Herbal Healing

[jambo372]

I'd just like to know what people here believe about herbal medicine if anything.

Supposedly there is proof available for the following claims :

Ginger and Galangal root can help deal with travel sickness.

St. John's Wort is an effective anti-depressant.

Extracts from both Garlic and Grapefruit seeds have shown to be active against many bacterial infections and Garlic extracts have cured wound infections due to MRSA in trials.

Mugwort helps treat seizures.

Calendula and Aloe Vera help many skin complaints including Eczema, dermatitis, sunburn, rashes and infected wounds.

Thyme essential oil is 20 times stronger than Phenol.

A cocktail of Cider Vinegar and Honey can cure a cough.

Vinegar can treat numerous complaints.

Milk-Thistle may help prevent cancer.

Juniper boiled in water or taken as Gin can help cure urinary tract infections.

I just wanted to know if anybody on this forum believed in any Herbal cures or if you think they're pathetic. I believe in many of them.

[Grendel]

Well, first -it's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of scientific testing.

Secondly -it's not an all or nothing propostion, that herbal meds work or they do not (false dichotomy). A few do, most don't.

The fact is that herbs cure nothing per se, it's the chemicals and/or compounds found in some herbs that offer some remedies, to varying degrees of success. The roots (heh, heh, pun intended) of medicine and pharmacology are found in extraction of medicines from biological and mineral sources.

As for the above listed claims, most of them are nonsense, some are not, and I'll be honest and admit I've little interest in discerning one from another. On the internet, one can find dozens of "studies" that appear to establish virtually any herbal claim out there. I'll use one of the above listed as an example -according to the testing done by labs known for reliability and scientific expertise, St. John's Wort has no more than a placebic effect on depression, but, nonetheless, one can find dozens of studies from lesser known labs that say otherwise.

There are subtleties of detail that apply if one wanted to really get into it. Efficacy of medicinal applications depends as much on dosage as on type of active chemical or compound. A Tylenol or two (acetaminophen) usually cures a headache. A dozen or two and your liver may go on strike. A teaspoon of sugar sweetens your tea, but go ahead and eat a pound of it and see what happens.

[geni]

I don't know about all of them but







St. John's Wort is an effective anti-depressant.

Probably not

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15323598


There hass ben a load of conterversy over this. At the moment I feel that the evidence favors the nay side


Extracts from both Garlic and Grapefruit seeds have shown to be active against many bacterial infections and Garlic extracts have cured wound infections due to MRSA in trials.


Probably


Thyme essential oil is 20 times stronger than Phenol.


dunno but the comparison to phenol is odd since we stoped using that years ago



Check www.pubmed.com for some usefull data but to be honest the history of herbal medcine is that in many cases there is no effect and where there is an effect it is hugly overstated.

[Tom Morris]

There are also a number of herbs and 'natural' (whatever that is) remedies which contain a chemical that is effacious, but could be removed and 'synthetically' produced in a pill to reduce the side effects of the herb.

Herbs are no more or less effacious than anything else - you have to test the chemicals inside them to see.

[El Greco]

Pharmacognosy is the science that deals with the medicinal properties of substances of natural (usually plant) origin. Many plants exhibit such properties and many pharmaceutical companies have used plants as raw material for their medicines. The main problem with popular herbal medicine is that the concetration and even the presence of a specific compound in the plant cannot be guaranteed. Certain subspecies of the plant may be completely inactive. Other times it all depends on the season of the crop, the soil etc. So you'd have to use something you can be sure of, like standardized preparations of a herb.

[epepke]

Originally posted by jambo372
I'd just like to know what people here believe about herbal medicine if anything.

By family, one-quarter of the modern pharmacopea is "herbal" in the sense that it uses substances that were originally discovered in plants. Examples include penicillin and related antibiotics, digitalis, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as aspirin, opiates for anesthesia and analgesics (morphine, codeine, hydrocodone, oxycodone, etc.), cocaine-derivatives such as benzocaine, xylocaine, etc.

In most cases, the substances are refined or modified in order to make them safer and/or more effective.

However, when this happens, when a drug enters standard pharmaceutical practice, people stop calling it "herbal."

So, in practice, what is left that is still called "herbal" are things that either don't work, that have a marginal effect, that "treat" non-diseases, that are inferior to existing products, that are commonly recommended anyway, or that treat things that naturally go away.

It's quite unlikely that there are any common substances remaining that have not been examined out the wazoo for active ingredients. As for the rest, well, pharmaceutical companies routinely finance botanical expeditions into remote places to find something they can use.

Going through your list:

Ginger and Galangal root can help deal with travel sickness.

"Travel sickness" isn't an illness. If you like to drink something made of ginger and galangal root after a journey, and you find the act to have a calming effect, go ahead and do it. Others may like a cup of tea or a beer.

St. John's Wort is an effective anti-depressant.

As has been pointed out, probably not.

Extracts from both Garlic and Grapefruit seeds have shown to be active against many bacterial infections and Garlic extracts have cured wound infections due to MRSA in trials.

Probably. It's hard to imagine much living for very long in garlic juice. But there are much better ways of treating bacterial infections.

Mugwort helps treat seizures.

This is the first I've heard of this. I rather doubt it.

Calendula and Aloe Vera help many skin complaints including Eczema, dermatitis, sunburn, rashes and infected wounds.

Maybe. I've even had physicians recommend Aloe Vera, and it seems to be soothing. Of course, the first rule of dermatology is "if it's dry, make it wet, and if it's wet, make it dry."

A cocktail of Cider Vinegar and Honey can cure a cough.

A cough isn't an illness; it's a symptom. And you're cheating a bit, because neither vinegar nor honey is "herbal." I don't know if cider vinegar and honey is one of the million or so things that can soothe a throat and therefore reduce the irritation that can precipitate a cough, but it sounds pretty revolting. I prefer a Bee's Knees, which is a couple of teaspoons or so of honey, the juice from half a lemon, and a jigger of gin, mixed thoroughly and then shaken with ice. It certainly feels good going down, and it feels better when it stays down.

Vinegar can treat numerous complaints.

Too vague a claim to be interesting.

Milk-Thistle may help prevent cancer.

Practically anything may help prevent cancer. Things that are strongly connected to cancer usually only become apparent after decades of study.

Juniper boiled in water or taken as Gin can help cure urinary tract infections.

About half of all things you can possibly drink can help cure urinary tract infections. Basically, if it makes you urinate a lot, it helps. It's better if it does not acidify your urine, however. So if you drink a lot of gin and tonic, it will probably help, but it will probably help as much without the gin, although the gin makes it much more enjoyable. If you drink gin and orange juice, it won't help as much, because orange juice tends to acidify the urine. A slice of lime in the gin and tonic, though, is probably safe.

[jambo372]

Epepke
Your claims are very interesting.
I know about many medicines which would originally have been 'herbal' but since doctors have started widely using them they have just became classified as conventional - I'd just like to know why this is.

Personally I don't think Ginger worked for my motion sickness - but right enough it was so bad nothing did.

Maybe you're right about St.John's Wort but I don't understand why it's so popular if your claims are true.

Well it has actually been shown that garlic works in vitro.
You said there are much better ways of treating bacterial infections - I am afraid this isn't always the case. I take it you're talking about antibiotics here. Some bacteria have developed resistance to just about all of them eg MRSA , VRE , TB , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Shigella and Acinetobacter - that's why scientists are turning to Garlic in the first place. And even if antibiotics do work they aren't always necessarily better - Garlic was shown to be more active in vitro than Tetracycline against the anthrax bacillus.

Mugwort treats seizures - It was a herbalist white witch who told me this .

I don't know if there is proof about Aloe Vera but I certainly testify to it - it was the only thing that worked on my eczema.

Vinegar can supposedly cure warts, candida and athlete's foot amongst other things.

I am not really cheating when I say Cider Vinegar - it's made by fermenting apples. I don't fancy taking it myself but I've heard many testify to this.

It hear it's been shown in studies that Milk-Thistle could prevent cancer.

Well tonic water being alkaline may help UTI's but it's not only that. The alcohol in Gin can encourage you to urinate and Juniper can have anti-septic properties.

[jambo372]

About the comparison to phenol.
Phenol compounds are used in many commercially available antiseptics eg TCP.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
About the comparison to phenol.
Phenol compounds are used in many commercially available antiseptics eg TCP.

Yup but phenol itsef isn't used so the comparsion is pretty meaningless.

[jambo372]

It's still shown that thyme oil is active.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
It's still shown that thyme oil is active.

Since I can't find anything on pubmed on this. I suspect the claim is untrue. I is very odd that someone would test something against such and out of date antiseptic.

[jambo372]

see this report :

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/medicine-health/report-24405.html

[jambo372]

The comparison was made years ago.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
see this report :

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/medicine-health/report-24405.html #

I think we are all aware that there is work going on with an extract of garlic.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
The comparison was made years ago.

Source?

[jambo372]

See these sites:
http://www.herbs2000.com/herbs/herbs-thyme.htm

http://www.greenwitch.co.uk/

http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/mgmh.html

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
See these sites:
http://www.herbs2000.com/herbs/herbs-thyme.htm

broken link


http://www.greenwitch.co.uk/

cant find any refernce atall on this site


http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/mgmh.html [/B]

The only refernce talks about Thymol raher than thyme oil. Still nothing about being 20 times stronger.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by jambo372
I know about many medicines which would originally have been 'herbal' but since doctors have started widely using them they have just became classified as conventional - I'd just like to know why this is.
This is really just to do with the definition generally used for "conventional" medicine; i.e. conventional medicine is anything that has been demonstrated to work. The medical profession is generally pretty pragmatic in its approach.

I suspect that this is one of the reasons that CAM enthusiasts are reluctant to get involved in double blind testing. Failing the test would probably not cause them much of a problem (it doesn't seem to have in the past), but if they were to prove that their methods actually work they would be adopted by evil conventional medicine and cease to be "alternative."

[epepke]

Originally posted by jambo372
Epepke
Your claims are very interesting.
I know about many medicines which would originally have been 'herbal' but since doctors have started widely using them they have just became classified as conventional - I'd just like to know why this is.

That's a very good question, and I don't really know the answer. Sometimes I think it's cultural, and that some people just like to buy brown pills in brown bottles with labels of brown paper showing brown people dancing around and with names like "Nature's Goodness" because they look right next to their copies of Mother Jones. That may seem a bit cynical, but I think there's some truth to it.

Also, serious herbalists have a kind of theory with two prongs: 1) that the Whole Plant is necessary, and that, being natural, it's harmless and has no side-effects.

This, I think is very dangerous. A lot of medicine can be reduced to killing pests without killing us. A lot of the substances that have evolved in plants have evolved to kill the plant's pests without killing the plants. Some of the plant's pests may be similar to our pests. Bacteria, for instance, are a pest to fungi, so fungi evolved antibiotics. However, we are not plants. At times, it may be that we have more in common with the plant's pests than we do with the plant.

As an example, take one natural product: pyrethrins. These are produced naturally by Chrysanthemum flowers. If you've ever smelled roach spray, you know the smell. One time, I met a girl with Chrysanthemum perfume, and it was disgusting. Anyway, pyrethrin insecticides are used quite frequently, partially on the belief that they are "natural." However, pyrethrin insecticides are some of the worst kinds of insecticides for people with asthma. Even DDT, while it has some obvious ecological problems that mandated its banning, is less dangerous to humans.

That is why it is important to find out what chemicals have the beneficial effect, separate them from other chemicals that the same plant may have evolved that are dangerous, and subject the chemical to rigorous testing. Often, the chemical is modified, as in the case of aspirin. The use of willow bark as an analgesic has been known since the ancient Greeks, but in its natural form it really does a number on the stomach. Adding an acetyl group to the salicylic acid makes it much, much safer. Of course, there are now at least a dozen products modified from aspirin in different ways.

Personally I don't think Ginger worked for my motion sickness - but right enough it was so bad nothing did.

Ah, you mean nausea. I thought by "travel sickness" you meant jet lag. I find that drinking small amounts of very cold water inhibits my nausea.

Maybe you're right about St.John's Wort but I don't understand why it's so popular if your claims are true.

As for St. John's Wort, there was some evidence a few years back that it has a weak monoamine oxidase inhibiting effect. MAOIs have been around for years and years. However, they're seldom prescribed because they can result in some rather dramatic reactions with foods.

Well it has actually been shown that garlic works in vitro. You said there are much better ways of treating bacterial infections - I am afraid this isn't always the case. I take it you're talking about antibiotics here.

A lot of things work really well in vitro. Clorox works in vitro. And there may be something to Clorox treatment; once I got rid of a persistent fungal infection of the fingertips with Clorox. Iodine, of course, is in the same family as chlorine, and it's been used for a long time.

As far as the assumption of antibiotics, you take it wrongly. For topical infections, while a triple antibiotic ointment is a cheap first course of treatment, for more serious infections there are a lot of alternatives. Preparations with metal ions, including silver, work very well.

There are also some interesting cases. It is possible to treat a strep throat infection by swabbing the back of the throat with Betadine and then getting the patient to hack it up. It works great. However, it's so monumentally unpleasant that it isn't done much.

As for antibiotics, it's unfair to compare antibiotics such as amoxicillin in vitro. The whole point of amoxicillin is to survive the gut and produce absorbable, effective metabolites.

Some bacteria have developed resistance to just about all of them eg MRSA , VRE , TB , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Shigella and Acinetobacter - that's why scientists are turning to Garlic in the first place.

I have no problem with people looking for good stuff. If garlic has something good in it that has somehow been missed, we'll know pretty soon, because some manufacturer will isolate the ingredient, and then it won't be called "herbal" any more. In the mean time, though, those garlic tablets are useless. Although I highly recommend eating lots of garlic, as it is delectable, and I cannot rate the value of a satisfying meal too highly.

Mugwort treats seizures - It was a herbalist white witch who told me this.

Well, that's just a bald assertion. Bald as in it has no hair. It doesn't matter if the Pope told you it with a flock of white angels singing the Hallelujah chorus. There needs to be some way to back it up.

I don't know if there is proof about Aloe Vera but I certainly testify to it - it was the only thing that worked on my eczema.

Vinegar can supposedly cure warts, candida and athlete's foot amongst other things.

Well, then it will probably surprise you to learn that, by my memory, for at least 30 years, the most common over-the-counter, FDA-approved remedy for warts has contained, as its active ingredient, concentrated acetic acid. Vinegar is, basically, this acid mixed with water. Which is a waste product of bacteria.

But back to the top of the thread, it just sounds more herbarrific to say "vinegar," especially if you say it comes from apples, which would look nice in a wicker basket made in Guatemala next to those Mother Jones magazines.

