@@@@ Your Twitter page uncritically promotes Derek Acorah's notion that you are "the UK's most famous internet skeptic" (see above) and at http://badpsychics.co.uk/ you yourself say: "The original BadPsychics.co.uk site...has now become the UK's **largest and most respected** sceptical site looking at psychics." (emphasis added)
@@@@ You promote your "sceptical" work as "largest and most respected" even as you indicate you don't!!
In fact I hate being labelled as such.
@@@@ Then don't label yourself "as such."
...
Dont you understand I am ON YOUR SIDE!
@@@@ I am on the side of the babies being abused by allopathic CAM practitioners - sometimes fatally so. You are on the side of people who mistakenly think they need to be doctors to understand OB Lie #1.
I WANT you to make your point, i just want you to make it in the best possible way so that everyone can understand you.
@@@@ Then quit pretending OB Lie #1 is difficult to decipher.
If Simon Perry and Simon Singh are lying or doing wrong then I want them exposed.
@@@@ You said you cc'd Simon Perry - did he ever get back to you?
Quote:%%%% You are the owner - you have the power of censoring all or part of other people's work - I understand that.
I am not cenosring yoru work, I am just sick of the constant links to your site, and the repeated copy and pastes.
@@@@ In your sickness, you effectively censored my links - see your "I will un censor your links" statement below.
I want to see new information from you in each post.
EIther replying to peoples questions, or adding new information.,
@@@@ Each day that allopathic CAM practitioners commit mass child abuse crimes, that fact is new. Each baby who DIES or suffers deserves CURRENT (daily) criticism of the crime and those who lie to cover it up. (Maybe Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst, MD haven't yet seen one of my posts? That's yet another reason for me to keep posting about the ongoing mass child abuse crimes of allopathic CAM therapists (OBGYNs/obstetricians).)
@@@@ END EXCERPT OF MY REPLY TO JON DONNIS TO WHICH KENSINGTON IS APPARENTLY FAILING TO RESPOND...
http://moh2005.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=religion&action=display&thread=7574
|
|
Does EVERYONE believe the "conventional means proven" lie promoted by Singh and Ernst in Trick or Treatment - or is it just Lovelyyoung man?
| |
|
|
Result 44 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
buttonhole
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Karma: -2 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #44 on Nov 24, 2009, 3:48pm » | |
Admin you are a very strange person. You post on the main board that the site has been very slow of late and is it any wonder? Anyone who comes here for an intelligent debate who has even the slightest bit of detraction from extremist skeptisim will be hung drawn and quartered just for not being an extreme skeptic. Instead of a well balanced argument where all views are treated with respect you will have a dry, hostile forum that noone wants to take part in.
As for where you got my information from its obvious you have got it from Facebook.
That is where you have managed to see that I have a few psychics amongst my contacts. So what? I also have skeptic and those undecided amongst my friends too. It does not mean I believe in all they say.
One thing is for sure: I have never had or been pressured by anyone into a reading, or believing in something or parting with any cash. In fact I have been treated with more respect by these people than I have been here in that they havent poked into my personal background and posted personal information on a public board as you have. Your aggression is extraordinary.
As for your other question regarding heroin etc, I do have experience with this as I am a qualified pharmacy technician.
Thanks to all the people who wrote intelligent opinions to my original post.
| |
|
|
Result 45 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #45 on Nov 24, 2009, 3:40pm » | |
Quote:
### Actually, it IS coincidence that Singh and Ernst happen to have criticized my profession. I myself criticize my profession for remaining silent about the bizarre OBGYN birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation practice - just like I criticize Singh and Ernst for the same thing. |
|
Ok, for arguments sake I'll accept that it is complete coincidence that a Chiropractor is attacking 2 people who have extensively criticised chiropractic.
But that still doesn't address my original point which was that you're not targetting the practice as you claim, you're targetting Singh and Ernst. Clearly.
Quote:
#### Lovelyyoungman (Sperm), you're creating a straw man. I never said Singh and Ernst need to "round up ALL the pro and cons on a subject as large as 'medicine.'"
#### What I've said is that Singh and Ernst are PRETENDING that conventional medicine is mostly "scientific" - when in fact conventional medicine is mostly CAM (unproven) - with much of conventional medicine being CRIMINAL unproven/CAM therapy - like for example the SOMETIMES FATAL birth-canal-closing/SPINAL MANIPULATION child abuse crime of OBGYNs that likely CAUSES infant colic and sends parents to chiropractors for GENTLE spinal manipulation in an attempt to stop babies from crying so much after birth.
Most people would agree.
#### Hopefully, most people can see your straw man argument.
|
|
It wasn't straw man argument as much as me misunderstanding what you are trying to say. Which isn't surprising considering your arguments are almost completely unintelligeable.
For that reason I'll state first what I think you're trying to say before I reply to it:
You think that most of conventional medicine is unproven and that Singh and Ernst have ignored this.
Erm, ok. I'd invite you to take a look at any conventional (another word for conventional would be "proven") treatment and then look at some peer reviewed journals and the randomised double blind trials within them. That's where you'll find your evidence for "conventional" medicine.
Quote:
#### Your straw man argument train of thought just took a dirt road.
|
|
No it didn't.
Quote:
I really don't want to, it gives me a headache.
| |
|
|
Result 46 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #46 on Nov 24, 2009, 10:37am » | |
Ok you messed up your quoting making it a nightmare to reply to but I will try
Nov 23, 2009, 6:36pm, buttonhole wrote:
Proven by whom? If psychic A tells Sitter B that they see a mental image and describes it in detail and Sitter B says that they can recognise that the image as relevant to themselves then is the proof there? |
|
No because science and psychology can explain 100% the method and manner of how this works.
Quote:| The image described ? How do you prove a mental image unless you have a machine (not yet invented) that can see that? |
|
But how does a psychic know that this image is anything more than their imagination?
Their only way of knowing is the feedback from the victim.
And we understand why the victim will respond in a certain way to what is being described.
Quote:
The government give them money to investigate such things, that is their right if given the money.
The fact they have never proven any such abilities makes me think it is a waste of time and money
Quote:
Quote:| You talk as if science is baffled by mediumship, it is not, in fact 100% of mediumship is easily explained by science. |
|
I have never said science is baffled by, merely interested in. |
|
You did say that science doesnt have the technology to measure such things. That is utter nonsense andyou know it.
Science is interested in all claims that break the laws of physics, the fact that science has never found anything in the paranormal that could not be explained leads me to believe the paranormal is no more than a mistake
Quote:
Quote:| There is not a single thing that any medium or spiritualist has ever done that science cannot explain. |
|
Isnt that a chicken and egg situation? A need for explanation precedes scientific research precedes explanation. |
|
You seem confused.
The egg came first as it was a mutation from two non-chicken parents. This is simple an well understood evolution.
Someone makes a claim, they cannot prove the claim, therefor the claim is invalid. End of discussion.
There is no mythological chicken and egg situation
Quote:| Science hasnt finished with the study of the brain yet. |
|
Why do you choose to ignore nearly every question i ask, and point i make.
Please go back and answer my points, if you cant then be honest that you cant answer them, and admit that maybe your preconceived ideas of certain things were wrong.
Open your mind.
As for your science hasnt finished with the study of the brain that is correct, SCIENCE, not reiki practisioners, homoepaths, psychics or any other woo. Science is what advances knowledge in the human race.
Quote:| I saw in a recent Horizon ( I think it was called who am i?) an amazing procedure where scientists were able to tell what decision the presenter was going to make before he was consciously aware of it. They make a scan of the brain and can see when certain areas are active. Depending on the area tells them what he is thinking before he is even aware of it himself. Isnt this scientifically proven telepathy? |
|
I saw that but dont recall exactly what happened.
I dont think this is proven telepathy though, more understanding how the thought process works thats all.