Frankly, if I have a wart, I'm going to go to the drug store and get some of the concentrated stuff and not waste my time messing around with vinegar. I have had warts, and I have done this. It does work. It doesn't do the complete job, however. What does may also surprise you: sandpaper. It works great.

It hear it's been shown in studies that Milk-Thistle could prevent cancer.

Again, that's a bald claim. There's no hair to grab onto, no way of following it up. I believe you heard it, but for science, I'd have to see the studies.

Well tonic water being alkaline may help UTI's but it's not only that. The alcohol in Gin can encourage you to urinate and Juniper can have anti-septic properties.

The problem with Juniper as having anti-septic properties is this. There's a reason that your stomach has a pH nearly one. There's a reason that the duodenum is alkaline. It's to destroy stuff. Nearly all molecules of any significant size get destroyed. This can cause problems. Early versions of penicillin get destroyed in the stomach. This is obviously a problem.

You're right in that alcohol is a diuretic, though. But it can't work unless you pump other fluids into yourself. Besides, I'm a big fan of gin, especially Bombay. Not the Sapphire crap; it tastes too medicinal.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
I know about many medicines which would originally have been 'herbal' but since doctors have started widely using them they have just became classified as conventional - I'd just like to know why this is.
It's conventional as soon as a double-blind trial shows that it works.
Maybe you're right about St.John's Wort but I don't understand why it's so popular if your claims are true.
Three reasons:
(1) Some people will believe anything.
(2) The placebo effect. Particularly strong with mild forms of depression, I should guess
(3) Regression to the norm. A lot of alternative medicine offers to treat things like migraine, chronic back pain, depression etc which come and go. People go to their doctor, or herbalist, or crystal healer, or whatever, when they're having a particularly bad spell. As the illness comes and goes, this bad spell will be followed by a better one. It looks like the medicine has worked, but it may just be the Miracle Of The Bleeding Obvious.
You said there are much better ways of treating bacterial infections - I am afraid this isn't always the case. I take it you're talking about antibiotics here. Some bacteria have developed resistance to just about all of them eg MRSA , VRE , TB , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Shigella and Acinetobacter - that's why scientists are turning to Garlic in the first place.
True. But this is not specifically a criticism of "conventional medicine". Indeed, it's an inevitable consequence of its success. If any successful treatment against bacteria is used for long enough, the bacteria will eventually evolve resistance against it. If some chemical in garlic is a powerful antibiotic, and it's used for long enough, then you'll end up with garlic-resistant bacteria. The exception would be therapies which rely on osmosis, e.g. packing wounds with sugar: I don't see how any defense could be evolved to that.

You missed out willow from your list --- eases pain and inflammation --- active ingredient, naturally occurring asprin. And foxgloves --- contain digitalis, long used as a heart remedy (though curiously enough Gerard's Herbal says they have no medicinal properties) and still in use today.

Interestingly, scientists are not only looking at the folk-wisdom of thousands of human cultures for clues, but also watching what herbs animals eat when they're sick. Zoopharmacognosy, yet. (NB: I just made that word up 'cos I don't know the right one.)

Recently, I saw a woman on a consumer affairs program conplaining that vinegar was being sold with acetic acid as one of the ingredients. Imagine how scared she'll be when she finds that there's hydrogen monoxide in her drinking water.

(Edited to add an apostrophe. Yes, yes, I know. I was born this way, I can't help it. What herb cures pedantry?)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You missed out willow from your list --- eases pain and inflammation --- active ingredient, naturally occurring asprin.

Salicylic acid, actually. Aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid. The acetyl group makes it less hard on the stomach. Salicylic acid is still used in some OTC acne medications, though.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://victimsofvitamins.blogspot.com/

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2000/08/21/hlsa0821.htm
There are no standards governing concentrations of key ingredients, which can vary widely...
...A ginkgo biloba product on a store shelf is not necessarily the same ginkgo biloba used in the study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14581247&dopt=Abstract
Among 880 products, 43% were consistent with a benchmark in ingredients and RDD, 20% in ingredients only, and 37% were either not consistent or label information was insufficient.

Bottom line is that the products may or may not contain what they say they do. They will not be tested for effectiveness, and don't work, and may be harmful. Quite often there is a disagreement over what the active ingredient is, and the amount active ingredient will vary from what the label says.

In the case of regulated drugs, we have a fairly good idea what the toxic effects are and at what levels we will see them. We will also have a fairly good idea of how much of the substance we need to have the effects that we want.

In the case of unregulated herbs, we have no idea whether or not we are getting what the bottle says. This has been shown time and time again. We also rarely have good information about what levels of the drug are toxic. (Notice that I didn't say "whether or not the drug is toxic". It will be toxic at some level.) We rarely have good information about efficacy. Thus, we aren't close to being able to know about therapeutic and toxic levels of herbals.


http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:mss:91088:200409:mcfmeikljhainbamlkge

[epepke]

Originally posted by geni
Yup but phenol itsef isn't used so the comparsion is pretty meaningless.

Phenol used to be used in Anbesol. I noticed the other day that Anbesol didn't have any phenol in it.

Phenol can be used to make lots of things, including salicylic acid.

[geni]

Originally posted by epepke
Phenol used to be used in Anbesol. I noticed the other day that Anbesol didn't have any phenol in it.

Phenol can be used to make lots of things, including salicylic acid.


It's a standard starting material for a whole load of chemical reactions. I think the main problem with it is that it causes burns.

[jambo372]

Epepke
Do you have any sources to the research done on St John's Wort ?

Yes I know herbs aren't always necessarily safer than conventional medication ie if this was true Ricin & Belladonna would be safe.

The thing about Clorox & Betadine is that although it may be safe and effective for topical / gargling use, it can't be used internally and this is where most serious infections occur.

It is unfair to compare antibiotics like Amoxycillin in vitro to Garlic compounds? Well yes but a limited number of studies have shown in vivo efficacy of the active Garlic compound Allicin when used systemically. The whole point of an antibiotic like Amoxycillin is to survive the gut and be absorbed. You're half right here ... the infectious agent would have to be sensitive or it wouldn't have any effect even if it was absorbed. Good absorption of an anti-microbial like Amoxycillin is usually a good thing but not in all cases eg before Amoxycillin became widely available doctor's would have used the parent compound Ampicillin - the reason it was widely replaced by Amoxil is that it didn't have as good absorption and bioavailability when administered orally and needed to be given in higher, more frequent oral doses to be as effective in bacterial infections eg ear, nose, throat, respiratory tract and soft tissues, but the disadvantage of this is that it doesn't reach as high GI levels and is less effective in treating infections occuring there eg bacillary dysentry and therefore Ampicillin is still preferred to Amoxil for infections like this caused by sensitive organisms and is also generally still preferred for use by injection.

Most currently available Garlic pills would be ineffective anyway as the active compound in raw garlic isn't included in them not in the least because of it's smell. Garlic may also be effective against E.coli 0157.

I must admit I thought the standard preparation for warts was based on Salicylic acid mixed with collodion and not acetic acid. My gran's old cure for warts was to spit on them first thing when you wake up in the morning. I've had more than my fair share of warts and verrucae - I had them frozen.

Dr Adequate
The Microbiologists investigating the Garlic compound were strangely optimistic that MRSA would be incapable of developing resistance to it but I don't know why. They may be correct however - Garlic has been used medicinally for many years even though evidence of it's effectiveness has only been found recently and no resistance has yet been discovered where as it took S.aureus isolates developed resistance to Penicillin G and Methicillin very quickly after they came into medical use and has also developed resistance to every other modern anti-microbial drug. Of course resistance may still develop - some scientists were naive enough to think that S.aureus would never become resistant to Vancomycin but sadly it still managed to do so.

See this site:
http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/5/garlic.htm

Articles are also available on PubMed.

Strange that it mentioned the Foxglove having no medicinal properties. As far as I'm aware the study of Digitalis first came about when a man had heart trouble many years ago and the conventional doctors who knew very little at the time failed to cure him so he went to a gypsy who made him herbal tea containing Foxglove and he appeared to improve.

Other examples of medicines of plant origin would be Quinine ( from the Cinchona tree), Taxol and Ergotamine from Ergot fungus ( poison rye fungus ).

[epepke]

Originally posted by jambo372
Epepke
Do you have any sources to the research done on St John's Wort ?

They've all been posted here.

The thing about Clorox & Betadine is that although it may be safe and effective for topical / gargling use, it can't be used internally and this is where most serious infections occur.

Quite true. However, garlic is very much changed by the gut. Which is pretty much expected when you drop something into concentrated hydrochloric acid, which I remind you, is the strongest acid there is. So it only makes sense to talk about the metabolites of garlic.

It is unfair to compare antibiotics like Amoxycillin in vitro to Garlic compounds? Well yes but a limited number of studies have shown in vivo efficacy of the active Garlic compound Allicin when used systemically.

Maybe they have. As I said, if there is some magic in garlic associated with a metabolite, then I think we'll probably see it on the shelves pretty soon. And then it won't be called "herbal" any more.

The whole point of an antibiotic like Amoxycillin is to survive the gut and be absorbed. You're half right here ... the infectious agent would have to be sensitive or it wouldn't have any effect even if it was absorbed. Good absorption of an anti-microbial like Amoxycillin is usually a good thing but not in all cases eg before Amoxycillin became widely available doctor's would have used the parent compound Ampicillin - the reason it was widely replaced by Amoxil is that it didn't have as good absorption and bioavailability when administered orally and needed to be given in higher, more frequent oral doses to be as effective in bacterial infections eg ear, nose, throat, respiratory tract and soft tissues, but the disadvantage of this is that it doesn't reach as high GI levels and is less effective in treating infections occuring there eg bacillary dysentry and therefore Ampicillin is still preferred to Amoxil for infections like this caused by sensitive organisms and is also generally still preferred for use by injection.

You're quite right here, but I think you are missing the point. Amoxicillin and ampicillin and erythromycin and doxycyclene and ciproflaxin and all those antibiotics that we all know and love are changed by their passage through the gut, and it is the changed substances, the metabolites, that do the work. Just grinding up a pill and putting it in a Petri dish is not guaranteed to have the same effect. Just like if you take aspirin, in the gut, it becomes sodium-acetyl-salicilate. That's the thing that does the work, not the aspirin per se.

I must admit I thought the standard preparation for warts was based on Salicylic acid mixed with collodion and not acetic acid.

Salicylic acid is also included in many preparations, possibly because it makes them hurt less, but maybe because it has some effect as well. But if you look at the bottle, it has acetic acid in it.

My father swore by fuming nitric acid. He said it worked great on warts. It's certainly possible that any acid that is strong enough will do.

But vinegar? At 5% acidity or less? I doubt it. (Whatever 5% acidity means. I go by pH or molar. But it's still not much, whatever.)

Which reminds me of a palindrome. Straw? No, too stupid a fad. I put soot on warts.

Soot (or, rather ash) would of course be alkaline. I never tried an alkaline on a wart. It might work, though. A bit of potassium hydroxide, maybe?

[jambo372]

Epepke
True- the active metabolites do work but it has been shown in a limited number of studies that Allicin capsules have produced effects comparable to antibiotics on nosocomial MRSA wound infections, giving some evidence suggesting it is probably active in vivo.

I am not saying that vinegar works on warts - I'd probably recommend something stronger, I've got an aunt who uses vinegar for every ailment and cleaning job under the sun though.

[Eos of the Eons]

Selling a standardized product is voluntary on the manufacturers part. Since it is thought that the quantity and composition of the bioconstituents and/or herb present effect the reliability and efficacy of a product, this is something to be aware of. The problem of inconsistent or incorrectly labeled product potency still exists. The correct genus and species, adulterations, absence of specific constituents, incorrect labeling, and labeling that lacks information should all be cause for care when purchasing any herbal product. It is often advisable to look for the U.S.P. notation on a product showing that the manufacturer follows standards established by the U.S. Pharmacopoeia.

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/alt/stjohn.htm

Buyer beware, so at least be aware.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
As far as I'm aware the study of Digitalis first came about when a man had heart trouble many years ago and the conventional doctors who knew very little at the time failed to cure him so he went to a gypsy who made him herbal tea containing Foxglove and he appeared to improve.
You really shouldn't do this. "As far as I'm aware". You're not sure, are you? This is something you heard from Some Bloke In A Pub. This is like citing "a white witch" as a source. THEY ARE NOT COMPLETELY RELIABLE.

Interesting thread, though.

[epepke]

Originally posted by jambo372
Epepke
True- the active metabolites do work but it has been shown in a limited number of studies that Allicin capsules have produced effects comparable to antibiotics on nosocomial MRSA wound infections, giving some evidence suggesting it is probably active in vivo.

That's backward reasoning, though. That some antibiotics may have some effects in vitro does not mean that you can work back from the effectiveness of the metabolites back to the capsules in vitro. That is, if you find an oral antibiotic which doesn't work if you grind it up and put it in a dish, it doesn't mean squat.

[jambo372]

Epepke
It basically boils down to the fact that Allicin had worked on the MRSA infection in patients who had failed treatment with repeated courses of antibiotics.

[jambo372]

A white witch isn't completely reliable - not any less reliable than most people.

[Ashles]

A white witch isn't completely reliable - not any less reliable than most people.
Well when it comes to the medicinal qualities of herbs and chemicals they would be a great deal less reliable than, say, a doctor, or chemist or botanist.

When we talk about the active ingredients of certain plants we can discuss studies that have analysed these plants and their effects.

Someone who describes themselves as "A White Witch" will more likely be talking about anecdotal evidence and wisdom handed down over generations that may or may not be completely false. They are unlikely to be talking about chemical ingredients.

If they do discuss the chemical properties then fair enough.

[jambo372]

Ashles
I said no less reliable than MOST people, medical professionals are an exception. The Witch I am talking about was a trained herbalist however.

[Ashles]

Well firstly you wouldn't cite an average person off the street as a source of medical knowledge so the comparison is valid.

Secondly when you say a "trained herbalist" I am wondering what you mean, because at the moment there appear to be many levels of herbalism and what people consider herbalism to be.
From entiterely scientific analysts of the properties of plants all the way through to totally bogus old-wives tales treatments.

The whole field of herbalism seems to be very muddled, which is a shame, because real useful treatments could get buried in amongst the bogus so people find it hard to know what is true and what isn't.

Out of interest what training has your friend the White Witch had?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Mugwort treats seizures - It was a herbalist white witch who told me this.
It doesn't matter what she was qualified in. What matters is the way the information was obtained. If by scientific trials on people suffering from seizures, then mugwort prevents seizures. Had your white witch done such a trial? Has she read a report of such a trial? If not, then she's talking about something she doesn't really know --- something she was told, doubtless, as part of her training. But, Jambo, not everything we hear is true.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jambo372
Ashles
I said no less reliable than MOST people,...

For exactly this reason, I don't take medical advice from MOST people. I have enough ignorance lying around my house that I don't need to import it specially.

("Ah, but you see, she wasn't just ignorant! She was SPECIALLY TRAINED in ignorance! This makes her ignorance of much higher quality than MOST ignorance. Why, she can kill you slowly and painfully through her ignorance instead of quickly like MOST people.")

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by jambo372
A cocktail of Cider Vinegar and Honey can cure a cough.
No, no, it's cider not cider vinegar. And in sufficient quantities, it cures a cough until the morning. Brandy works too.

Vinegar can treat numerous complaints.
Such as "Hey! There's no dressing on my salad!"

Calendula and Aloe Vera help many skin complaints including Eczema, dermatitis, sunburn, rashes and infected wounds.
I've used aloe (directly from the plant) on sunburn, and it seems to work for me. I'd have to say I believe this one, although I don't know if the same effect would be had from putting any old slime on my skin.

[jambo372]

She got her information from a report.
She had done several courses in herbalism, crystal healing and aromatherapy.

See these pages on Mugwort:
http://www.cherylsherbs.com/FAQ_6.htm

http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/m/mugwor61.html

I don't know what you're saying about killing someone with herbs; you don't need training to do that - I know lots of herbs which could be used.

[jambo372]

Cider and cider vinegar can be used.

[Ashles]

She had done several courses in herbalism, crystal healing and aromatherapy.
Well can you see why this might not be considered up there with actual science or medical training?

By grouping herbalism in with crystal healing and aromatherapy you make it sound very unscientific. If herbalism is approached that way then it will not be of any real use as little knowledge or understanding is involved.

She got her information from a report.
Well the question is what sort of a report? Report could mean anything. A scientific study? A flyer that came free with a crystal booklet?
You'd hardly trust a doctor if he was diagnosing you in his surgery from a single report (of some unspecified type), or from a course he had taken with crystal healing.

It sounds so much more healthy and natural to say 'herbs' instead of 'chemicals', but it is the chemicals that are acting on the diseases and symptoms and some understanding of this is important if you are treating people with actual medical conditions.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
She got her information from a report.
Which report. What did it say? What methodology did they use? This last is crucial.
She had done several courses in herbalism
Had she done any experiments in herbalism.
crystal healing and aromatherapy.
Crystal healing, now, is just total woo-woo BS, and I say this as one who has studied it at length and in depth and read half-a-dozen books on it by enthusiasts. The fact that she's done a course in it does not fill me with confidence in her judgement. It makes me think that she'd swallow any old trash if you put a New Age glaze on it.

[jambo372]

She just said a scientific credited report.
I make herbalism sound unscientific by grouping it with aromatherapy and crystal healing ?
I'm not saying crystal healing is useless but I can see what you mean there, but not aromatherapy - there is evidence that chemicals in many essential oils can have beneficial effects.
Herbalism certainly isn't unscientific as we've saw from previous posts here telling how :
Aspirin
Quinine
Early antibiotics
Taxol
Opioid analgesics
Ergotamine
Digitalis drugs ... the list goes on ...
all came originally from plants.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
She just said a scientific credited report.
I make herbalism sound unscientific by grouping it with aromatherapy and crystal healing ?
No, jambo, but you make your source sound uncritical by revealling that she's been suckered by crystal healing. What does she know or care of what is or isn't "scientifically credited"?
I'm not saying crystal healing is useless
Why on earth not...?
but I can see what you mean there, but not aromatherapy - there is evidence that chemicals in many essential oils can have beneficial effects.
Agreed. But are they useful taken nasally?
Herbalism certainly isn't unscientific as we've saw from previous posts here telling how :
Aspirin
Quinine
Early antibiotics
Taxol
Opioid analgesics
Ergotamine
Digitalis drugs ... the list goes on ...
all came originally from plants.
Agreed. In fact, I pointed out asprin and digitalis to you myself. But what I still haven't gotten through to you is that whether the use of A PARTICULAR HERB is or isn't scientific depends on the METHODOLOGY by which it was found, or supposedly found, to have medicinal properties. Double-blind tests, yes. Old wives' tales, no. A herbalist relying on the latter is unscientifc: on the former, scientific.

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate
I'm not saying crystal healing is useless because for all I know it might not be - I've saw enough people who swear by it.

Essential oils can be used by inhalation or by applying them topically and their active components being absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
I'm not saying crystal healing is useless because for all I know it might not be - I've saw enough people who swear by it.

Aztecs sun. Need I explain further?


Essential oils can be used by inhalation or by applying them topically and their active components being absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream. [/B]

Of course they can be used that way but is there any evidence that they work?

[jambo372]

Yes there's evidence they have beneficial properties.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
Yes there's evidence they have beneficial properties.

Really? Lets see some properly conduted clinical trials then.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Ashles
Secondly when you say a "trained herbalist" I am wondering what you mean
Housetrained?

[Ashles]

I've saw enough people who swear by it.
Jambo it's really time you stopped using these types of arguments.

Lots of people swear by:
Throwing salt over their shoulder to keep the Devil away
Avoiding treading on cracks in the pavement
Avoiding the colour green
Black cats are lucky/unlucky
Palmistry
Homeopathy
Scientology
Feng Shui
etc.

It's called superstition. Just because a lot of people believe in a thing doesn't make it true.

Until a few days ago I thougt that the phases of the moon were due to the shadow cast on it by the earth being between it and the sun. If someone had asked me about the phases of the moon I would happily have explained it as such. Many people believe the same thing. I now know I was incorrect. I'm glad I have had my knowledge corrected.

People often don't know any better because they haven't been exposed to the correct information. But you seem to want to ignore any information if it disagrees with your already held beliefs. That's no way to learn anything new.

There is absolutely nothing defensible in terms of healing about crystals. Yet you feel you have to resort to an argument which is basically "Well lots of people believe in it"
Well that doesn't mean it's real.

It's beyond me as to why you can't admit that some of these things might have no value whatsoever.

[Eos of the Eons]

I can make up whatever I want to about herbs, put it in course materials, and teach other people to remember the crap I wrote. There is nothing of a standard when it comes to herbalism, naturopaths, etc. What is worse is that the misinformation gets passed down from generation to generation without any actual facts being checked out and verified.

any wacko and/or scam artist in Canada can set up a
private school to teach anything they want in the field of alternative medicine. Then they can take their huge tuition that they paid to study some bizarre, unproved alternative medical scam and fill in a form to deduct their tuition. Why does the government of Canada allow this?

Here is a Google search for HealthPro College of Natural Medicine.

http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22HealthPro+College+of+Natural+Medicine%22


http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:mss:91234:200409:ekcoilacknpiafjfiaik

Case in point, all the crap Young teaches in his Young Living Oils classes on things like raindrop therapy.
http://www.naturesgift.com/RDT.htm

It promotes the unsafe use of essential oils, putting people at risk of skin irritation and
There is no published empirical substantiation to support its claims that RDT is a "tool for assisting the body in correcting defects in the curvature of the spine, such as scoliosis.


You can write whatever you want to sell whatever you want. Nothing is regulated.

So when somebody tells me they spent 4 years learning crap, then I'm not impressed one bit. Look at chiros.

[Ashles]

She just said a scientific credited report
Well if that's the case could she show it to you? Or could we know the details of the report so we can look it up ourselves?

What would be wrong in asking her about this report? (Unless you suspect that it might not exist.)
If it does exist then we can all read it and discuss it in more detail.

[Dr Adequate]

jambo, if you're still listening, I hope you've got the point.

It's not WHAT you think --- it's HOW you found it out.

Welcome to the wonderful world of scepticism.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
jambo, if you're still listening, I hope you've got the point.

It's not WHAT you think --- it's HOW you found it out.

Welcome to the wonderful world of scepticism.

I'm beginning to think that jambo is a lost cause until he/she gets older, and even then, probably is a culturaly predisposed woo.. Surely herbalism, aromatherapy, crystal healing etc. is not what he/she considers 'a career in medicine'? :(

What on earth are schools teaching as 'science' these days?

[jambo372]

The Mighty Thor
When I said a career in medicine I meant I wanted to be a medical microbiologist, I don't consider aromatherapy and crystal therapy to be careers in medicine, but I consider herbalism to be a valuable sub category of medicine ... if you say I'm wrong see in previous posts the vast list of life-saving medications which are botanical in origin and have revolutionised many areas of medicine. My career has nothing to do with this anyway.

Dr Adequate
I'm not basing my beliefs on what I think , I'm basing them on how I found out. Welcome to the wonderful world of scepticism - I see nothing at all wonderful about it.

[Ashles]

I consider herbalism to be a valuable sub category of medicine
Well you may consider it such, but it isn't. Herbalism isn't the study of plants, or the study of properties of plants or a scientific discipline at all.
No-one is disputing that some plants have properties that can alleviate symptoms or have some curative properties. But no serious scientist would refer to the study of this as herbalism.
It's not the plants themselves that have the healing properties, but chemicals within them - i.e. you can get the same effect by extracting the chemicals and applying them directly. No plant is required.
Herbalism, however, concentrates on the theory that it is the plant that is required because it makes it sound more natural and healthy somehow.

Herbalism is not a scientific discipline and does not analyse its results as such. Some of the suggestions on your list are agreed with by medical science, and some most definitely are not. Herbalism does not carry out tests and trials to continually test the efficacy of what it recommends, instead, once a plant is rumoured to have certain properties it is claimed to have them full stop.
Overall it's far too hit and miss to be called a serious way of looking at plant properties.

[epepke]

Originally posted by jambo372
She just said a scientific credited report.

I'm sorry, jambo372, but just hearing somebody say that something is a "scientific credited" report means worse than nothing.

Science is the least hierarchical of all endeavors I know of. In science, the common practice is for people to try to rip any idea to shreds. That's what we're doing. It's a rather brutal process, and this is good. Because the idea is that something that is actually true can eventually survive brutal scrutiny.

It is quite difficult for human beings to subject their ideas to this kind of brutal scrutiny, which is why there is more pseudoscience than science. and also why training in science is important. It is largely a process of learning how to live with the fact that one's cherished ideas may turn out to be wrong. This is not easy.

Herbalism certainly isn't unscientific as we've saw from previous posts here telling how

All your examples, while valid, survived brutal scientific scrutiny. This does not mean that "herbalism" is scientific. To find out the answer to that, you would have to look at what herbalists do and to what extent they are willing to change their views when being subjected to brutal scientific scrutiny.

My experience is that those who call themselves "herbalists" are not generally that courageous. When they are, if the ideas succeed, then they become accepted in the scientific community.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by jambo372
The Mighty Thor
see in previous posts the vast list of life-saving medications which are botanical in origin and have revolutionised many areas of medicine. My career has nothing to do with this anyway.



That's not herbalism. That's science based medicine. Herbalism is chucking some bark in a mixer and saying it will cure headaches - nevermind what that does to your stomach if too much active ingredient actually makes it into the mix.

[Eos of the Eons]

All of this will matter in your career. You will see the differences in "herbalism" compared to what you actually study. I hope there are som Labs in your courses.

I commend you in your endeavor, and know you will totally get what we are saying one day.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
All of this will matter in your career. You will see the differences in "herbalism" compared to what you actually study. I hope there are som Labs in your courses.

I commend you in your endeavor, and know you will totally get what we are saying one day.

Thank you for putting that so clearly. I was tryng to point jambo toward a realisation that a career in science requires the adoption of critical thinking techniques. He has not shown any awareness of how the scientific method works. His pronouncements on Nina Kulagina and other wooism does not display a familiarity with critical thinking or the scientific method. He must spend quite a bit of time reading up on these supposed paranormalists. Yet, reading about Newton, Darwin, Mendel, or Fleming might benefit him more in his proposed career. And these real wonder-workers can be every bit as interesting and exciting as the paranormal.

"Life is short, the art long, opportunity fleeting, experiment treacherous, judgment difficult."
Hippocrates

Yet, I admit that I did not develop critical thinking until University. I doubt if many school students would know what a peer-reviewed, published scientific paper really is.

I suppose in some ways, I am criticising the education system rather than jambo per se.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jambo372
The Mighty Thor
When I said a career in medicine I meant I wanted to be a medical microbiologist, I don't consider aromatherapy and crystal therapy to be careers in medicine, but I consider herbalism to be a valuable sub category of medicine ... if you say I'm wrong see in previous posts the vast list of life-saving medications which are botanical in origin and have revolutionised many areas of medicine. My career has nothing to do with this anyway.

Dr Adequate
I'm not basing my beliefs on what I think , I'm basing them on how I found out. Welcome to the wonderful world of scepticism - I see nothing at all wonderful about it.

It is very difficult and challenging to open up cherished personal beliefs to severe rational scrutiny. It is admirable that you have been honest about your beliefs here. Scepticism can seem harsh and brutal until you witness the damage that unchallenged falsehoods cause in the world. You have to realise that there are many people out there who are just out to exploit others with paranormal claims.

[drinkysr]

I woudl like to comment on the claim "thyme oil is 20 time stronger than phenol"

Actually, when you buy phenol in the store as an antiseptic sore throat spray, you are getting a VERY dilute silution. If you order 100% phenol from a chemical company do not even think of opening it without heavy gloves on. If so much as a drop hits your palm, it will barely pause on it its way to the floor.

If thyme oil was 20 times "stonger" than that, it would be a chemical weapon.

[drinkysr]

When you speak about things like Taxol, VP-16, ergot alkaloids, vincristine etc, you are talking about products that occur natrually (in plants) that have been proven to have some sort of medicinal effect. Ergotamine has been shown in double blind studies to reduce the severity and duration of migraine headaches (but ONLY migraine headaches, not tension headaches, or post-concussion headaches or brain tumor headaches).

When I worked with a natural products medicinal chemist, his job was to comb the bioshpere for novel compounds that might have important medicinal applications. When he found one he would have it assayed by someone else to determine if it might be active. The whole time I knew him we never found anything important (but we did find some thing new and/or interesting).

That is what medicinal chemistry is, finding new compounds that might have a medicinal use. Then if they do, you try to synthesize the same compound in the lab becasue harvesting the plant and extracting it is a more expensive and less productive enterprise.

By contrast HERBALISM is a form of traditional medicicne formed through trial and error using teas and tinctures etc. For the most part the claims of herbalism are not subjected to scientific scrutiny, rather they are based on tradition.

The 2 field do interact though. Some time ago a medicinal chemist noted that foxglove tea had been used for a long time to treat heart conditions. He and others would eventually isolate digitalis. Digitalis would then be tested in numerous clinical trials to prove that it does slow the heart and strengthen its contracitons, and is useful for heart failure.