Quote:
Quote:| What pushes people to seek readings is desperation, grief, people want answers for things they can not deal with. |
|
All those things drive people to seek other things too: Drugs, alcohol, the Samaritans, - any number of things. We all make our own choices. |
|
SO after that first taste of heroin, when someone becomes addicted, they get more on free will do they?
Have you ever met a heroin addict?
I have, and the addiction is the same as with psychics.
I talk completely from first hand experience of both.
Humans do not truly have free will, especially when addiction comes into play.
Any drug including mediumship can effect negatively someones free will
Quote:
Quote:| Psychics prey on this vulnerability and that is why fake mediumship is a serious crime in my book. |
|
I agree if someone is a deliberately committing fraud in any walk of life it is wrong. |
|
Yet the spiritualist community has done sodall in the last 100 years to out the fraud from its own industry, instead it hides it, covers it up, and when necessary invents ridiculous stories to explain frauds.
Trumpet Incident one such example.
I have even heard spiritualists explain Helen Duncans "Peggy" as a crude manefestation
Quote:
Quote:| Spiritualism lends to suicide, it gives people an excuse. |
|
In that case so does Religion. However someone promising me an afterlife does not make me want to get there faster. |
|
What if you lose your lifetime love, your life partner, and you are then convinced they are waiting for you on the other side.
As an atheist I want to enjoy as much life as i can.
Quote:
Quote:Free will is removed the moment you are conned.
The moment a medium comvinces you they have magical powers and a hotline to the other side your free will is removed, for the grief and sadness of losing a loved one leaves you so damaged and hurt that it is easy to be conned in such a state. |
|
That is where people have to use their discrimination. No one forces people to have readings which is what I sense is the opinion here. We all have free will. To say otherwise is patronizing and insulting. |
|
If someone says to me they can speak to my dead cousin, someone i miss so much, i would do anything and pay anything just to talk to them.
Psychics prey on people like this, people so destroyed in their grief and they make a promise, a promise so amazing and addictive that free will doesnt come into it
Quote:
Quote:| I compare rapists to mediums, for a medium is no more than someone who rapes the memories of the dead, and affects the grieving process in such a negative manner. |
|
As someone who has suffered rape that comparison is disgusting. Once again people go to psychics, vicars, priests or whoever because they choose to . |
|
I am sorry you have suffered such a horrible crime, but that pain will stay with you the rest of your life, I have seen the pain of losing someone stay as ripe as the day it happened 30 years after the event BECAUSE of mediumship.
People go to mediums and so on for one reason, to speak to the dead. Mediums simply cant do this. it is a con.
Quote:
Quote:| Would I be right in saying you are a medium? |
|
No I am not a medium. |
|
But you believe in proven frauds like Mannion and Wells.
How do you explain this ignorance of the facts?
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 47 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #47 on Nov 24, 2009, 10:18am » | |
Nov 23, 2009, 6:44pm, buttonhole wrote:
The fact that you have published my name here on a public board is very creepy why have you done that? |
|
I never published your full name, just your first name.
I want you to tell me how I know your name?
I am telling you I used psychic and mediumistic abilities to devine your real name, so b the skeptic and tell me how I did it.
And if you cant then by your own logic you must accept I am really psychic.
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 48 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Common cold may hold off swine flu (Read 45 times) |
den
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Jul 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 195
Location: Glasgow
Karma: 10 | | Re: Common cold may hold off swine flu
« Result #48 on Nov 24, 2009, 1:24am » | |
I've never had the flu so bad that I can't function but for the last 5 years or so I've been getting the flu vaccination under GP advise because "I'm getting older & a diabetic" ... Yeah, I felt great when he told me I was ageing when in my early to mid thirties (been diabetic since 1985)
I had the swine flu vaccination last week & the injection itself was nothing but 24 hours later I felt like someone had punched me hard in the arm & I felt like I had mild flu for 2 days.
I'm not sure I needed these injections as I'm quite healthy, I feel as if I've fell into the whole 'paranoia' state. It's the let the kids play in mud attitude that seems to have been taken from modern day life thus making humans less hardy to germs
| |
|
|
Result 49 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: The 1980s (Read 36 times) |
huggybear
Guest
| | The 1980s
« Result #49 on Nov 24, 2009, 12:16am » | |
Totally love Duran Duran. Now Spandau Ballet one of best groups from 1980s have reformed and are just totally superb. I have my tickets, and saw them in 1984 - they were totally outstanding, but the question is, which group would you like to see reform and perform live?
| |
|
|
Result 50 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
tgastaldo
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 20
Karma: -8 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #50 on Nov 23, 2009, 11:02pm » | |
fluffet (BP Investigator):
Quote:What is the benefit or motive for them to continue it if this is the case ?
I guess id like to hear the arguement for as well as the arguement against to better understand the whole thing .
|
|
Obstetricians themselves indicate there is no "arguement for" narrowing the pelvic outlet, as in,
"It is established obstetric teaching that a narrow pelvic outlet
predisposes to a difficult vaginal delivery..."
--Ass-Ärztin Dr. Andrea Froschauer-Frudinger et al. via
andrea.frudinger@... [Froschauer-Frudinger et al. Br J Obstet
Gynaecol 2002;109(11):1207-12]
As I recently wrote to Singh and Ernst, semisitting and dorsal delivery compress the fetal skull up to 4 cm and,
>According to Williams Obstetrics, compressing the fetal skull FAR LESS than 4 cm can kill:
>
>"[0.5 to 1.0 cm of molding of the fetal skull]...may make the
>difference between successful vaginal delivery and a major obstetrical
>operation (p.369)...when distortion is marked, molding may lead to tentorial
>tears, laceration of fetal blood vessels, and FATAL intracranial
>hemorrhage." (p.524)
>[Cunningham, MacDonald, Leveno, Gant and Gilstrap, Williams Obstetrics
>Appleton-Lange 1993. FATAL emphasis added.]
>
>ALSO: UNEXPLAINED BABY BRAIN BLEEDS
>
>Intracranial hemorrhages are COMMON: One recent MRI study indicated that a whopping 26% of babies suffer unexplained intracranial hemorrhages...
>
>See Brain bleeds in 26% of vaginal births (Looney et al. 2007)
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/6746b6292cae7566
>
| |
|
|
Result 51 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
fluffet
BP Investigator
member is online
I can see the pub from up here !
Joined: Apr 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,560
Karma: 347 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #51 on Nov 23, 2009, 9:27pm » | |
Suicide was an extreme example as i stated but in answer to your comments -
Quote:| Regarding people who may and may not commit suicide on the strength of the information they get would have to be mentally ill or at least on the brink. |
|
Yep, they would and as such would not be in the best position to receive information of anykind that might push them over that brink, especially from someone who may not be aware of their condition or trained to deal with someone in that delicate state.Or from someone who has no way of knowing the impact of their statements on that persons life or the aftermath it may contribute too. As i stated suicide is an extreme example but increased depression and poor life choices are less extreme examples that may be contributed to by giving someone who belives beyond doubt that the information they are getting is well informed and from loved ones past....its that belief that the information is from some higher all seeing vantage point or from loved ones that adds weight to it for the sitter , but what if its wrong and results in further distress ? How can a reader tell and determine all of these situations and conditions of a sitter who may only have met them that day and know that the information they are giving them isnt determental to them or might cause them further distress ? Or for that matter how can they tell that the deceased loved ones advice is genuine or from an informed position ?
All im saying is what qualifies a medium to give out information or in some cases direct advice that may deeply affect or influence a persons life or health ? Unless the deceased loved one was a professional grief counsellor , psychiatrist, doctor , relationship councellor etc etc what makes that advice or information usefull or correct other than perhaps in a comforting way , or for that matter the if the medium is none of these things either how can their advice or information be taken as considered and from a fully qualifed and knowledgeable source that is aware of the impact and follow up effects it might cause ?
Its not specific to mediums in the sense that if i was in the depths of greif and despair i wouldnt go to a plumber or a neighbour or a receptionist for advice , id go to a professional councellor or doctor or therapist who was trained to deal with all i was experiencing , bar the resurrection of the person id lost no amount of words communicated by them through a medium would bring them back , and id still have to deal with the loss of them , comfort from being under the impression they were able to communicate with me would be short lived in that it would only increase the frustration and sense of loss that i could never see or touch or interact with them again .
Learning how to deal with that and acceptance of it could only come from facing it and getting help from those trained in how to tackle that with me ....prolonging it would be a heartbreaking endless desire that could not ever be satisfied in a lifetime.
Quote:Comparing giving a child a knife for free or selling it to them suggests that adults who want psychic readings are not able to judge the situation for themselves which is insulting to their intelligence and to compare a knife to a psychic reading is to suggest that the information can be dangerous or used against someone.
|
|
I wasnt comparing a psychic reading to a knife , i was illustrating that charging for something is irrelevant to the possible outcomes that may result .
Ie The knife was free/the knife was a tenner .....it has no bearing on the outcome of how the knife is used.
|
It pays to keep your eyes open
|
|
|
Result 52 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
fluffet
BP Investigator
member is online
I can see the pub from up here !
Joined: Apr 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,560
Karma: 347 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #52 on Nov 23, 2009, 8:28pm » | |
Todd if its ok to call you that , i think targeting Singh and Ernzt for NOT commenting on something isnt the best approach if you wish Skeptics like them and others for that matter to support or at least further investigate your claims which then may allow them to comment from a position of having at least been aware of the issue and having researched it suitably to form a view one way or the other. Lambasting them for not sharing your need to highlight the issues you have or being aware of it isnt going to cause or encourage them to do so and instead may indicate to some a wish to include them in your arguement because of their stance on other issues rather than the specific one your tackling.
Your point is very specific and its unlikely that its something they would specifically tackle head on without it being made apparent or directly questioned of them, which may account for them not mentioning it specifically or questioning its dangers , or of course they may have looked into it and disagreed with your findings which is entirely possible also .
Either way im not sure that including them when trying to make your point about birth practises is the best way to highlight the main thing you want to change as it diverts and divides away from the main arguement your trying to put.
Id have thought your points would have been better directed at those who you feel are actually promoting the practises you disagree with or at researchers whom you feel are incorrect in their conclusions surrounding it rather than at those who arent promoting it or who are unaware of it specifically.
Im guessing that you have an alternative method that you feel would reduce the problems you say conventional medicine is causing in the this specific subject , and id imagine that if that is the case research and evidence to back up this methods prefered results would be the best way to prove your case.
You have mentioned some figures and research that might indicate the pitfalls and dangers of the practises you disagree with , but it would be valuable to offer hard and fast research and evidence of an alternative that might be preferable ....so far its hard to compare the figures against any figures or research that shows a better method with better results for the child and mother to reach anykind of context of what might be best as you havent so far suggested your alternative or shown evidence to indicate that its far safer or has less dangers.
Sorry if it seems reluctant to just take what your saying at face value , the point about closing the birth canal does make sense to me (even from a laypersons view) and i can see the point your trying to make about that and other practises , what im not clear on is the alternative and the facts and figures behind it that might show it to be far more favourable or equally as fraught with problems of another nature .
Also i cant fathom out a motive or reason for conventional practioners to deliberatly stick to a practise that might not provide statistically and scientifically tried and tested the best possible percentage of positive outcome, if as you claim this practise can be proven to result in far more disasters than is acceptable why would you think it is that it continues to be held as the prefered method by them ?
What is the benefit or motive for them to continue it if this is the case ?
I guess id like to hear the arguement for as well as the arguement against to better understand the whole thing .
|
It pays to keep your eyes open
|
|
|
Result 53 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: The Great Unexplained Debate (20/11/09) (Read 46 times) |
morganp
VIP Member
member is offline
Joined: Dec 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 777
Location: Edinburgh
Karma: 526 | | Re: The Great Unexplained Debate (20/11/09)
« Result #53 on Nov 23, 2009, 8:22pm » | |
Good post Fluff. Why am I not in the least surprised by this mans attitude? Talk about the ego has landed.
He's a c*ck of the highest order.
morganp
|
The plural of anecdote is not data |
|
|
Result 54 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Official disclosure of extraterrestrial life is im (Read 73 times) |
barb
Baby
Silver Surfer
member is offline
if only!
Joined: Nov 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 672
Karma: 33 | | Re: Official disclosure of extraterrestrial life i
« Result #54 on Nov 23, 2009, 7:40pm » | |
WOW again,words fail me. 
| |
|
|
Result 55 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Alleged ghost picture... (Read 63 times) |
barb
Baby
Silver Surfer
member is offline
if only!
Joined: Nov 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 672
Karma: 33 | | Re: Alleged ghost picture...
« Result #55 on Nov 23, 2009, 7:33pm » | |
They are getting so good now at faking ghost pics that if anyone should happen to catch the image of a genuine!!! one ,how would we know.?
| |
|
|
Result 56 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
tgastaldo
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 20
Karma: -8 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #56 on Nov 23, 2009, 7:33pm » | |
lovelyyoungman (Sperm) wrote:
First let me thank you for putting (sperm) after my psuedonym, it brought a wry immature smile to my face.
#### YOU put Sperm after your pseudonym - so I did so too. You are welcome.
Secondly let me say you remind me very much of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist church except instead of the anus its the birth canal you're obsessed with. You also appear a little manic in your writing style, but enough of the Ad Hominems...
#### I see what you mean. I just googled "Fred Phelps Westboro" and found him here in the colonies at: http://www.godhatesfags.com/. He is indeed focused on the anus, as in, "America crossed the line on June 26, 2003, when the Supreme Court (the conscience of the nation) ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that we must respect sodomy."
#### Actually, I think Fred is focused on OTHER people (www.godhatesfags.com) focusing on the anus.
#### In regard to other people focusing on anuses, I focus on OBGYNs (obstetricians) criminally SLICING anuses - surgically/fraudulently indicating they are doing everything possible to open the birth canal - even as they keep the birth canal closed up to 30%. Sometimes OBGYNs slice clear to the rectum ("episioproctotomy") with the birth canal senselessly kept closed up to 30%.
#### lovelyyoungman (Sperm) quoted me writing, "Again, I target the practice" and wrote:
But you're not targetting the practice, you're targetting Singh and Ernzt. Is it co-incidence that they happen to have criticised your profession?
#### Actually, it IS coincidence that Singh and Ernst happen to have criticized my profession. I myself criticize my profession for remaining silent about the bizarre OBGYN birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation practice - just like I criticize Singh and Ernst for the same thing.
#### lovelyyoungman (Sperm) quoted me....
Quote:#### Where are the prominent "skeptics"? They are whining about chiropractors advertising spinal manipulation treatments for infant colic all the while IGNORING gruesome, sometimes-fatal birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation treatments that likely CAUSE infant colic! (Prof. Colquhoun ignored OB Lie #1 and offered ignorance of obstetrics as a lame excuse for not commenting! OB Lie #1 is OBVIOUS. The pelvic diameters cannot both change and not change - one needs NO knowledge of obstetrics to figure this out. Similarly, it is easy to see that if OBGYNs are offering a way to allow the birth canal to open when baby's shoulders get stuck, they are indirectly admitting on video that they KNOW they are routinely closing birth canals up to 30%. Prof. Colquhoun's dodge helps perpetuate mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation child abuse - even as he criticizes minority, non-MD spinal manipulators for killing the occasional patient. How very bizarre.)
#### Again - YES - "skeptics" should criticize chiropractic spinal manipulation performed without evidence of efficacy - but FIRST (or at least simultaneously) they should criticize ABSOLUTELY CONTRAINDICATED/SOMETIMES-FATAL mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation by OBGYNs (obstetricians) that may be causing parents to seek GENTLE spinal manipulation after birth... |
|
[quote]
#### He replied:
Again, I would say it is impossible for anyone to fully round up ALL the pro and cons on a subject as large as "medicine".