So the medicinal chemist sees herbalism as a huge pile of POTENTIAL biologically active products the he or she will sift through in order to come up with the next Taxol. Unfortunately, there are thousands of herbs, millions of compounds, and therefore the search will take time.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by drinkysr
When you speak about things like Taxol, VP-16, ergot alkaloids, vincristine etc, you are talking about products that occur natrually (in plants) that have been proven to have some sort of medicinal effect. Ergotamine has been shown in double blind studies to reduce the severity and duration of migraine headaches (but ONLY migraine headaches, not tension headaches, or post-concussion headaches or brain tumor headaches).

When I worked with a natural products medicinal chemist, his job was to comb the bioshpere for novel compounds that might have important medicinal applications. When he found one he would have it assayed by someone else to determine if it might be active. The whole time I knew him we never found anything important (but we did find some thing new and/or interesting).

That is what medicinal chemistry is, finding new compounds that might have a medicinal use. Then if they do, you try to synthesize the same compound in the lab becasue harvesting the plant and extracting it is a more expensive and less productive enterprise.

By contrast HERBALISM is a form of traditional medicicne formed through trial and error using teas and tinctures etc. For the most part the claims of herbalism are not subjected to scientific scrutiny, rather they are based on tradition.

The 2 field do interact though. Some time ago a medicinal chemist noted that foxglove tea had been used for a long time to treat heart conditions. He and others would eventually isolate digitalis. Digitalis would then be tested in numerous clinical trials to prove that it does slow the heart and strengthen its contracitons, and is useful for heart failure.

So the medicinal chemist sees herbalism as a huge pile of POTENTIAL biologically active products the he or she will sift through in order to come up with the next Taxol. Unfortunately, there are thousands of herbs, millions of compounds, and therefore the search will take time.

Very well put!

No doubt herbalists have applied treatments down through the centuries. Many of the 'witches' who were persecuted during the great European purges were often lay herbalists or midwives. However, with shamans and herbalists, it was often a very hit and miss affair since dosages were irregular and impossible to quantify regarding active ingredients.

Think of the potency of TTX, Tetradotoxin. It comes from the Fugu fish (commonly the Puffer fish) of Japan and Haiti.

The poison comes from bacteria in algae eaten by the fish and is concentrated in the liver, skin, and sex organs of the fish. It is thought that reports of 'zombieism' reflect the use of this toxin in shamanic rituals.

A small amount causes a floating effect and tingling in the mouth. But it it may just as well cause paralysis similar to suspended animation that looks like death. The victim is still aware of everything going on around them. Higher doses DO cause death. It may be an urban legend that thrill-seeking Japanese gourmets eat the puffer fish, hoping that the chef has removed most of the toxin.

Of course, this is not 'herbal', but such potions were often used by shamans along with herbal drinks that often contained poppy extracts. Peyote was a favoured herb among native American shamans. Ergot may have caused some of the strange behaviour described during the Salem witchcraft trials in 1692 via contaminated bread.

So, 'natural' does not mean 'benign or beneficial'. Belladonna is 'natural' and can be deadly. Atropine is the medical extract that can be dose-tested and then become beneficial.

These are important distinctions, jambo, and you should be able now to see why herbalism IS NOT SCIENCE.

Here is a recent find:

PINE CONE IN MRSA FIGHT
The humble pine cone may become a key instrument in the fight against the hospital superbug MRSA.

Researchers at the University of London's School of Pharmacy found that immature pine cones contain anti-bacterial agents that could fight the killer bug.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,31500-13229849,00.html

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
I'm not basing my beliefs on what I think , I'm basing them on how I found out.
But listening to white witches is not a valid methodology! Gah! They say all sorts of silly things! To find out what effect mugwort has on seizures, you have to TEST MUGWORT'S EFFECT ON SEIZURES. Or find out what happened when someone else did.That's HOW you find out its effect.
Welcome to the wonderful world of scepticism - I see nothing at all wonderful about it.
Being right is wonderful. (You should try it, you really should). Modern medicine, for example, was created by the process I've described. As a result of which I've never even heard of anyone in the UK in my lifetime suffering from cholera, smallpox, polio, puerpal fever, yellow fever, scarlet fever, diphtheria, typhus, typhoid, the Black Death, sleeping sickness... The exception that proves the rule? I once knew a girl who'd had TB. She was born in Africa, and when she moved here modern medicine was made available, which cured her. If you test your ideas carefully TO SEE IF THEY WORK, you end up with SOMETHING THAT WORKS. Something wonderful. If not, you end up with crystal healing.

(Edited to remove ambiguity)

[Dr Adequate]

...oops...

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate
Research has been done on mugwort showing it may help seizures and that's why I believe it may well have an effect.

What you described really has nothing to do with your so called 'wonders of scepticism.

You know no one who's suffered from cholera or typhoid - wow - that has nothing to do with scepticism - it's due to the introduction of proper sanitation and vaccination.

Smallpox - was eradicated by the WHO mass vaccination scheme not scepticism.

Polio - nearly eradicated because of vaccination - not scepticism.

Puerperal fever - eradicated due to sterile methods of child birth - not scepticism.

Yellow fever - again the thanks goes to vaccination and pest control, not scepticism.

Scarlet fever - thanks to antibiotics such as penicillin and erythromycin - not scepticism. I know people who've had scarlet fever in this day and age anyway.

Diptheria - thanks to vaccination again - not scepticism, I also know people who've suffered diptheria.

Typhus - thanks to pest control and antibiotics like tetracyclines, not scepticism.

Black Death - is no longer prevalent in the developed world thanks to sanitation and pest control and is treatable with drugs like Gentamicin - no praise for scepticism here either.

Sleeping Sickness - only prevalent in certain areas of Africa and Tropical America in the case of Chagas disease and often treatable with antiprotozoal medications like Pentamidine - not anything to do with scepticism.

I know loads of people who've had TB and the reduction in it was due to mass use of BCG jabs and it is on the increase again and many strains are now resistant to the first line antibiotic combinations. Nothing to do with scepticism.

The Mighty Thor
It wouldn't be a surprise if substances in pine killed MRSA, after all pine extracts have been used in disinfectants for years.
Shockingly enough I've heard some microbiologists say that being more dirty as opposed to more clean may possibly reduce MRSA - their idea was that MRSA are weaker than normal S.aureus strains but MRSA are more capable of surviving anti-infectives through natural selection, so using them will barely touch MRSA but kill off their sensitive competition giving them extra space, but if they aren't used then the sensitive competition will just eventually dominate over MRSA again.

[Ashles]

Dr Adequate
Research has been done on mugwort showing it may help seizures and that's why I believe it may well have an effect.

What you described really has nothing to do with your so called 'wonders of scepticism.

You know no one who's suffered from cholera or typhoid - wow - that has nothing to do with scepticism - it's due to the introduction of proper sanitation and vaccination.

Smallpox - was eradicated by the WHO mass vaccination scheme not scepticism.

Polio - nearly eradicated because of vaccination - not scepticism.

Puerperal fever - eradicated due to sterile methods of child birth - not scepticism.

Yellow fever - again the thanks goes to vaccination and pest control, not scepticism.

Scarlet fever - thanks to antibiotics such as penicillin and erythromycin - not scepticism. I know people who've had scarlet fever in this day and age anyway.

Diptheria - thanks to vaccination again - not scepticism, I also know people who've suffered diptheria.

Typhus - thanks to pest control and antibiotics like tetracyclines, not scepticism.

Black Death - is no longer prevalent in the developed world thanks to sanitation and pest control and is treatable with drugs like Gentamicin - no praise for scepticism here either.

Sleeping Sickness - only prevalent in certain areas of Africa and Tropical America in the case of Chagas disease and often treatable with antiprotozoal medications like Pentamidine - not anything to do with scepticism.

I know loads of people who've had TB and the reduction in it was due to mass use of BCG jabs and it is on the increase again and many strains are now resistant to the first line antibiotic combinations. Nothing to do with scepticism.

Please replace 'scepticism' with 'herbalism' and you may yet get the point.

Scepticism does not argue against the existence of useful chemical compounds in plants or the existence of vaccination.

Herbalism, as a discipline would never have discovered any of these things. Herbalism has no methods for distinguishing the effective chemicals in a plant. Or other harmful ones.
How does herbalism help with vaccination? What does a herbalist understand about the subject?

To try and prove your point you have leapt completely into the "look what scientific methodology has done for the world".
That is EXACTLY what we have being saying all along.

Proper science saves lives. And if you plan to study it when you are older then I respect that totally. But you have to start letting go of the whole "Someone told me this once and I believe it" method of thinking.

For example, have you asked the White Witch about their 'report'? You are happy enough to quote scientific studies when they support your beliefs. What about when they don't?

It wouldn't be a surprise if substances in pine killed MRSA, after all pine extracts have been used in disinfectants for years.
Please tell me you aren't talking about pine SCENT, and that you actually have some information about the disinfecting properties of pine.

[Eos of the Eons]

Skepticism...

results in the search for effective cures, solutions, etc. like vaccines.

Or we can remain unskeptical and just do some crazy dance to ward off evil spirits in the hopes that will cure your cancer.+

Or down some herbal junk and hope that works. There's no way to tell what dose you are getting or what is the active ingredient, but it might work.

Herbalism messing up modern medicine:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62671-2004Sep4.html

Trying to hide under the guise "natural" makes some people very dishonest.

[Jas]

I think another valid point to bring up when mentioning herbalism is the environmental factor. I am always surprised when environmental - minded people promote 'natural' over synthetic compounds. What if the herb in question is rare, and/or important to biodiversity? Wouldn't it be much better to synthesize to compound in question, in a controlled setting, rather than decimating the natural population, or destroying an ecosystem in order to replace it with farmed versions of the herb?

[The Mighty Thor]

jambo372

You just haven't got the point at all, have you?

The scientific method is, by its very nature, sceptical. Good scientists are sceptical, or, at least, they should be if they are to be credible, respected by their peers, and effective.

You will be telling us next that you believe that Padre Pio cured people, or that homeopathy has been proven scientifically. If you truly want to pursue a career in medical research, then your beliefs regarding science and psuedoscience will definitely be scrutinised by your professors. So, it is relevant to the discussion, jambo.

There is nothing wrong with admitting "I've looked at some of the beliefs I had with a critical eye, and I see now that I was wrong." But it does take a lot of courage and quite a bit of work to do that. After all, what would you be losing by seeking out the truth?

People here, some of whom have trodden that well-worn path, are trying to point you in the right direction. Others are probably experts in their field of study and wish to advise you wisely. But you don't seem to be listening.

Do you think that scepticism is somehow a bad thing? If you do, why do you think this?

[patchbunny]

Originally posted by jambo372
I'd just like to know what people here believe about herbal medicine if anything.

Supposedly there is proof available for the following claims :

Ginger and Galangal root can help deal with travel sickness.
Well, I've heard that recent studies have shown that ginger can help with motion sickness. A quick search revealed <a href ="http://ajpgi.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/284/3/G481">this article</a> in the Americal Journal of Physiology - Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology which indicates that ginger can help prevent motion sickness.

I'll let others disect the article. I need a dictionary just to get through the introduction. :)

--Patch

[cajela]

Traditional medicines can be good places to look for new drugs. After all, it's not like homeopathy; there are actually active ingredients in there. St John's Wort does seem to be quite psychoactive, for one.

If you're interested in depression, here is a proper medical journal review of complementary treatments, which ranks the quality of the evidence.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/176_10_200502/jor10311_fm.html

Here is the relevant excerpt:
===================================
Description:
St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) is a herb available in tablets, capsules and liquid form from supermarkets and health food shops.

Rationale:
St John's wort is a traditional herbal remedy in Europe. Its mode of action is not fully understood, but it appears to inhibit the synaptic reuptake of serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine.30

Quality of evidence:
Level I. (Evidence obtained from a systematic review of all relevant randomised controlled trials)

Review of effectiveness:
A meta-analysis of 27 randomised controlled trials concluded that this treatment is superior to placebo and not different from tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of mild to moderate depression.31 A meta-analysis of six studies that met stringent methodological criteria concluded that St John's wort is 50% more likely to produce an antidepressant effect than placebo and is equivalent to standard antidepressants.32 The side effects and drop-out rate are lower with St John's wort than with tricyclic antidepressants. Fewer trials have compared St John's wort with the newer antidepressants, but results to date indicate that it is as effective as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors.33-35 Although most of the evidence on St John's wort is positive, the largest trial so far found no difference between St John's wort and placebo.36 This study was too recent to be included in the meta-analyses cited above.

Although St John's wort is generally reported to have fewer side effects than antidepressants, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has warned that it can interact with a number of prescription medicines, leading to a loss of therapeutic effect of these medicines. Medicines affected include HIV protease inhibitors, HIV non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, cyclosporin, tacrolimus, warfarin, digoxin, theophylline, anticonvulsants, oral contraceptives, SSRIs and related drugs, and triptans. An information sheet is available for healthcare professionals.37
Conclusion:

The use of St John's wort for mild to moderate depression is supported by most of the available evidence.
==================================
(Numbers refer to references, follow the link to get those.)

[Dr Adequate]

Jambo, since you seem utterly determined to miss my point, I'll repeat it.
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
If you test your ideas carefully TO SEE IF THEY WORK, you end up with SOMETHING THAT WORKS. Something wonderful. If not, you end up with crystal healing.
Science consists entirely of

(a) Thinking up new ideas
(b) Being sceptical about them

Without (b) modern medicne would be impossible. Take cholera, for example. John Snow (http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowbio.html) put his ideas to the test (http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/removal.html) . If he'd just run around like a woo-woo saying "I KNOW that cholera is caused by water contaminated by the feces of cholera victims" then people would have asked him the question that we're always asking. HOW DO YOU KNOW? He knew because he took the trouble to find out.

Pseudoscience consists entirely of

(a) Dredging up old, discredited ideas
(b) Not being sceptical about them.

Finding a scientific study of mugwort saying that it is good for fits would speak well for mugwort. Having it praised by a "white witch" is worthless evidentially. I have just been reading a book on crystal healing by a white witch. She gets her information by channeling the goddess Bridgit. The goddess Bridgit is apparently under the impression that the human body is 98% water, 'cos she says so on the first page. When someone tells you that they're a white witch, you should be extremely suspicious of anything else they tell you, not swallow it down uncritically.

Oh, and that Nigerian guy who wants to make you incredibly wealthy if you'll just give him your bank details? Don't go there.

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate
Take a look at Louis Pasteur's germ theory, other scientists were SCEPTICAL about his ideas but look at what he done. If these other scientists had had their way where would we be now ?