#### Lovelyyoungman (Sperm), you're creating a straw man. I never said Singh and Ernst need to "round up ALL the pro and cons on a subject as large as 'medicine.'"
#### What I've said is that Singh and Ernst are PRETENDING that conventional medicine is mostly "scientific" - when in fact conventional medicine is mostly CAM (unproven) - with much of conventional medicine being CRIMINAL unproven/CAM therapy - like for example the SOMETIMES FATAL birth-canal-closing/SPINAL MANIPULATION child abuse crime of OBGYNs that likely CAUSES infant colic and sends parents to chiropractors for GENTLE spinal manipulation in an attempt to stop babies from crying so much after birth.
Most people would agree.
#### Hopefully, most people can see your straw man argument.
And even if Singh and Ernzt had included your point about birth canals (though its a little unclear what that point exactly is) someone else would be posting here complaining that they'd ignored the illegitimacy of "Schziophrenia" as a diagnosis or the dangers of insulin dependence. You simply cannot cover all bases.
#### Your straw man argument train of thought just took a dirt road.
And btw I only put quotation marks around the word "dangerous" as from your postings I cannot discern what the evidence is and so have no idea if it is dangerous or not.
#### Go back and READ. Obstetricians themselves indicate closing the birth canal FAR LESS than 30% can KILL.
"Outward [the obstetrician is] icily calm, but inward [he] is extremely
harrassed...attempting to disguise how hard he is really pulling on the
fetal head."
--Kinch RA. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1962; 5:1031-43 quoted in Pauerstein CJ
(ed). Clinical Obstetrics. NY: John Wiley & Sons 1987:871.
NOT DANGEROUS?
#### With birth canals senselessly kept closed up to 30%, obstetricians sometimes pull so hard they rip spinal nerves out of tiny spinal cords.
#### Obvious mass criminal negligence that sometimes escalates to criminally negligent homicide may explain why obstetricians (and the MD and PhD "skeptics" who blindly promote them) are silent.
#### BTW, I am in favor of pardons in advance for OBGYNs. As medical students, OBGYNs are TRAINED to commit obvious felonies. As I've previously noted, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists/ACOG's Shoulder Dystocia training video is an indirect VIDEO ADMISSION that OBGYNs KNOW they are routinely closing birth canals up to 30% - and it was ruled exempt from the hearsay rule in Costantino v. Herzog. The ACOG video purports to demonstrate how to allow maximum room in the birth canal in the small number of cases when babies' shoulders get stuck - which is the indirect admission that OBGYNs know they are routinely closing birth canals up to 30%. Sadly, the version of McRoberts maneuver demonstrated actually keeps the mother on her sacrum, thereby closing the birth canal with more force. It's OB Lie #4.
| |
|
|
Result 57 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
buttonhole
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Karma: -2 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #57 on Nov 23, 2009, 6:44pm » | |
Nov 23, 2009, 5:11pm, ADMIN - Jon Donni wrote:Actually Samantha (that is your name right? Just practicing my psychic abilities) the fact you believe in proven frauds like Gary Mannion and David Wells leaves me wondering what you real motivation is for being here.
How can you claim to be open minded when you follow people like that?
Why dont you go visit www.badpsychicsgarymannion.co.uk and learn the truth about your friend.
I am sure he has told you many things about me and this site. |
|
The fact that you have published my name here on a public board is very creepy why have you done that?
If you are under the assumption that I am on anyones payroll or sticking up for any particular person or persons named any where on this site you are wrong. It was to this site I came first and read about these people not the other way round. I have the conviction to make up my own mind without having to belong to any particular camp on either side.
| |
|
|
Result 58 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
buttonhole
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Karma: -2 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #58 on Nov 23, 2009, 6:36pm » | |
Nov 23, 2009, 5:08pm, ADMIN - Jon Donni wrote:
Quote:| Would someone who is not charging a fee be less driven by this and if they fail to produce enough information be more likely to admit it? They would have nothing to loose in this respect. |
|
You have to remember that many do this purely for ego, others do this out of the mistaken belief they are genuinely helping people.
Being deluded is not an excuse for fraud however.
I disagree, I dont think any sitter has ever had truly accurate information purely through divination. Such a claim has never been proven.
Proven by whom? If psychic A tells Sitter B that they see a mental image and describes it in detail and Sitter B says that they can recognise that the image as relevant to themselves then is the proof there? The image described ? How do you prove a mental image unless you have a machine (not yet invented) that can see that?
As for science working on ways to prove such abilities, again this is wrong.
It is Upton the claimants to prove what they do is real.
If that is the case then what are these people doing, among others throughout the world:
http://www.koestler-parapsychology.psy.ed.ac.uk/research.html
You talk as if science is baffled by mediumship, it is not, in fact 100% of mediumship is easily explained by science.
I have never said science is baffled by, merely interested in.
There is not a single thing that any medium or spiritualist has ever done that science cannot explain.
Isnt that a chicken and egg situation? A need for explanation precedes scientific research precedes explanation.
The US Government spent $20 Million on trying to prove Remote Viewing, it failed.
Science is NOT baffled by anything mediums or psychics do.
Where have you got this idea that science hasnt the technology?
I am rather amazed by such claims.
Name one psychic event that science cant explain?
We have the technology to prove any claim, but only if said claim is true.
In history 100% of psychics and mediums fail 100% of the time when the chance to cheat is removed.
No exceptions, how do you explain this utter failure by history's psychics?
100 years ago mediums were doing the exact same thing as they do now.
Mediumship has not moved forward at all, where as science and technology has moved forward at an incredible rate.
No astrologer ever found a planet, or a comet, no psychic predicted the the Boxing day Tsunami, no medium has ever proven to talk to the dead.
If we do away with mediums it will make no difference to anyone, as mediums have never proven that they do anything other than PRETEND to talk to the dead, or do simple magic tricks.
Science hasnt finished with the study of the brain yet. I saw in a recent Horizon ( I think it was called who am i?) an amazing procedure where scientists were able to tell what decision the presenter was going to make before he was consciously aware of it. They make a scan of the brain and can see when certain areas are active. Depending on the area tells them what he is thinking before he is even aware of it himself. Isnt this scientifically proven telepathy?
What pushes people to seek readings is desperation, grief, people want answers for things they can not deal with.
All those things drive people to seek other things too: Drugs, alcohol, the Samaritans, - any number of things. We all make our own choices.
Psychics prey on this vulnerability and that is why fake mediumship is a serious crime in my book.
I agree if someone is a deliberately committing fraud in any walk of life it is wrong.
Spiritualism lends to suicide, it gives people an excuse.
In that case so does Religion. However someone promising me an afterlife does not make me want to get there faster.
Quote:| Comparing giving a child a knife for free or selling it to them suggests that adults who want psychic readings are not able to judge the situation for themselves which is insulting to their intelligence and to compare a knife to a psychic reading is to suggest that the information can be dangerous or used against someone. |
|
Free will is removed the moment you are conned.
The moment a medium comvinces you they have magical powers and a hotline to the other side your free will is removed, for the grief and sadness of losing a loved one leaves you so damaged and hurt that it is easy to be conned in such a state.
That is where people have to use their discrimination. No one forces people to have readings which is what I sense is the opinion here. We all have free will. To say otherwise is patronizing and insulting.
I compare rapists to mediums, for a medium is no more than someone who rapes the memories of the dead, and affects the grieving process in such a negative manner.
As someone who has suffered rape that comparison is disgusting. Once again people go to psychics, vicars, priests or whoever because they choose to .
Would I be right in saying you are a medium?
No I am not a medium.
Are you trying to find justification for your crimes? |
|
By opening a discussion??
| |
|
|
Result 59 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #59 on Nov 23, 2009, 6:11pm » | |
First let me thank you for putting (sperm) after my psuedonym, it brought a wry immature smile to my face.
Secondly let me say you remind me very much of Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist church except instead of the anus its the birth canal you're obsessed with. You also appear a little manic in your writing style, but enough of the Ad Hominems...
Quote:| #### Again, I target the practice |
|
But you're not targetting the practice, you're targetting Singh and Ernzt. Is it co-incidence that they happen to have criticised your profession?
Quote:
#### Where are the prominent "skeptics"? They are whining about chiropractors advertising spinal manipulation treatments for infant colic all the while IGNORING gruesome, sometimes-fatal birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation treatments that likely CAUSE infant colic! (Prof. Colquhoun ignored OB Lie #1 and offered ignorance of obstetrics as a lame excuse for not commenting! OB Lie #1 is OBVIOUS. The pelvic diameters cannot both change and not change - one needs NO knowledge of obstetrics to figure this out. Similarly, it is easy to see that if OBGYNs are offering a way to allow the birth canal to open when baby's shoulders get stuck, they are indirectly admitting on video that they KNOW they are routinely closing birth canals up to 30%. Prof. Colquhoun's dodge helps perpetuate mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation child abuse - even as he criticizes minority, non-MD spinal manipulators for killing the occasional patient. How very bizarre.)
#### Again - YES - "skeptics" should criticize chiropractic spinal manipulation performed without evidence of efficacy - but FIRST (or at least simultaneously) they should criticize ABSOLUTELY CONTRAINDICATED/SOMETIMES-FATAL mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation by OBGYNs (obstetricians) that may be causing parents to seek GENTLE spinal manipulation after birth...
|
|
Again, I would say it is impossible for anyone to fully round up ALL the pro and cons on a subject as large as "medicine". Most people would agree. And even if Singh and Ernzt had included your point about birth canals (though its a little unclear what that point exactly is) someone else would be posting here complaining that they'd ignored the illegitimacy of "Schziophrenia" as a diagnosis or the dangers of insulin dependence. You simply cannot cover all bases.
And btw I only put quotation marks around the word "dangerous" as from your postings I cannot discern what the evidence is and so have no idea if it is dangerous or not.
| |
|
|
Result 60 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
lovelyyoungman
Egg
member is offline
Joined: Oct 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 111
Karma: 9 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #60 on Nov 23, 2009, 5:31pm » | |
Nov 23, 2009, 4:24pm, buttonhole wrote:Thanks to all for giving some interesting and thought provoking opinions 
Id like to probe a little further:
I notice that a lot of the mediums and clairvoyants mentioned on the main site are deemed as "professional" in than I mean that they charge a fee for the reading. They may be seeking fame as well as fortune this may lead them to sometimes embroider the readings they give to provide a sufficient product to warrant their fee. Would someone who is not charging a fee be less driven by this and if they fail to produce enough information be more likely to admit it? They would have nothing to loose in this respect. |
|
They would have their pride, self respect and the respect of the believer to lose if they admitted they didn't know. Think how difficult it is for any of us to admit we're wrong/incompetent in everyday life, then imagine you've told someone you have an incredible and fantastic powers beyond the realms of scientific knowledge. Its pretty hard after you've made such a claim to then say "Actually I don't know anything and I haven't got a clue what I'm doing". I agree that professional psychics are more likely to embellish their claims and predictions to make them more dramatic.
Quote:
A lot of sitters have recieved accurate information from various methods of divination and science is working on ways to prove ability. It just hasnt got the technology yet and just does not get the funding. |
|
I hope this doesn't come across as harsh because it isn't meant to but how do you know we will be able to prove psychic ability once we have the technology? What technology would we require that would prove it? Science has attempted to prove evidence of psychic ability (see the work of Chris French for some good examples) the trouble is no evidence has been found. Now either that is because, as you say we do not have the skills/knowledge/technology available to prove it or it is because no such thing exists. Considering the amount of research that has been done and there is still no credible evidence for psychic ability (as it is practised by those listed on this website) the logical position is to assume that it does not exist. In terms of lack of funding for psychic experiments I would point you in the direction of the JREF $1 Million Dollar Challenge.
Quote:
Where we are right now at this time does not tell us much but as we know what seemed mysterious a hundred years ago is common place nowadays. |
|
You're right, there are things science could not explain a hundred years ago that we now can. But that doesn't mean that every idea put forward today will be proven true in 100 years time. Also, psychics have been around for over 100 years and if you think of the amazing things science has brought us in that time (flight, space travel, vastly higher life expectancy etc) you would have thought we might have made some progress in our knowledge of psychic ability.
Quote:
If you do away with all the mediums then science cannot move forward with this work. |
|
I believe that if anything, mediums hinder scientific progress around the knowledge of how the brain works. Clearly there is a lot science doesn't know about the brain but professing to be able to talk to the dead when you demonstrably cannot is in no way going to help scientific discovery. Its a little bit like saying that we need to keep believing in the tooth fairy because if we don't there will be no advances in Dentistry.
Quote:
I believe that most people do not disregard science at all but want answers that science is not able to give at this time. That is maybe what drives people to seek readings and indulge in psychic interests.
|
|
The strengths of science lie in reason, logic and evidence, all of these are completely absent from the fields of mediums and psychics. If you go to these people not only will you not get any answers beyond vague statements, you are also promoting those that are against science, you are aiding the people who hinder the progress of science and so delay getting the answers that you want.
Quote:
Regarding people who may and may not commit suicide on the strength of the information they get would have to be mentally ill or at least on the brink. People sadly commit suicide for all kinds of reasons. I cannot imagine what kind of information you could give to an average person to make them suddenly jump off a cliff. I should imagine that the loss of a job, a girl/boyfriend giving you the push or the occurence of the death of a loved one itself would be the triggers of suicidal actions by those already at the point.
|
|
I agree that its an extreme and hopefully rare scenario (which fluffet acknowledged) but spend a bit of time on here and you'll see the kind of depths some mediums will sink to. A perfect example of this was the recent case where a man had been found hanged and the original verdict was suicide. Sadly psychic "friends" of the family of this man decided that he had been murdered by being forced to drink bleach and petrol before being strangled. Allegations that were proved to be totally false. Can you imagine the additional anguish that these totally fraudulent claims put on this man's family at a time when they were already grieving? Not to mention delaying the funeral and so preventing the family from getting any kind of closure. That is the type of information that would push someone over the edge into suicide. Like I said, this is a rare and extreme example but things like this happen more often than you'd think.
Quote:
Comparing giving a child a knife for free or selling it to them suggests that adults who want psychic readings are not able to judge the situation for themselves which is insulting to their intelligence and to compare a knife to a psychic reading is to suggest that the information can be dangerous or used against someone. |
|
I don't think anyone here would say that all people who have psychic readings are unintelligent, however most would say that thay are probably misguided or uninformed. See the above passage for ways in which psychic "information" can be dangerous or used against someone.
I really hope you don't see this as an attack on you or your intelligence, it isn't meant as one at all. I assume that you post here in order to get explantions or be challenged in some way (that's why I'm here anyway).
| |
|
|
Result 61 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #61 on Nov 23, 2009, 5:11pm » | |
Actually Samantha (that is your name right? Just practicing my psychic abilities) the fact you believe in proven frauds like Gary Mannion and David Wells leaves me wondering what you real motivation is for being here.
How can you claim to be open minded when you follow people like that?
Why dont you go visit www.badpsychicsgarymannion.co.uk and learn the truth about your friend.
I am sure he has told you many things about me and this site.
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 62 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #62 on Nov 23, 2009, 5:08pm » | |
Quote:| Would someone who is not charging a fee be less driven by this and if they fail to produce enough information be more likely to admit it? They would have nothing to loose in this respect. |
|
You have to remember that many do this purely for ego, others do this out of the mistaken belief they are genuinely helping people.