Alexander Fleming and Penicillin are another case - it wasn't discovered by the sceptical method you describe it was discovered at random by a Penicillium notatum spore landing on a neglected culture plate and producing a substance that killed the staphylococci growing on it.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
Take a look at Louis Pasteur's germ theory, other scientists were SCEPTICAL about his ideas but look at what he done. If these other scientists had had their way where would we be now ?
:dl:
The other scientists did have their way. They demanded that Pasteur provide good evidence and replicable experiments. He did. His ideas about disease were the only ones that withstood scepticism. There were dozens of others, which didn't. Scepticism found the right one. That's how we got where we are now. There is no other way.
Alexander Fleming and Penicillin are another case - it wasn't discovered by the sceptical method you describe it was discovered at random by a Penicillium notatum spore landing on a neglected culture plate and producing a substance that killed the staphylococci growing on it.
Alexander Fleming had done hundreds of experiments looking for a mould with just such properties before he noticed penicilium's effect on a different experiment. AND THEN HE TESTED IT TO SEE IF IT WORKED ON HUMANS. He went back to testing mould after mould, strain after strain: the best strain, if I remember rightly, grew on grapefruit. HE TESTED IT. IT WORKED. If he'd just seen this thing in vitro, and then gone around yelling that he had a magic mould which would cure bacterial diseases, he would have been a woo-woo.

Every piece of genuine scientific knowledge has been tested by the best methods we have. That's what makes it scientific knowledge. The content of science is just those ideas about the natural world which so far have survived sceptical inquiry. No more, no less.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
Take a look at Louis Pasteur's germ theory, other scientists were SCEPTICAL about his ideas but look at what he done. If these other scientists had had their way where would we be now ?

Alexander Fleming and Penicillin are another case - it wasn't discovered by the sceptical method you describe it was discovered at random by a Penicillium notatum spore landing on a neglected culture plate and producing a substance that killed the staphylococci growing on it.

We'd be exactly where we are today.

Other scientists were rightly sceptical of Pasteur's germ theory. It was a new idea. Do you expect them to simply accept it right away, based on Pastuer's word alone? They were sceptical, which is the nature of science. They questioned the theory, tested it, and when the theory failed to fail, it was accepted as truth. That questioning, that scepticism of the theory, is what gives us confidence in it.

Likewise for penicillin. How was it known that the penicillin caused the bacterial death? Because Fleming was sceptical of it himself, and tested it himself. Again, other scientists were rightly sceptical of the idea, and questioned and tested it to determine it's truth.

You seem to be confusing scepticism (the attitude of requiring credicle evidence before accepting an idea) with cynicism (the attitude of rejecting any new idea offhand). Without sceptical review of Fleming and Pasteur's discoveries, we would not have been able to place a high measure of confidence in them.

Think where we would be without scepticism. The idea that humors or demons caused illness would be prevalent, because no one would question it. Everyone would still "know" that the earth was the center of the solar system. It is precisely by questioning and testing new ideas...being sceptical of them...that we can seperate truth from fiction.

The second quote in my sig line is on precisely this subject. Scientific method is based on scepticism. Science advances by trying it's best to disprove new ideas and new theories. They try to crash them into the wall. If the theories can be disproven, then they weren't true to begin with. If the theory stands up to the tests, providing accurate answers matching the predictions, then it is accepted. If the car hits the wall and stays intact, it's considered safe. If the car hits the wall and shatters it, this is an exceptional result that requires more testing to confirm...concepts like relativity, evolution, and quantum mechanics fit here. They cahnge the entire directions of their fields, and as such were (rightfully) more rigorously tested before acceptance.

Edited to add:

Dammit, Dr Adequate, get out of my head!! Stop reading my mind!!!! Dirty psychic...:D

[Ashles]

No jambo no. You are getting this all very badly wrong. Are you doing this on purpose?

Scepticism involves questioning theories and observations.
Scepticism is NOT outright dismissal - you have been apparently brainwashed into thinking that.

Take a look at Louis Pasteur's germ theory, other scientists were SCEPTICAL about his ideas but look at what he done. If these other scientists had had their way where would we be now ?
Scientists DID have 'their way'. They tested the theories and found it to be incredibly useful.
You have, yet again, given an example in which scientific method has been successfully used.

Alexander Fleming and Penicillin are another case - it wasn't discovered by the sceptical method you describe it was discovered at random by a Penicillium notatum spore landing on a neglected culture plate and producing a substance that killed the staphylococci growing on it.
You really are looking a bit silly now jambo. A lucky accident happened. The results were observed. Theories were developed and tested. Penicillium was isolated and its properties tested and utilised.
A triumph of scientific process.

Your understanding of the word sceptic appears to be woefully wrong. The way you are uing it seems to imply that you think scepticism is about saying "No" to everything. It is not. If that were the case you would never have heard of Penicillin or Louis Pasteur or quntum physics or plate tectonics, or, almost anything.
Scepticism involves asking "Show me evidence and repeatability" not just blindly trusting anyone who claims something.

Why do you not believe in Uri Geller any more? Because sceptics analysed his claims and demonstrated his fakery. That's a sceptical process. Without it you'd still happily believe he can do what he claims.

Scepticism is not about concealing the truth, it is about trying to unearth it by throwing many questions at claims and seeing if they stand up.

Why do you not understand this? You want to be a scientist, yet you don't understand this process? Do you just believe every single thing you are told? If not, why not? It is a sceptical procedure of your own designed to try and tell what is true.

Scepticism in science is just much more rigorous than your own personal scepticism, because it is dealing with trying to find scientific facts that can be used for the future.

It is a useful tool in life and without it you will be taken in by many charletans, fakers and liars. In my opinion you already have been - by the readers and the White Witch with her 'report' which you haven't seen.

[Dr Adequate]

"Synchronicity can happen almost any time." --- Ursula K. Le Guin.

[Hellbound]

"Coincidentally, coincidences do happen" - Me, just now.

[jambo372]

Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence - unlike most paranormal / alternative healing sceptics.
If I wanted to have a career in science my beliefs in these things wouldn't disrupt it.

Ashles
I didn't lose belief in Uri Geller because of sceptics - I lost belief in him because he was caught out by relatives and friends and was too open with them about his methods of trickery.

I wasn't talking abot the SCENT of pine disinfectant - 2 chemicals from pine are used - one has little antibacterial property and is added solely for scent but the other is added for antibacterial properties.

Taken in by charlatans - you can't prove the mediums I see are charlatans - you don't even know them.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence - unlike most paranormal / alternative healing sceptics.
Oh for pete's sake, he's discovered that we're No True Scotsmen. Dolt.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! Just as soon, for example, as you show me some EVIDENCE that mugwort is an effective treatment for seizures, then I will believe that mugwort is an effective treatment for seizures. Until then, I won't.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence - unlike most paranormal / alternative healing sceptics.
If I wanted to have a career in science my beliefs in these things wouldn't disrupt it.
The abysmally low standards of evidence you accept, and your unwillingness to do any research, plus the posture with closed mind, eyes tight shut and fingers in ears, will give you a bit of a problem, however, old bean.
Taken in by charlatans - you can't prove the mediums I see are charlatans - you don't even know them.
That would indeed cause problems in debunking them. Perhaps next time you go, you could take a tape recorder. Or tell them about the $1,000,000 for which they're eligible. I'm sure they'll be thrilled.

[jambo372]

Why would I want to do that ?
I am not a sceptic ( thank God ), I support them in their work and have no wish to debunk them. Whether or not they take the challenge is up to them and most of them are only interested in other mediums and believers anyway.
I don't accept low standards of evidence.

[Soapy Sam]

Jambo said- "...If I wanted to have a career in science my beliefs in these things wouldn't disrupt it."

Word to the wise: You may be able to hold a mix of rationalist scientific and less rational pseudoscientific views, without experiencing cross confusion or demonstrating inconsistent attitudes. Many people do and hold down successful careers in science or medicine.

However, I strongly advise you not to advertise your beliefs (should you still hold them) when you get to university. You may not respect your teachers , but believe me, it helps if they respect you. The work is hard enough without swimming against the tide.

By the way, nobody here thinks sceptics or scientists (not the same thing) are better, nicer, kinder or morally superior people.
We just think they use better tools.

Using dull tools is daft.

Keep defending your corner here, please. I don't know if you think you learn much in these threads, but I know I do.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jambo372
I don't accept low standards of evidence. You could have fooled me! :D

Rolfe.

[jambo372]

As I've said before several serious scientists eg Sir William Crookes were firm believers in spiritualism and this didn't affect their work and I don't care if I'm not respected and when and if I get to university - why would I want to advertise my beliefs ? ( I'm certain I'll still hold them. )

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
As I've said before several serious scientists eg Sir William Crookes were firm believers in spiritualism and this didn't affect their work and I don't care if I'm not respected and when and if I get to university - why would I want to advertise my beliefs ? ( I'm certain I'll still hold them. )

It's not your belifes it's your way of thinking.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by geni
It's not your belifes it's your way of thinking. Exactly.

I'm a Christian, and I haven't kept this a secret, and I haven't noticed anyone think the worse of me for this. (I stay away from the Religion part of the forum because the number of straw men is bad for my hay fever :D .) MLynn too. And though I'm not sure what brand of theist BSM is, he's another. We all participate happily in the scientific aspects of the discussion on this forum.

Insisting that you believe things that are objectively testable as false in the real world, however, and yet maintaining that these beliefs do not affect your credibility in science, is pure wishful thinking.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by jambo372
Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence
That is precisely how the scientific method (and indeed skepticism) works. You have to be prepared to admit that you are wrong if that's what the evidence shows.

[jambo372]

That's exactly what I'm saying - in many cases I've mentioned there is NO evidence to say they're wrong.

[The Mighty Thor]

jambo372 in laboratory some time in the future . . .

Lab Director: "Right, jambo, it's time to put mugwort under proper scientific scrutiny with some double-blind tests into its efficacy in treating seizures. Where will we start?"

jambo372: "Oh, no need to go to all that bother, Mr Director. I know it works."

Lab Director: "How so?"

jambo372: "Well, Mrs MacTavish who goes to my spiritualist church is a fully qualified herbalist and she told me it works."

Lab Director: "I don't think you are suited to this type of work, young man. Please clear your desk and leave the building. Your final paycheck will be posted to you."
:(

You didn't tell us why you are so antipathetic to sceptics. I ask again: Do you think scepticism is somehow a bad thing, and, if so, why?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jambo372
That's exactly what I'm saying - in many cases I've mentioned there is NO evidence to say they're wrong.

You have got it, to use the colloquial phrase, totally arse for elbow! Your comprehension of what is being said to you here is severely lacking, jambo.:(

[jambo372]

I don't think scepticism is a bad thing but some people take it too far by making slagging & making unproven accusations of fraud against mediums, psychics and healers and their believers.
Why would a microbiologist test the effect of mugwort on seizures anyway ?

I know no one by the name of MacTavish :confused: :confused:

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jambo372
I don't think scepticism is a bad thing but some people take it too far by making slagging & making unproven accusations of fraud against mediums, psychics and healers and their believers.
How many psychics have to turn out to be frauds before you put the burden of proof on the psychics themselves?

And how they squirm when you do!

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jambo372
I don't think scepticism is a bad thing but some people take it too far by making slagging & making unproven accusations of fraud against mediums, psychics and healers and their believers.
Why would a microbiologist test the effect of mugwort on seizures anyway ?

I know no one by the name of MacTavish :confused: :confused:

Warning, Will Robinson! Sense of humour failure!;)

But did you come here to try to learn something, or just to knock Randi? To be honest, you don't seem to be taking in what is being said to you.

I bet your woo woo friends say sceptics are just a bunch of 'know it alls', or 'smart Alecs'. True or false?

[jambo372]

You still have no right to accuse them without proof.
My woo woo friends ?
If you mean psychics and other believers most of them never discuss scepticism because they don't feel they need any more proof.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
I don't think scepticism is a bad thing but some people take it too far by making slagging & making unproven accusations of fraud against mediums, psychics and healers and their believers.
Why would a microbiologist test the effect of mugwort on seizures anyway ?



On the basis that a worry numeber of chemists end up as biologists (and about 10 percent up as accountants) you would be amazed what a microbilogist could end up doing.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jambo372
You still have no right to accuse them without proof.
My woo woo friends ?
If you mean psychics and other believers most of them never discuss scepticism because they don't feel they need any more proof.

OK. Do you believe that ALL psychics and mediums are in touch with dead people, or just SOME?

How do you differentiate between a genuine psychic or medium and a false one?

Do you think that false psychics and mediums are frauds?

Have you, personally, had anything you would call 'proof' from a psychic or medium that convinced you they were genuine? (I'm not talking about anecdotal -- somebody told somebody -- evidence, but something that really convinced you on a one-to-one basis)

Like what?

If there are real psychics and mediums, why have none ever won the million dollar prize?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Zombified
How many psychics have to turn out to be frauds before you put the burden of proof on the psychics themselves?


Where, of course, it should be in the first place. The 'one white crow' method gets us nowhere. And a whole murder of white crows is just all the more improbable.

http://www.hintsandthings.co.uk/kennel/collectives.htm

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by cajela
Traditional medicines can be good places to look for new drugs. After all, it's not like homeopathy; there are actually active ingredients in there. St John's Wort does seem to be quite psychoactive, for one.

If you're interested in depression, here is a proper medical journal review of complementary treatments, which ranks the quality of the evidence.


Big problem is that the stuff sold on the shelves is not consistent in their amounts of active ingredient, and people are even arguing over WHAT the active ingredient is. You might as well be using homeopathy since you have no idea if the product contains anything that would be beneficial.

Not to mention, St. John's Wort in a reasonable dosage interferes with the birth control pill. So, you maybe will get enough active ingredient to have an effect, but the side effect (if you are unware of it and a woman on the pill) will just create some unforseen circumstances. Maybe it's a good thing that most bottles won't contain enough of anything that could have any effect.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jambo372
That's exactly what I'm saying - in many cases I've mentioned there is NO evidence to say they're wrong. Absense of evidence that they're wrong does not equal presence of evidence that they're right.

A sceptic declines to come to a decision until some evidence is available.

A creduloid "believes" with no evidence. Your problem is that you insist that you believe stuff which is eminently falsifiable, simply because nobody seems to have actually done the experiments. The correct attitude is open-mindedness until the evidence is available. But no, you just know.

Spot the problem with that?

Rolfe.

[jambo372]

No I don't think all mediums are in touch with the dead - just some of them.

The reason I believe in some of them is because they don't ask questions and are far too accurate to be passed of as cold readers and had no opportunity prior to the sitting to stalk up on information to use for hot reading.

On the other hand some have easy access to information and / or are obviously cold reading via guesswork and questions.

Do I think fake mediums are frauds ?
I never really go to mediums who charge for sittings ( tight arse
:D ), so I don't consider the ones I consider fake to be frauds as they have obviously no financial motive - I feel that some of them just want to comfort people, some are deluded and that the remainder of the fakes are just attention seekers.

If there are real mediums why have none ever won the $ 1,000,000 challenge prize ?
Some mediums wouldn't even know their was such a prize on offer and some just don't bother associating with sceptics as they feel they've a hostile attitude.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jambo372
No I don't think all mediums are in touch with the dead - just some of them.

The reason I believe in some of them is because they don't ask questions and are far too accurate to be passed of as cold readers and had no opportunity prior to the sitting to stalk up on information to use for hot reading.
Would you care to name these mediums you feel are legitimate?

So far as mediums not knowing about the $1M challenge goes, feel free to let them know - the more people hear about it the better.

[jambo372]

Zombified
I gave a list of the mediums in another thread.

Rolfe
My decisions weren't made solely on the fact that the contrary remains unproven - despite being few in number certain psychics/mediums have been declared genuine by repeated testing :

Daniel Douglas Home was examined repeatedly by many scientists and magicians who concluded that his abilities of mediumship and psychokinesis were indeed genuine.

Nina Kulagina better known in her native Leningrad as Nelya Mikhailova was tested repeatedly by several scientists. After ten years of exhaustive scrutiny and testing, The Soviet Academy Of Sciences declared her abilities to be genuine.

Whenever cases like these are mentioned to sceptics however they just deny that tests were done or accuse the scientists and magicians who carried out the testing.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by jambo372
Zombified

Whenever cases like these are mentioned to sceptics however they just deny that tests were done or accuse the scientists and magicians who carried out the testing.

Present the tests done. We can analyze their data taking techniques. Did she get 100% accurate word for word of what someone was thinking? Were these thoughts scribbled on paper and revealed to nobody before the test? How can you prove the person had these thoughts streaming through their head when the psychic is "channeling"?

Or,

How can you prove if a dead person is talking to someone when you can't hear the dead person yourself? You can't record what the "dead person" is saying. The test showed she got some ambiguous stuff "right"?

If I hear a dead person saying the sun will rise tomorrow, do I win the million? Obvious reasons, no. Heck, I can say a whacky dead person is saying the sun WON'T rise tomorrow.

So, please provide the tests and results.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jambo372
Daniel Douglas Home was examined repeatedly by many scientists and magicians who concluded that his abilities of mediumship and psychokinesis were indeed genuine.
References? Which scientists?
Nina Kulagina better known in her native Leningrad as Nelya Mikhailova was tested repeatedly by several scientists. After ten years of exhaustive scrutiny and testing, The Soviet Academy Of Sciences declared her abilities to be genuine.Again, references? Was this before or after Lysenko?
Whenever cases like these are mentioned to sceptics however they just deny that tests were done or accuse the scientists and magicians who carried out the testing. Now, how do those crafty skeptics get away with this if the evidence is so clear?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jambo372
Rolfe
My decisions weren't made solely on the fact that the contrary remains unproven - despite being few in number certain psychics/mediums have been declared genuine by repeated testing :This thread is entitled "herbal healing". I was referring to your apparently firm beliefs that certain substances have therapeutic properties despite never having passed any clinical trials in that respect. Real medicines are prohibited from having therapeutic claims made about them until such trials have been passed. Until then, any claims are regarded as questionable.

Your willingness to believe without positive evidence (regarding therapeutic properties of herbs) is wholly unscientific and a disgraceful attitude for anyone who is or aspires to be involved in any aspect of healthcare.

Your beliefs about talking to dead people are your own affair, as far as I;m concerned.

Rolfe.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Rolfe
This thread is entitled "herbal healing". I was referring to your apparently firm beliefs that certain substances have therapeutic properties despite never having passed any clinical trials in that respect. Real medicines are prohibited from having therapeutic claims made about them until such trials have been passed. Until then, any claims are regarded as questionable.

Your willingness to believe without positive evidence (regarding therapeutic properties of herbs) is wholly unscientific and a disgraceful attitude for anyone who is or aspires to be involved in any aspect of healthcare.

Your beliefs about talking to dead people are your own affair, as far as I;m concerned.

Rolfe.

As geni said to jambo higher up:

It's not your beliefs it's your way of thinking.

jambo has been very forthright about his pretty widespread beliefs in the paranormal. It is refreshing to see that he has not resorted to ad homs or abusive arguments. But his lack of critical thinking on the herbalist issue stems from the same general credulous attitude to the paranormal.

The major problem is that he does not seem to understand the scientific method of testing extraordinary claims. It is possible he just didn't know how things are done in the respected scientific community. This is where Targ, Puthoff and the other Zammit crowd of psuedoscientists do so much damage. They tell supporters of the paranormal that they have scientific evidence of genuine paranormal happenings. That is just plain, flat out wrong.

I hope jambo has just got it wrong about what scepticism is all about. What it really is has been expressed quite eloquently by others, and if he has taken that on board, then he has learned something.

I think we all wish him well with his studies and his proposed career. The sceptics here were giving advice as to the kind of critical thinking that science requires. He may not see this now, but it will probably dawn on him later in life.

At the very least, if he did not know about peer-reviewed papers and the like, he does now. That has to be a good thing.

Maybe the JREF should award him a years subscription to one of the recognised scientific publications for being a believer that can post without abusing the opposition .:) :) :)

[jambo372]

Eos of the Eons & Zombified
Why would she get 100 % accurate word for word of what someone was thinking ? - she's a psyckokineticist ie. she is able to move objects via intense concentration on them, this is what the tests were carried out on not telepathy although she supposedly possessed that as well. She also had a similar ability to the one claimed by Natasha Demkina and Rosa Kuleshova which was also tested.

How can you prove a dead person is talking to a medium if you can't hear the dead person yourself?
The example I gave was that of DD Home , he was a PHYSICAL medium, unlike mental mediums who just pass on information via their own mouth from spirit to sitter, a physical medium channels the actual voice of a dead person and causes spirits to materialise into ectoplasmic forms and cause objects to move and levitate - so in his case you would hear the dead person yourself.

See the following links :
http://www.noahsarksoc.com/

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/ghosty.html

http://www.williamjames.com/Folklore/MINDOVER.htm

http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Nina Kulagina.htm

Rolfe
My willingness to believe without positive evidence ?
Research shows they may well have therapeutically active compounds in them.

[jambo372]

Mighty Thor
Maybe the JREF should award him a years subscription to one of the recognised scientific publications for being a believer who can post without abusing the opposition.

I would NOT accept anything from James Randi.
Incidentally I've saw abuse on this forum from scetics to believers so the problem can be considered mutual.

[The Mighty Thor]

jambo was chided above for citing the digitalis tale regarding William Withering's contact with a gypsy herbalist. I wonder if this is a myth, or, true.

It is certainly true that:

Dr William Withering, physician, was a drug pusher and a lunatic.

:) :) :)

http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/vchemlib/mim/bristol/digitalis/digitalis_text.htm

http://www2.exnet.com/magsample/science.html

http://www.killerplants.com/plants-that-changed-history/20021105.asp

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jambo372
Mighty Thor
Maybe the JREF should award him a years subscription to one of the recognised scientific publications for being a believer who can post without abusing the opposition.

I would NOT accept anything from James Randi.
Incidentally I've saw abuse on this forum from scetics to believers so the problem can be considered mutual.

Oh well! Have a good life. I have nothing more to say to you! You sound like a bigot, now.

[Eos of the Eons]

jambo372 provided rather biased and unscientific sites for testing Nina Kulagina. As for Nina Kulagina, the conditions under which she operated were far from acceptable from the view of basic scientific standards.

Tests were frequently carried out at her own home or in hotel rooms; no tight controls were ever applied, owing to the fact that a demonstration might take several hours of preparation (i.e. concentration by Nina) and even then, there was any guarantee of success.

Also, when anyone who has a background in magicians' techniques watches these films, they cannot avoid the feeling that she is using standard conjuring techniques: a magnet hidden on her body to move the compass needle; a thread or a thin hair to move objects across the table; a small mirror concealed in her hand to read signs with numbers and letters being held behind her.

Unfortunately, no expert in conjuring techniques was ever present at Kulagina's demonstrations

http://www.cicap.org/en_artic/at101003.htm

[Ashles]

Jambo, I do not understand how you think that Home and Kulagina are adequate evidence to confirm your beliefs.

Both are dead, both experiments are unrepeatable, both experiments appear to have very large flaws in terms of protocol.

That's enough for you is it?

Do you think that would be considered adequate evidence for any scientific theory ever created? Of course it wouldn't.

That is why your belief in these things is only a belief. It is not backed up by credible evidence.

If you wish to believe in these things for your own reasons that is entirely your right, but when you claim that evidence backs you up, you are, in fact, incorrect. It doesn't.

You believe anecdotal and unverifiable, and unrepeatable evidence. You have happily quoted unresearched websites and sources before then conveniently forget about them when they don't appear solid.

The absolute best you can say about Nina is that we will never know for definite either way, but her abilities cannot be repeated today.

I just can't understand how that is adequate evidence for someone to cling to as proof.

Jambo you really still don't understand scientific procedure, and you have SO much research and reading ahead of you in order to do so. While you still keep concentrating on Nina and Home to the exclusion of all other information and evidence you only delay your own learning.

[jambo372]

Eos of the Eons
Jambo 372 provided rather biased & unscientific sites for testing Nina Kulagina ...
The sites I gave weren't biased at all .
If I had a £1 for every sceptic who directed me to the site you recommended I'd be a millionaire by now - it was very biased and even lied a few times.

'Tests were frequently carried out at her own home and in hotel rooms.'
The key word is FREQUENTLY - it fails to mention the many tests that Nina FREQUENTLY passed in laboratories observed by no less than 40 professional scientists , most of whom had years of experience in the fields concerned.

'No tight controls were ever applied' - lie scientists testified against.

'A demonstration would usually take several hours preparation ie concentration by Nina' - so what ? The writers of the article weren't psychics - how are they to know how long it takes to accumulate a high level of psychokinetic energy - they had no experience of it.

'When anyone with a background in magicians techniques watches the videos they can't help feeling that she is using standard conjuring techniques' - they can't prove this and the tricks they suggest ie magnets, threads etc were all tested by the scientists. Randi even told me himself " The thread can CLEARLY be seen moving under the plastic container in the 16mm of film" - he LIED to me and in doing so tried to slander the name of a good psychic - strange how he didn't say anything when she was still alive - probably scared she'd sue him like she sued the Pravda - for the same accusation - and sceptics wonder why psychics/mediums don't trust him.

Ashles
Both are dead - it doesn't change what they done while alive as I've said repeatedly - and I don't believe in death anyway, in the proper sense of the word.

I believe unverifiable, anecdotal and unrepeatable evidence - the evidence is verified by the many scientists who done the testing and was repeated many times when they were alive.

Large flaws in terms of protocol - evidence ?

Jambo , you still don't understand scientific procedure and you have SO much reading and research ahead of you in order to do so - I don't have to learn about them if I don't want to - I could opt for a career in a non scientific category.

I delay my learning by focusing on Kulagina and Home - I learn more about mediumship which should come in handy for when I join a development circle.

[epepke]

Originally posted by jambo372
Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence - unlike most paranormal / alternative healing sceptics.

I don't see this, Jambo. I think that your category of "most paranormal/alternative healing skeptics" either doesn't exist, or if it exists is such a small minority that it doesn't count.

Skeptics will change their mind if evidence exists, but the evidence has to be strong. Perhaps what you are saying is that you are swayed by evidence that isn't very strong, and you think other people should be swayed by not-very-strong evidence as well.

Not being swayed by not-very-good evidence serves a constructive purpose, because it is easy to get not-very-good evidence for something that does not work.

[Ashles]

Both are dead - it doesn't change what they done while alive as I've said repeatedly - and I don't believe in death anyway, in the proper sense of the word
And as I've said repeatedly it means we can no longer test them. All scientific studies do not rely on unrepeatable experiments carried out previously.
Your belief in death or not is irrelevant to our debate, unless you feel you can test Nina now somehow.

I believe unverifiable, anecdotal and unrepeatable evidence
Are you absolutely sure that's what you meant to say?

the evidence is verified by the many scientists who done the testing and was repeated many times when they were alive
Please tell me how you know the scientists were unbiased or not simply wanting to believe. Simply having scientific credentials is not enough to demonstrate pure objectivity - hence peer review and the importance of repeatability by other scientists. If it's a real observable phenomemon it's real to everyone.

Large flaws in terms of protocol - evidence ?
The small amount of video footage I have seen is very clear evidence. The table top is opaque and the perspex box was not put over the objects until after they had started moving. I could create these illusions with that kind of control.
Plus the fact that Nina's own rooms were used for experimentation. This should not have been done AT ALL.
Do you have any other video footage we could examine?

I learn more about mediumship which should come in handy for when I join a development circle
So you have officially given up on scientific learning then?
I would be right in thinking that once you join this 'development circle' you won't be allowed to ask genuine scientific sceptical questions, but will only be alowed to listen to what you are told?
You won't test their claims first before leaping feet first into the circle?

Jambo I am really concerned about what you are about to do. You are obviously an intelligent young person, but the answers you are looking for may not be found in this circle. I personally have seen people become very embroiled in this world and close themselves off from other information.

We are all always looking for answers and the spiritual world often gives very easy, simple answers. Such as:
Yes there is an afterlife.
Yes there is a meaning to your existence.
Yes your lifeforce continues after you die and affects the world in meaningful ways.

Maybe these claims are correct, maybe they are not. But I have encountered many people who have entered this world and believe all of the claims with no verifiable information other than that which a few people they know give them. A lot of it clearly untrue.
Your herbalism story was a good example. Some of the claims were connected with scientific knowledge, some were nothing more than wishful thinking. How do you know which are which?
You cling so strongly to Nina's memory, but what if (just imagine it for a second) she was a fake?
Would you then cling more strongly to Home? A man even further away from our current levels of analysis and scientific protocol?
How much real world evidence do you need to start to critically analyse all these claims? Or are you currently retreating into a 'development circle' because the real world evidence is staring to mount up?

A psychic claim for the JREF prize would not be half-hearted or subject to protocols or 'experimenter effect' or any of the other excuses. It would be clear, real and undeniable. If Randi denied it, it would be subject to legal action and then we would see it on every media network in the world.
Please Jambo, do not retreat into this world of psychic claims. Believe whatever you wish, but always try to think critically (and by that I mean analytically and logically) about everything you are told.

I was in a developmental circle one time. I was, frankly, quite disturbed by what the others there were accepting when they became a group.

But I've rambled on enough - your decisions, like everyone's will only ever be your own.

Regards,
Ash.