Being deluded is not an excuse for fraud however.
Quote:| A lot of sitters have recieved accurate information from various methods of divination and science is working on ways to prove ability. |
|
I disagree, I dont think any sitter has ever had truly accurate information purely through divination. Such a claim has never been proven.
As for science working on ways to prove such abilities, again this is wrong.
It is upto the claiments to prove what they do is real.
You talk as if science is baffled by mediumship, it is not, in fact 100% of mediumship is easily explained by science.
There is not a single thing that any medium or spiritualist has ever done that science cannot explain.
Quote:| It just hasnt got the technology yet and just does not get the funding. |
|
The US Government spent $20 Million on trying to prove Remote Viewing, it failed.
Scienc is NOT baffled by anything mediums or psychics do.
Where have you got this idea that science hasnt the technology?
I am rather amazed by such claims.
Name one psychic event that science cant explain?
We have the technology to prove any claim, but only if said claim is true.
In history 100% of psychics and mediums fail 100% of the time when the chance to cheat is removed.
No exceptions, how do you explain this utter failure by historys psychics?
Quote:| Where we are right now at this time does not tell us much but as we know what seemed mysterious a hundred years ago is common place nowadays. If you do away with all the mediums then science cannot move forward with this work. |
|
100 years ago mediums were doing the exact same thing as they do now.
Mediumship has not moved forward at all, where as science and technology has moved forward at an incredible rate.
No astrologer ever found a planet, or a comet, no psychic predicted the the Boxing day Tsunami, no medium has ever proven to talk to the dead.
If we do away with mediums it will make no difference to anyone, as mediums have never proven that they do anything other than PRETEND to talk to the dead, or do simple magic tricks.
Quote:| I believe that most people do not disregard science at all but want answers that science is not able to give at this time. That is maybe what drives people to seek readings and indulge in psychic interests. |
|
What pushes people to seek readings is desperation, grief, people want answers for things they can not deal with.
Psychics prey on this vunerability and that is why fake mediumship is a serious crime in my book.
Quote:| Regarding people who may and may not commit suicide on the strength of the information they get would have to be mentally ill or at least on the brink. |
|
Spirituliasm lends to suicide, it gives people an excuse.
Quote:| Comparing giving a child a knife for free or selling it to them suggests that adults who want psychic readings are not able to judge the situation for themselves which is insulting to their intelligence and to compare a knife to a psychic reading is to suggest that the information can be dangerous or used against someone. |
|
Free will is reoved the moment you are conned.
The moment a medium comvinces you they have magical powers and a hotline to the other side your free will is removed, for the grief and sadness of losing a loved one leaves you so damaged and hurt that it is easy to be conned in such a state.
I compare rapists to mediums, for a medium is no more than someone who rapes the memories of the dead, and affects the grieving process in such a negative manner.
Would I be right in saying you are a medium?
Are you trying to find justification for your crimes?
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 63 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Giving readings for free (Read 281 times) |
buttonhole
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 9
Karma: -2 | | Re: Giving readings for free
« Result #63 on Nov 23, 2009, 4:24pm » | |
Thanks to all for giving some interesting and thought provoking opinions
Id like to probe a little further:
I notice that a lot of the mediums and clairvoyants mentioned on the main site are deemed as "professional" in than I mean that they charge a fee for the reading. They may be seeking fame as well as fortune this may lead them to sometimes embroider the readings they give to provide a sufficient product to warrant their fee. Would someone who is not charging a fee be less driven by this and if they fail to produce enough information be more likely to admit it? They would have nothing to loose in this respect.
A lot of sitters have recieved accurate information from various methods of divination and science is working on ways to prove ability. It just hasnt got the technology yet and just does not get the funding. Where we are right now at this time does not tell us much but as we know what seemed mysterious a hundred years ago is common place nowadays. If you do away with all the mediums then science cannot move forward with this work.
I believe that most people do not disregard science at all but want answers that science is not able to give at this time. That is maybe what drives people to seek readings and indulge in psychic interests.
Regarding people who may and may not commit suicide on the strength of the information they get would have to be mentally ill or at least on the brink. People sadly commit suicide for all kinds of reasons. I cannot imagine what kind of information you could give to an average person to make them suddenly jump off a cliff. I should imagine that the loss of a job, a girl/boyfriend giving you the push or the occurence of the death of a loved one itself would be the triggers of suicidal actions by those already at the point.
Comparing giving a child a knife for free or selling it to them suggests that adults who want psychic readings are not able to judge the situation for themselves which is insulting to their intelligence and to compare a knife to a psychic reading is to suggest that the information can be dangerous or used against someone.
| |
|
|
Result 64 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: what are you doing right now (8) (Read 13,637 times) |
kensington
Administrator
BPTV Presenter
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 905
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 755 | | Re: what are you doing right now (8)
« Result #64 on Nov 23, 2009, 3:28pm » | |
Thanks huggybear The thing is on this occasion I have not violated any copyright. A television channel has accused me of using their footage when I filmed what I did from my own balcony and property. They have basically made a false claim against me. As a result Youtube has removed the relevant footage. I have put in a counter claim but I would not hold my breath. Thankfully a friend of mine who works in tv is going to do a bit of digging on my behalf for more info
|
"Dont forget to cover your bum, or you'll get a red bum" |
|
|
Result 65 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: what are you doing right now (8) (Read 13,637 times) |
huggybear
Guest
| | Re: what are you doing right now (8)
« Result #65 on Nov 23, 2009, 3:20pm » | |
I wouldn't worry about copyright Kensington, everyone breaks it its just standard practice. They can huff and puff but i guarantee no one will ever sue you. So keep flaunting it and ignore the threats eventually they'll just go away.
| |
|
|
Result 66 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Alleged ghost picture... (Read 63 times) |
catharine
Sperm
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.newtotv.com/files/2008/08/wipeout-leaping-dude-canwestmedia-photo-3.jpg)
EAT IT
Joined: Jul 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 66
Location: West Midlands
Karma: 5 | | Re: Alleged ghost picture...
« Result #66 on Nov 23, 2009, 2:41pm » | |
Bob Dezon used to be good at debunking these Haven't seen him round much recently. Just a passing observation.
|
"You know, I rather like this God fellow. Very theatrical, you know. Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence... gotta get me some of that." |
|
|
Result 67 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Might Fine Burgers Music Remix (Read 9 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Might Fine Burgers Music Remix
« Result #67 on Nov 23, 2009, 2:14pm » | |
You gotta admit this is pretty clever!
http://tviscool.com/Video25.html
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 68 of 100:
| | Author | Announcement: Hairspray the Musical – Shaftesbury Theatre (Read 22 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Hairspray the Musical – Shaftesbury Theatre
« Result #68 on Nov 23, 2009, 2:02pm » | |
Hairspray the Musical – Shaftesbury Theatre
Big hair, big heart, big hit! Don’t miss London’s ultimate feel-good show, Hairspray!
More Info Here
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 69 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: what are you doing right now (8) (Read 13,637 times) |
kensington
Administrator
BPTV Presenter
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 905
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 755 | | Re: what are you doing right now (8)
« Result #69 on Nov 23, 2009, 1:58pm » | |
Hehe thanks Fluffet. I hope I can put them bang to rights. Everything seems to be copyright these days it seems. I have disputed the copyright claim and am waiting to hear back. I wouldn't hold my breath but you never know. Just not what I needed right now along with the uni stuff. I hope things are good your end though
|
"Dont forget to cover your bum, or you'll get a red bum" |
|
|
Result 70 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: what are you doing right now (8) (Read 13,637 times) |
fluffet
BP Investigator
member is online
I can see the pub from up here !
Joined: Apr 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,560
Karma: 347 | | Re: what are you doing right now (8)
« Result #70 on Nov 23, 2009, 1:00pm » | |
Ahhh the might of media and academia combining their efforts to screw things up !!!! The barstewards !