[cajela]

Originally posted by jambo372
Why would a microbiologist test the effect of mugwort on seizures anyway?

A microbiologist specifically? Hmm, no, OK, I don't see that either. A medical researcher, sure.

OK, so mugwort's a traditional remedy for seizures. That might make someone wonder if it really works, and if so what is the active ingredient, and does it have nasy side effects, or is it better than exisiting drugs... The fact that it's a traditional medicine is just one tiny piece of evidence. A little flag that says "hey, look over here". It might only work as a placebo, or only in conjunction with other things, or it might be an extremely effective drug. You have no evidence to tell. If you want to see if something works, you need to test it.

What point are you trying to make?

[jambo372]

Ashles
I don't see why we need to test the claims again - Nina was tested so thoroughly so many times when still alive and the results all suggested her power was genuine.

Peer review - to start with Nina was tested only by the select few local parapsychologists but the results prompted no less than 40 other scientists to test her and they all came to the same conclusion as the original scientists - Nina was genuine.

The video footage you are talking about is one of the less than perfect tests done outside of the laboratory - other far better tests were done with Nina - you can also see by examing her hand gestures that this doesn't support the thread claim and if you study the film no threads can be seen despite James Randi lying to me and telling me that the thread could be CLEARLY seen moving under the perspex cube. I've saw other films of Nina at work but I can't show them here.

I haven't officially given up scientific learning.
I have wanted to go to a development circle for ages - not to escape 'mounting' evidence. I've wanted to go since I saw a man in my house and orbs floating about and since a medium told me I had the gift.

About Randi, as i've said before I understand why psychics don't trust him - I certainly wouldn't - like I said earlier I can testify that he's a liar.

Why did you quit development circle ?

Cajela
What do you mean what point am I trying to make ?

[arawn]

most of this stuff is correct I would watch the st johns wort it is an anti depressent but its not good to take all the time

[Ashles]

Jambo, we are never going to agree about Nina. You believe one thing, I believe another.
I personally feel that if these abilities exist we will see them again. I await that time. Until then I don't feel there is enough evidence to convince me.
(By the way - where did you see the other videos - are they generally available?)

I've wanted to go since I saw a man in my house and orbs floating about and since a medium told me I had the gift.
What do you mean by 'a man in my house'? Was it when you had just woken up and he was in your room?
Where did you see the orbs floating about? Was it day or night - again, had you just woken up?
As for the medium telling you you had the gift - I hate to break this to you but they say that to everyone who appears interested. They have said it to me before.
How has this gift ever manifested itself to you? Can you predict the future or read minds or anything? In what way do you feel you have any unusual abilities?

Why did you quit development circle ?
I looked around and listened to what the leader was saying to everyone and couldn't quite understand why they were listening to him. To start with everything he was saying was generalised and fairly random, yet everyone was responding as though he were imparting universal truths.
He was saying to one girl "You have a dolphin personality" and she was agreeing enthusiastically. He never explained what this meant. But she did say that she liked dolphins so it made sense to her. (who doesn't like dolphins?)
He made us choose twigs that represented our personalities, then told us things about ourselves that he already knew. Yet for some reason everyone else was reacting as though this was incredibly insightful. He knew all of us already! And all the things he was telling us I already knew about everyone else there and so did he.
I came out thinking that I couldn't understand what the other people there were doing or why they were behaving like that.
I knew then it wasn't for me. Whatever I was looking for I knew I wouldn't find it there.

The more you read about these things the more you come to doubt that there is anything really paranormal happening.
I've slept in 'haunted' hotels, mansions and houses. Seen nothing. Someone I was with saw a figure coming out of the fireplace in the mansion. A year later he finally admitted he made it up. Why? What was the point?
I've done Ouija boards and tarot cards. Was told nothing useful.
The scariest thing I've encountered is when our cat jumped onto the piano keyboard in the middle of the night. (That's absolutely horrible by the way)

The exciting and mysterious is exactly that. Humans love to tell stories and will embellish them almost instantly. But none of these stories prove anything - they are just stories.

If you know anyone who has these abilities, please let them demonstrate it and make believers of us all. But while the excuses continue you have to understand our scepticism.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
if you study the film no threads can be seen despite James Randi lying to me and telling me that the thread could be CLEARLY seen moving under the perspex cube.
When did you speak to Randi?

Or if you are referring to his writings available on the web, please give a link; if to a book, give a reference.

I find it very hard to imagine someone saying this even as a lie, because of course the sceptics' case involves her using a thread which could not be easily seen. Clearly she wasn't using bright red yarn. So maybe he said something else.

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate
James Randi sent me an email - and I didn't misinterpret what he said he capitalised CLEARLY.

Ashles
I don't know if the videos are publically available - it was a documentary I watched about psychics which mentioned Nina as a mystery case and showed a few films of her - it had pictures of other psychics as well.

The man was in my room - I had just got up out of bed but had been awake for about an hour.
I see the orbs all the time - but I just took it for granted before I got into spiritualism. I've also saw auras since I was a toddler but I didn't actually - like orbs - know what they were before I read about them and started in spiritualism. I've tried psychometry and giving readings for a laugh also - I must admit I occasionally used some cold reading when I had difficulty but at other times I scared myself and others by my accuracy. This along with what the medium said encourages me to join development circle.

I can't predict the future - well I have used tarot cards and tea leaves to predict things but I just do it for fun and inspiration and don't take it very seriously.

Read minds - no. I think just about everybody has probably experienced some telepathy but not to a very significant level except in the select few cases.

I think that any psychic experiences I've had I'd consider to be more mediumistic than precognitive or telepathic.

I have tried some psychokinesis as well but I gave up because I was rarely ever successful even with lighter objects.

I used a ouija board once and it will be the first, last and every time I try it.

As for the development circle - beginners can try generalised stuff and get more accurate later - just to establish confidence.

[Ashles]

I don't know if the videos are publically available - it was a documentary I watched about psychics which mentioned Nina as a mystery case and showed a few films of her - it had pictures of other psychics as well.
Yet again you are relying on evidence from a documentary you can't even rmember the name of. This is hardly convincing.
For a start it's hard to tell how well you actually remember it.
Secondly they do edit documentary films to show what they want to show. They may have had other footage in which trickery might be visible so they choose not to show it. Documentaries are about ratings - they are often (particularly with regards to these sort of subjects) not a good source for factual information.
If I were trying to convince you opf the existence of something jambo I would not cite a documentary I saw ages ago. I would cite real research that could be read, studied and repeated.

The man was in my room - I had just got up out of bed but had been awake for about an hour.
So you had been asleep and wolen up - time is very subjective at these sort of times, and presumably you've heard of waking dreams and the like.

I see the orbs all the time - but I just took it for granted before I got into spiritualism. I've also saw auras since I was a toddler but I didn't actually - like orbs - know what they were before I read about them and started in spiritualism.
If you see orbs all the time you need to get your vision checked. If you see them sometimes, it would be interesting to know when, and what you think this means. I would still get your vision checked.
However, like the auras I really think this is your imagination running away with you.

You show a classic, 'if I believe one ability exists I must have many abilities'.
You can communicate with the dead, see auras, see orbs (what are they, spirits? souls?) and even claim some telekinesis for good measure.
"Rarely ever successful" means that you did have some success - is this true? You could move objects solely with the power of your mind?

In my opinion you sound like a highly suggestible person who is convinced by all abilities you hear about, and who trusts his memory implicitly, even when it is vague and perhaps incorrect. Also staring at anyone and wanting to see an aura will make you often see one - it's an effect of our visual processing.

I'm afraid that development circle will turn out to be a bit of a waste of time for you - you may find that your 'abilities' which seem to work well in this group, will not really work in the real world.

However you don't seem to be in contact with any sceptical people at the moment - only a group of believers, so it is a little hard to suggest anyone you can talk to for some objective tests.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
James Randi sent me an email - and I didn't misinterpret what he said he capitalised CLEARLY.
Please post the email so that I can read it.

[jambo372]

Ashles
I already get my vision checked.

Why would they remove footage revealing trickery ?
The documentary was sceptically based and exposing fake psychics was the whole subject. They had a magician pose as a psychic at various venues to see if people could detect his cold reading and also had him pretend to be telekinetic in front of a pub audience using the Vinogradova technique. The program featured many sceptics like Richard Wiseman.

It was NOT a dream.

Wanting to see auras ?
I didn't want to see auras - I didn't even know they were auras up until a few years ago but I've seen them my whole life.
I fixed a broken watch using the Uri Geller technique and once managed to move a pen a few inches across a level table.

Dr Adequate
I deleted that email long ago.

[Ashles]

I already get my vision checked
And the optician said...?

I fixed a broken watch using the Uri Geller technique and once managed to move a pen a few inches across a level table.
Okay - so you used a technique used by a known fraud who you yourself admit is a fraud. And yet you still believe it was paranormal?
And I know you won't accept it, but pens do roll across tables. Tables are irregular surfaces.
How could you have moved a pen once, yet you can not even move (for example) a small ripped off piece of postage stamp now? Answer - pens are circular and roll with the tiniest imperfections in a table level.

And as for why documentaries remove bits of footage, well, they aren't always about pure factual reporting. In a programme like that they would want to counterbalance it with the absolute best possible footage they could to demonstrate the claims that people make. Obviously the best they could come up with was Nina's footage. And they will always edit it to look how they want it to look. There's not a lot of point in showing long period where nothing much happens. Rest assured the footage you saw is the absolute best footage ever available anywhere in the world for telekinesis. Because there doesn't seem to be any other. Modern TV cameras are just to good.
This is how TV programmes work. They edit them how they like. Take Fahrenheit 9/11 for example - many people are up in arms about Michael Moore misrpresenting the facts. But he has simply shown us facts in his chosen order edited in his way to give us a distinct message. Somone else could have edited the facts in a totally diffeent way and created the opposite message. But neither has lied at any point.
Documentaries are not considered evidence for anything in the same way that scientific testing is.

[jambo372]

Ashles
The optician ?
She said my vision was fine - I never had a hole in my eye.

So what if a fraud done it - it worked.

The pen was hexagonally shaped - not cylindrical.

[Ashles]

She said my vision was fine - I never had a hole in my eye.
Who said anything about a hole in your eye? If you go to the optician and say you are seeing orbs all the time they would not say "Well your vision seems fine you've got no holes" they would send you to a specialist. Are you telling me you have told an optician that you see orbs a lot and they pronounced your vision to be fine? And not sent you to see anyone else?

So what if a fraud done it - it worked.
Please tell me you're joking.
If James Randi had done it would you still claim it was paranormal? Geller - illusionist, Randi, illusionist. Difference?

The pen was hexagonally shaped - not cylindrical.
They can roll too.
How come you only had this ability for one brief moment?
Have you, by any chance, spent a lot of time concentrating hard and staring at small objects trying to move them? So when one does move, it MUST have been you? Yes?

Keep looking for the signs and you will find them. Our brain tries so hard to form patterns and meanings from all stimulus that we see them when they are not there.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
I deleted that email long ago.
So... the email which you used to have, which proves that Randi is a liar and a charlatan... you just threw it away?

Or did you just make it up?

[jambo372]

Ashles
I repeat I do NOT have a hole in my eye. She said there was nothing wrong with my vision.

If you put the pen on a level surface and guard it from air-currents and don't touch it then it won't move - assuming it's not a plain cylindrical one. I don't know why it lasted only a moment - I had a headache for a few days afterwards though which also put me off.

I wasn't using fraud - I know what I was doing.

Dr Adequate
I deleted the email.
I didn't make it up.

[jambo372]

Ashles
I repeat I do NOT have a hole in my eye. She said there was nothing wrong with my vision.

If you put the pen on a level surface and guard it from air-currents and don't touch it then it won't move - assuming it's not a plain cylindrical one. I don't know why it lasted only a moment - I had a headache for a few days afterwards though which also put me off.

I wasn't using fraud - I know what I was doing.

Dr Adequate
I deleted the email.
I didn't make it up.

[jambo372]

Ashles
I repeat I do NOT have a hole in my eye. She said there was nothing wrong with my vision.

If you put the pen on a level surface and guard it from air-currents and don't touch it then it won't move - assuming it's not a plain cylindrical one. I don't know why it lasted only a moment - I had a headache for a few days afterwards though which also put me off.

I wasn't using fraud - I know what I was doing.

Dr Adequate
I deleted the email.
I didn't make it up.

[Ashles]

Ashles
I repeat I do NOT have a hole in my eye. She said there was nothing wrong with my vision.
Errm, huh?
I have not mentioned anything about a hole in your eye. I never said you did have a hole in your eye. I don't know what you even mean by having a hole in your eye.

What I asked was what did the optician say? If you go to an optician and report that you are constantly seeing orbs, they should refer you to someone else. This would be considered a problem worthy of further checking.

Are you saying the optician said this was fine and just to go home and ignore it?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
I wasn't using fraud - I know what I was doing.
Can you do it again?

$1,000,000 could be yours.

Dr Adequate
I deleted the email.
I didn't make it up.
Yes... the trouble is, you may have got it wrong. I remember you complaining on another thread that Randi said that you could "clearly see Nina K manipulating the thread" and that you couldn't see the thread. Now, saying that you can see her manipulating it, and saying that you can see it, are two different things. Ashles, I think you may have some relevant footage? I wish you'd done as I asked and put all the Nina K stuff on one thread. I can't follow the argument.

In any case, you can't go around calling someone a liar but then add that you yourself have destroyed the evidence for this allegation. It looks cheap.

Perhaps Randi himself will have a copy of the email he sent you?

[jambo372]

Ashles
The optician said my vision was fine . I do NOT have a hole in my eye.

Dr Adequate
I told you I only did it once - I had been trying for ages and it was ages ago I did that.

If he did have a copy he wouldn't give it to me - it'd help me prove what I said.

[Ashles]

Ashles
The optician said my vision was fine . I do NOT have a hole in my eye.

Do I have to break some kind of code here?
Why do you keep mentioning holes in your eyes?
I never intimated you had such a thing, whatever it may be.

Please answer these questions:
Did you tell the optician you were seeing orbs?
Did the optician say that was normal?
If not what did the optician say was the cause?
Did the optician recommend that you see a specialist or doctor?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
If he did have a copy he wouldn't give it to me - it'd help me prove what I said.
What a rich inner life you have. You can imagine what he said, and you can imagine what he would do. How amusing. Evidence you don't have, evidence which you claim to have had, but claim to have destroyed, and evidence which you yourself haven't bothered to look for, but which you've made up in your head, would, if only it existed, prove you right. So that settles that. And you want to be a scientist? Try "professional con artist". Their profession requires them to reason like that. A scientist, on the other hand, would be politely asked to leave.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Yes... the trouble is, you may have got it wrong. I remember you complaining on another thread that Randi said that you could "clearly see Nina K manipulating the thread" and that you couldn't see the thread. Now, saying that you can see her manipulating it, and saying that you can see it, are two different things.
Ashles --- can you remember what thread this was on?