Dontcha just hate those fatcat media orgs that that have a cow over nothing ....as if they had nothing better to do than trawl Youtube for copyright infringments imagined or not ?
As for the uni i hope they pull the fickle finger out and stop messing you about soon.
On the plus side you get to put em all bang to rights
|
It pays to keep your eyes open
|
|
|
Result 71 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: what are you doing right now (8) (Read 13,637 times) |
kensington
Administrator
BPTV Presenter
member is offline
Joined: Feb 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 905
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 755 | | Re: what are you doing right now (8)
« Result #71 on Nov 23, 2009, 12:49pm » | |
Things always seem to happen at once with me. A university that I applied to is messing me around and a large media organisation is claiming that I have used their copyright material on a Youtube video when I have not. Not something I need right now to be honest. I'm going to leave it a couple of days and then shout the place down if nothing happens lol. Hugs
|
"Dont forget to cover your bum, or you'll get a red bum" |
|
|
Result 72 of 100:
|  Author | Topic: The Ghost of maid Marion? (Read 318 times) |
munchkin
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 13
Karma: 1 | | Re: The Ghost of maid Marion?
« Result #72 on Nov 23, 2009, 12:28pm » | |
I'm not sure if/when they started to refer to it as the ghost of Maid Marion.
When I first saw this image it was shown to me by a contact at Nottingham's Galleries of Justice.
It was, I believe taken by a new security guard who had some experiences whilst patrolling at night and decided to take his camera with him.
It's an interesting picture. I don't believe its been faked but is a typical case of the human eye finding a pattern - in this case a seated woman.
Digital cameras seem to be good at picking up moisture in the air that the human eye cant see and this was taken in one of the lower levels of the building where rooms are carved out of the rock face where it does get cold overnight.
Unfortunately, like any other charity the Galleries has had to push the paranormal aspect of the building to bring more funds in. It's a fascinating place, with excellent (free) exhibitions looking at the history of crime and punishement and worth a visit to see that alone regardless of whether you believe in spooks or not.
| |
|
|
Result 73 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
tgastaldo
Noob
member is offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 20
Karma: -8 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #73 on Nov 23, 2009, 12:10pm » | |
YES - "skeptics" should criticize chiropractic spinal manipulation performed without evidence of efficacy - but FIRST (or at least simultaneously) they should criticize ABSOLUTELY CONTRAINDICATED/SOMETIMES-FATAL mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation by OBGYNs (obstetricians) that may be causing parents to seek GENTLE spinal manipulation after birth...
Kensington (Administrator) wrote:
"Thanks for making it clearer What do you think then their motives are for not giving the full picture?"
#### Prominent "skeptics" who protest health fraud are physicians (Goldacre, Ernst, Barrett). They do not wish to expose their own profession. I think the prominent PhD skeptics (Colquhoun, Singh, etc.) are just going along with the grisly selective criticism of spinal manipulation by physician "skeptics."
fluffet (BP Investigator) wrote:
"You mention you wrote to Singh and Ernst recently surrounding this, did they reply?"
#### Singh and Ernst remain silent. Perhaps though they just never read or received my emails. Perhaps...
#### Here is a URL for a post in which I reproduce my 2003 post to Edzard Ernst, MD...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/2feaea12ed5abe38
lovelyyoungman (Sperm) wrote:
"I'm a little unclear as to why you're targetting Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst on the subject of 'dangerous' Obstetric practice.
#### I target the practice. There is no need for quotes around the word "dangerous" - obstetricians themselves indicate that closing the birth canal far LESS than 30% can KILL. It's obvious sometimes-fatal MASS birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation child abuse complete with OBGYN cover-up lies.
lovelyyoungman (Sperm) continued:
"Criticism of one group of people does not imply that the critic believes its opposite group is perfect. For example, I am happy to criticise the BNP for their views on race, that doesn't then imply that I believe black people are never racist, that would be a ludicrous position to take. By your logic, any criticism of a person/group should include a detailed study of all the faults of any group with opposing ideas. It just not practical."
kensington (Administrator) replied:
"Very good point"
#### Again, I target the practice - the sometimes-fatal mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation CHILD ABUSE - with prominent child abusers/obstetricians/ACOG indirectly ADMITTING ON VIDEO that they KNOW they are routinely closing birth canals up to 30% - even as they LIE to cover-up.
#### Where are the prominent "skeptics"? They are whining about chiropractors advertising spinal manipulation treatments for infant colic all the while IGNORING gruesome, sometimes-fatal birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation treatments that likely CAUSE infant colic! (Prof. Colquhoun ignored OB Lie #1 and offered ignorance of obstetrics as a lame excuse for not commenting! OB Lie #1 is OBVIOUS. The pelvic diameters cannot both change and not change - one needs NO knowledge of obstetrics to figure this out. Similarly, it is easy to see that if OBGYNs are offering a way to allow the birth canal to open when baby's shoulders get stuck, they are indirectly admitting on video that they KNOW they are routinely closing birth canals up to 30%. Prof. Colquhoun's dodge helps perpetuate mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation child abuse - even as he criticizes minority, non-MD spinal manipulators for killing the occasional patient. How very bizarre.)
#### Again - YES - "skeptics" should criticize chiropractic spinal manipulation performed without evidence of efficacy - but FIRST (or at least simultaneously) they should criticize ABSOLUTELY CONTRAINDICATED/SOMETIMES-FATAL mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation by OBGYNs (obstetricians) that may be causing parents to seek GENTLE spinal manipulation after birth...
#### INCIDENTALLY...GENTLE spinal manipulation has helped babies after birth - according to a German MD...
#### OVER 10 YEARS AGO I WROTE...
>>>>BEGIN excerpt of Dr. Gastaldo's 1999 post...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/09bdeaacfd09d9b6
It is interesting to note that the German physician H. Biedermann, MD
reported to the medical literature that he used upper cervical spinal
adjusting to treat 135 babies referred to him by a pediatric orthopedist...
[Biedermann H. Kinematic imbalances due to suboccipital strain in newborns.
J Manual Medicine 1992;6:151-156. H. Biedermann, M.D., Surgical Department,
University of Witten-Herdecke, Schützenstrasse 9, W-5840 Schwerte, Federal
Republic of Germany.]
Biedermann [1992] wrote that traumatization of suboccipital structures
occurs during birth, giving rise to manipulable lesions and various
conditions which he has observed to subside soon after manipulation of those
lesions.
According to Biedermann [1992], conditions which have yielded to a single
upper cervical manipulation include neonatal torticollis, opisthotonus,
asymmetric motor patterns, sleeping disorders, asymmetric development and
range of motion of the hips, fever of unknown origin, and loss of appetite.
Biedermann [1992] also reports that manipulation and physiotherapy
complement each other, with about 50% of cases requiring physiotherapy
following spinal manipulation. ("[P]hysiotherapists,” writes Biedermann,
“report consistently that the[ir] treatment is simplified after
manipulation.")
Biedermann [1992] also states, "Prolonged labor and the use of extraction
aids are especially overrepresented" in cases of the syndrome he calls
kinematic imbalance due to suboccipital strain, or KISS. The birth canal,
he says, is "one of the most dangerous obstacles we ever have to traverse."
Obstacles (sacral tips) should NOT be jammed up to 4 cm into birth canals.
Women should be informed IMMEDIATELY that - at home or in hospital - they
can easily avoid obstetric tomfoolery that jams tailbones into birth canals
causing shoulder dystocia - and - more frequently - fetal skull distortion.
Whether or not gentle upper cervical adjusting of babies is beneficial
following birth - MDs should IMMEDIATELY be stopped from so GROSSLY
manipulating women's spines with semisitting and dorsal delivery...
Such GROSS MD-obstetrician manipulation of **mothers'** spines sets the
stage for GROSS MD-obstetrician manipulation of fetal spines...
In essence, MD-obstetricians are engaged in OBVIOUS criminal spinal
manipulation...
Stopping MD-obstetricians from so bizarrely manipulating spines may well
create a state of euphoria for thousands of babies per day - and PREVENT
vertebral subluxations - without touching a single spine...
>>>>END excerpt of Dr. Gastaldo's 1999 post...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/09bdeaacfd09d9b6
THIS JUST IN FROM FLUFFET (BP Investigator)...
"Ive taken the time to look around the net at some of your postings etc in a bid to try and understand better what your point is here."
#### Thank you.
I take it you are the same Todd Gastaldo DC Private Chiropractic Research Sunnyvale CA Graduated UCLA (Biochem 1975)Graduated Los Angeles College of Chiropractic (DC, 1979)that i found many posts from ?
#### Yes. I like your focus on FIGURE OUT THE TRUTH, as in,
"...im open to considering your claims surrounding 'conventional' semisitting and dorsal delivery and the teaching of this as being the prefered option in birthing perhaps contributing to a lack of willingness to explore other methods that may or may not be preferable but as im not an expert in the field of Obstetrics you must understand that from that position all a layman can do is consider the evidence and research out there from both sides and try and FIGURE OUT THE TRUTH." (emphasis added)
#### Yes DO figure out the truth! You do NOT need to be an obstetrician to get started. The pelvic diameters can't both change and not change at delivery. First, obstetricians said they the anterior/posterior pelvic outlet diameter CAN change (J. Whitridge Williams, MD 1911) - then obstetricians^^^ said the pelvic diameters do NOT change (^^^the authors of Williams Obstetrics - after J. Whitridge died). OB Lie #1 is obvious.
#### Also: It bears repeating: It is easy to see that, since OBGYNs are offering (on video) a way to allow the birth canal to open maximally in the small number of cases when baby's shoulders get stuck, they are indirectly admitting on video that they KNOW they are routinely closing birth canals up to 30%.
My question is if the evidence and research is there to show a preferable method that is proven as reducing the danger why is it not adopted by the majority ?
Why would it not be considered , tested and then prefered ?
Why would and what would the motive be to discount it ?
#### Ignoring the medical literature and closing birth canals up to 30% is obvious criminal negligence. KEEPING birth canals closed when babies get stuck is worse criminal negligence that sometimes escalates to criminally negligent homicide.
#### Obstetricians are taking full advantage of the fact that we live under a medico-"legal" "just us" system wherein law enforcement attorneys and birth trauma attorneys are willing to go along with the ongoing grisly gag.
If as you claim these practises are resulting in a higher percentage of deaths or damage than the present conventional methods do then im all for highlighting it but if its more a case of there are just as considerable dangers involved in other ways by adopting an alternative method id like to know what those dangers are and have them evidenced also.
#### I MUST CONCEDE: Allowing the birth canal to open maximally is NOT a guarantee that birth will go well.
#### Similarly, allowing the birth canal to open maximally WHEN BABIES GET STUCK is no guarantee...
#### THEN AGAIN...
#### As I recently wrote to Singh and Ernst, semisitting and dorsal delivery compress the fetal skull up to 4 cm and,
>According to Williams Obstetrics, compressing the fetal skull FAR LESS than 4 cm can kill:
>
>"[0.5 to 1.0 cm of molding of the fetal skull]...may make the
>difference between successful vaginal delivery and a major obstetrical
>operation (p.369)...when distortion is marked, molding may lead to tentorial
>tears, laceration of fetal blood vessels, and FATAL intracranial
>hemorrhage." (p.524)
>[Cunningham, MacDonald, Leveno, Gant and Gilstrap, Williams Obstetrics
>Appleton-Lange 1993. FATAL emphasis added.]
>
>ALSO: UNEXPLAINED BABY BRAIN BLEEDS
>
>Intracranial hemorrhages are COMMON: One recent MRI study indicated that a whopping 26% of babies suffer unexplained intracranial hemorrhages...
>
>See Brain bleeds in 26% of vaginal births (Looney et al. 2007)
>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med/msg/6746b6292cae7566
>
#### ARRGHHH!
#### OB Lie #1 is obvious! See above.
#### Women need to be INFORMED. They need to be ASKED whether they want their birth canals closed up to 30%. They need to be asked if they want their birth canals KEPT closed up to 30% when babies get stuck and forceps/vacuums are used to pull...
#### Parents taking care of paralyzed adult children after forceps/vacuum births should be informed of the obvious birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation criminal negligence of obstetricians.
#### I SAY AGAIN...
#### YES - "skeptics" should criticize chiropractic spinal manipulation performed without evidence of efficacy - but FIRST (or at least simultaneously) they should criticize ABSOLUTELY CONTRAINDICATED/SOMETIMES-FATAL mass birth-canal-closing/spinal manipulation by OBGYNs (obstetricians) that may be causing parents to seek GENTLE spinal manipulation after birth...
#### OH WAIT - this just in...
BARB (Baby) exclaimed:
"Oh good gawd I wished I knew what he was on about, I know I am slow on the uptake but !!!!!!!."
JON DONNIS replied...
"Know how you feel Barb"
#### Jon and Barb, some people really ARE "slow on the uptake" - because they were damaged at birth.
| |
|
|
Result 74 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Alleged ghost picture... (Read 63 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Re: Alleged ghost picture...
« Result #74 on Nov 23, 2009, 12:00pm » | |
thats been photoshopped by the look of it.
Either that or a long exposure where he had someone dressed as the ghost stand in the picture for a second and then quickly run off.
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 75 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
ADMIN - Jon Donni
Administrator
As NOT seen on the BBC
member is offline
Too Controversial For The BBC
Joined: Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,158
Karma: 136 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #75 on Nov 23, 2009, 11:58am » | |
Know how you feel Barb
|
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves"
Matthew 7:15
"You sit there and you thump your Bible, and you say your prayers, and it didn't get you anywhere! Talk about your Psalms, talk about John 3:16... Donnis 3:16 says I just whooped your ass!".
|
|
|
Result 76 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
barb
Baby
Silver Surfer
member is offline
if only!
Joined: Nov 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 672
Karma: 33 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #76 on Nov 23, 2009, 11:48am » | |
Oh good gawd I wished I knew what he was on about, I know I am slow on the uptake but !!!!!!!.
| |
|
|
Result 77 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: what are you doing right now (8) (Read 13,637 times) |
fluffet
BP Investigator
member is online
I can see the pub from up here !
Joined: Apr 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,560
Karma: 347 | | Re: what are you doing right now (8)
« Result #77 on Nov 23, 2009, 11:12am » | |
Aw Kensington .....what gives ?
Stewing is not conducive to circleless eyes and smiling face....and its a bastard of an rapid ager if left to bubble
Dontcha just hate when kakkaaa happens that you cant avoid, bat into the ether or prevent ?
I tend to let it simmer for a bit then blurt it all out to some poor sod in a sembelance of order that might give me the prefered response of a different perspective on it or give me the more usual response of " is that it ?" hehe
|
It pays to keep your eyes open
|
|
|
Result 78 of 100:
| | Author | Topic: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial (Read 303 times) |
fluffet
BP Investigator
member is online
I can see the pub from up here !
Joined: Apr 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,560
Karma: 347 | | Re: Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Tr
« Result #78 on Nov 23, 2009, 10:55am » | |
Ive taken the time to look around the net at some of your postings etc in a bid to try and understand better what your point is here.
I take it you are the same Todd Gastaldo DC Private Chiropractic Research Sunnyvale CA Graduated UCLA (Biochem 1975)Graduated Los Angeles College of Chiropractic (DC, 1979)that i found many posts from ?
My question is this Todd , im open to considering your claims surrounding "conventional" semisitting and dorsal delivery and the teaching of this as being the prefered option in birthing perhaps contributing to a lack of willingness to explore other methods that may or may not be preferable but as im |
|
|
|
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Logged