[Ashles]

Was it on this one:

James Randi (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44742)


BTW:
Ashles --- can you remember what thread this was on?
Nice pun.

[misawafan]

Originally posted by Ashles
Please answer these questions:
Did you tell the optician you were seeing orbs?
Did the optician say that was normal?
If not what did the optician say was the cause?
Did the optician recommend that you see a specialist or doctor?

You know what I predict?

He does not have a hole in his eye...

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
I see the orbs all the time - but I just took it for granted before I got into spiritualism.
So it never crossed your mind that these might be supernatural until you started believing in the supernatural? Would you like to think about that for a minute? Suddenly everything you can't explain becomes evidence for your beliefs?

You haven't provided a description, but they might just be "floaters". Seeing them is not a psychic gift.

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate & Ashles
It's NOT floaters, cataracts or holes in my eye - the optician didn't know what it was, she said my eyes were fine.

Like the idea of professional con artist but I don't really consider it a profession - the simple schemes can make quite a bit of money and be quite fun ie taking money for a non - existent charity event - you should try it - you end up loaded.

[Ashles]

It's NOT floaters, cataracts or holes in my eye - the optician didn't know what it was, she said my eyes were fine.
So you went to an optician and told them you had orbs floating across your vision and they pronounced your vision to be fine?

You need to try another optician or a doctor. Seriously.

An optician should really have recommended you to a specialist. There can be many visual complaints that aren't to do with the eyeballs.

Honestly, mention this to a doctor.

[Ashles]

Actually I have to ask this. Have you really been to an optician about your orbs jambo?

Cataracts are nothing like floating orbs, and I still don't know why you mention "holes in your eyes" as I have never heard of such a thing.

What do you exactly mean when you refer to orbs and how often do you se them?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Ashles
Actually I have to ask this. Have you really been to an optician about your orbs jambo?

Cataracts are nothing like floating orbs, and I still don't know why you mention "holes in your eyes" as I have never heard of such a thing.

What do you exactly mean when you refer to orbs and how often do you se them?

Maybe someone should explain to Ashles (without alarming him) that seeing orbs that are 'clearly not floaters', seeing auras, and seeing a pen move while staring at it for ages, plus the severe headaches might be indicative not of problems with the eyes, but with the brain. If he described this to an optician correctly, the optician should not have given an 'all clear', but sent him on to a specialist for further examination into something that might, and I stress 'might', be very serious.

On a less serious but nevertheless devastating for the sufferer level, auras and floating orbs are classical symptoms of migraine (which sometimes comes without the headache or nausea following on). I know. I get them and when they first began I was very worried about my health until migraine was explained to me. All I can do is take the Migraleve, cover my eyes in a darkened room, and try to minimise the suffering by enjoying the 'free light show'.:(

Is the 'hole in the eye' thing some kind of Scottish folk lore, or is there such a term in optometry???

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by jambo372
Ashles
I repeat I do NOT have a hole in my eye. She said there was nothing wrong with my vision.

If you put the pen on a level surface and guard it from air-currents and don't touch it then it won't move - assuming it's not a plain cylindrical one. I don't know why it lasted only a moment - I had a headache for a few days afterwards though which also put me off.

I wasn't using fraud - I know what I was doing.

Dr Adequate
I deleted the email.
I didn't make it up.

Why not go see an Opthamologist? Oh, wait. They're REAL doctors. Sorry about that.

And of course the pen thing can't be a freakin' coincidence, as it happened one time and all. Geebums... I'd pay $160 to see that Penn and Tellar show, but dang if I'll watch this guy if someone paid me the $160 for it.

On the other hand, if the kid here has ambitions of being a microbiologist or an herbalist, and the kid fails to meet standard as an true skeptic utilizing the scientific method, and still manages to obtain a degree somehow, then I think that kid will find that there are people who will always be willing to call him/her out, and testing behind the hypothesis will be the only deciding factor in what is accepted and what is not, what is utilized and what is thrown in the trash. Well, even utilizing the scientific method, people will always call those hypotheses to task, and the results are the same.

There is no sin in being wrong. But there is sin in continuing to insist you are right regardless of how much you are shown to be otherwise. It's a process called "learning."

Or, finally, the kid could just be a troll.

[Ashles]

Posted by Mighty Thor:
Maybe someone should explain to Ashles
I think you mean Jambo.

Yes this is what I have been trying to slowly get around to.

If jambo is seeing these things repeatedly then he needs to visit a doctor. Really quite soon I would recommend.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate & Ashles
It's NOT floaters, cataracts or holes in my eye - the optician didn't know what it was, she said my eyes were fine.
What is this "holes in my eye" business? Obviously you don't have a hole in your eye, or all the gunk inside would come out.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
What is this "holes in my eye" business? Obviously you don't have a hole in your eye, or all the gunk inside would come out.

It's kind of biblical (Kind Jame's Version that is), you know, the whole "you can't tell a man about a speck in his eye when you have a log in yours."

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Like the idea of professional con artist but I don't really consider it a profession - the simple schemes can make quite a bit of money and be quite fun ie taking money for a non - existent charity event - you should try it - you end up loaded.
The downside, of course, is that you lose your right to call yourself a human being: but I can see why it would appeal to someone with your rather specialised powers of reasoning. As Bertrand Russell said: "The method of postulating what we want has many advantages; they are the same as the advantages of theft over honest toil."

[Ashles]

make quite a bit of money and be quite fun ie taking money for a non - existent charity event - you should try it - you end up loaded.
Have you done this yourself Jambo?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Ashles
Have you done this yourself Jambo?

Hey, I've sold ideas, I've taken peoples' money... and then I give it back, and explain the trick. I guess that means Jambo and I are not on the same side.

[jambo372]

Ashles
I've been to several opticians many times an none said I had anything wrong. If I had something wrong with my brain I think it would be obvious by now - I've saw the orbs all my life.

About the con thing - Of course I've done it - who hasn't ?

Dr Adequate & Suezoled
Hole in the eye is a medically recognised condition but I don't know the scientific terminology for it - all I know is that I do NOT have it - the gunk in your eye doesn't come out - the hole is too small for that to happen. I am not referring to anything biblical. I have also visited opthamologists beforewho said the same thing.

I fail to meet the standards of a true sceptic - when did I ever say I was a sceptic ? If I did I lied - I'm a believer and always will be ( thank God ) and wouldn't want to meet the standard of the sceptics on this forum.

Explain the trick - what do you mean ? - There is no trick involved, you just say the money is for a worthy ( fake ) cause ( namely yourself which should remain unknown to them ) and accept all they cough up unless of course you feel sorry for them.

[Ashles]

About the con thing - Of course I've done it - who hasn't ?
Most people haven't done it. That's because it's a pretty despicable thing to do. If you don't realise that then so much for your spiritual caring side.
It appears that being a believer and having morals aren't necessarily connected.



I find myself asking you the same questions over and over jambo without ever getting straight answers.

Have you told the opticians about the orbs you see?
Yes or no?


Edited to add:
I've been to several opticians many times an none said I had anything wrong. If I had something wrong with my brain I think it would be obvious by now - I've saw the orbs all my life.
Several of the things you have described (orbs, objects moving, hallucinations, auras etc.) are indeed symptoms of brain disorders of various types and degrees of severity. That's why I'm trying to get you to answer the above question.
Did you tell the opticians about the orbs?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
About the con thing - Of course I've done it - who hasn't ?
Who hasn't? People with a shred of decency, honour or self-respect. People who aren't criminals. People who aren't sickening leeches. People who don't exploit and betray the compassion of others for profit. Good people.

About six billion of them.

[Dr Adequate]

Ashles, it's kind of embarrassing to admit this on a sceptical website... but you are my Psychic Twin.

[Ashles]

This is spooky.

Do you look like Jonny Depp too?

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by jambo372

About the con thing - Of course I've done it - who hasn't ?


Explain the trick - what do you mean ? - There is no trick involved, you just say the money is for a worthy ( fake ) cause ( namely yourself which should remain unknown to them ) and accept all they cough up unless of course you feel sorry for them.

So you're admitting to being a liar and a cheat? Those are some pretty big ones you must have.

[jambo372]

Ashles
Yes - I told the optician about the orbs, she examined my eyes and said nothing was wrong with them an just gave me a new set of contact lenses.

Dr Adequate, Ashles and Yaotl
Just about everybody I know has done it at least once.

Dr Adequate where did you come up with six billion from ?

You're taking it too far - it's not as if you've ripped them off prim & proper - at most you'd only get £5 per person but it's the amount of people that counts - £2 from 100 people is £200 and there's no limit to how many people you take money from ... get the concept ... it amounts, and if they look poor just don't accept the money.

Self - Respect ? That's why you do it - to get money to respect ( pamper ) yourself with.

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by jambo372
Ashles
Yes - I told the optician about the orbs, she examined my eyes and said nothing was wrong with them an just gave me a new set of contact lenses.

Dr Adequate, Ashles and Yaotl
Just about everybody I know has done it at least once.

Dr Adequate where did you come up with six billion from ?

You're taking it too far - it's not as if you've ripped them off prim & proper - at most you'd only get £5 per person but it's the amount of people that counts - £2 from 100 people is £200 and there's no limit to how many people you take money from ... get the concept ... it amounts, and if they look poor just don't accept the money.

Self - Respect ? That's why you do it - to get money to respect ( pamper ) yourself with.

I don't even know how to respond to that, you're as bad as 1inC.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate where did you come up with six billion from ?
Approximately the current population of the Earth. Hence, approximately the number of people who haven't stooped so low.
Self - Respect ? That's why you do it - to get money to respect ( pamper ) yourself with.
That's what self-respect means to you?

[Ashles]

Ashles
Yes - I told the optician about the orbs, she examined my eyes and said nothing was wrong with them an just gave me a new set of contact lenses.
this is either untrue or you have an extremely incompetent optician.
You need to see a doctor

Self - Respect ? That's why you do it - to get money to respect ( pamper ) yourself with.
So you can happily do immoral, fraudulent things that take money off others so long as it makes you feel good?
That's pretty disgusting in most people's books.

Just about everybody I know has done it at least once.
So that's the type of people you hand around with is it Jambo? Cheats and liars?
Presumably many of these are also the 'sensitives' and 'readers' you talk about a lot.

Great advert for the believers Jambo. Real impressive.

I hope you grow up someday. I really do.
The believing in every paranormal ability going is one thing, but defrauding people of money they thought they wee giving to charity. That makes you pretty low. Or very gullible to follow whatever your group of 'friends' do.
I'm quite saddened by this turn of events.

[jambo372]

There's nothing wrong with 1 in c . (s)he makes more sense than most people on this forum.

[Ashles]

There's nothing wrong with 1 in c . (s)he makes more sense than most people on this forum.
You're either trolling now or a genuine idiot.

[jambo372]

Ashles
I'll decide myself whether I need to see a doctor - my optician is one of the best around.

Yes - I can do it and I don't feel good about it - I feel great about it. My personal morals have nothing to do with anything on this forum anyway, I am certainly not most people and as I've said I know lots of other people who've done this at least once.

I can hang about with whoever I like - and now that you mention it I don't ask mediums if they do that - I know they don't - the people I was talking about are mostly sceptics anyway.

What is wrong with 1 in C ?

Dr Adequate
Get real - out of six billion people I and only a select few others are the only ones who have ever done this or anything else immoral. The following people are or were part of this population which according to you must be so moral :

Ian Huntley
Ian Brady
Jack the Ripper
Fred and Rosemary West
Myra Hindley
Peter Manuel
Gary Glitter
Jeffrey Archer
Johnathon King
Harold Shipman
Peter Sutcliffe
Vlad the Impaler
Mary Bell ... amongst so many others.
Looks like there arefar more people about with imperfect morals than you estimated.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372

Dr Adequate
Get real - out of six billion people I and only a select few others are the only ones who have ever done this or anything else immoral.
I did not say "or anything else immoral". Please do not lie to me about my own point of view, especially as, since we are in public, other people can read your posts, and mine, and see that you are a liar.

The following people are or were part of this population which according to you must be so moral :
I suppose it's useless to point out to you that telling lies is wrong? But perhaps if you consider that it makes you look halfwitted...

Ian Huntley
Ian Brady
Jack the Ripper
Fred and Rosemary West
Myra Hindley
Peter Manuel
Gary Glitter
Jeffrey Archer
Johnathon King
Harold Shipman
Peter Sutcliffe
Vlad the Impaler
Mary Bell ... amongst so many others.
I was merely discussing your own despicable crime, but if you want to appeal to these people as evidence that your behaviour is normal, then let's examine that view. I never said that there were no such people as serial killers, swindlers and paedophiles. Indeed, I am currently communicating with a person who is a self-declared swindler. I maintain that the majority of the human race --- the vast majority --- are neither serial killers, swindlers, nor paedophiles, because they have more decency.

Many of the people you've listed are dead.

Of the half-dozen or so who aren't... please subtract six from approximately six billion, and what do you get?

Approximately six billion. You could subtract every single serial killer, swindler and paedophile and you'd still get approx. six billion.
Looks like there arefar more people about with imperfect morals than you estimated.
I gave no such estimate. But I did say that most people were too decent to stoop as low as you have, and I stick by that. Listing a handful of evil people does not overturn that statistic, as you would realise if you weren't so... so you. Even to get the figure down from approx six billion to approx. five billion would require that you demonstrate that one-sixth of the human race is as corrupt and degraded as you are.

[Ashles]

I'll decide myself whether I need to see a doctor - my optician is one of the best around.

Yes - I can do it and I don't feel good about it - I feel great about it. My personal morals have nothing to do with anything on this forum anyway, I am certainly not most people and as I've said I know lots of other people who've done this at least once.

I can hang about with whoever I like - and now that you mention it I don't ask mediums if they do that - I know they don't - the people I was talking about are mostly sceptics anyway.
Well I find it very hard to believe anything you say now Jambo. Suddenly, when it becomes apparent that all your friends are charity defrauding criminals, they suddenly turn out to be sceptics? Real convenient. Real unconvincing.
A decent optician would definitely refer you if you constantly saw orbs. Certainly for preliminary testing at least.
Thus - your optician isn't competent or you are lying.

I can do it and I don't feel good about it - I feel great about it
Great - that is money that should have been with charities now. Let's hope you never have need of any of their services.
Let's hope if people cheat you or steal from you accept it totally as fair enough.

You've really started sounding quite childish now.

[jambo372]

Ashles
My friends aren't criminals - not all of them have done that anyway just the vast majority.

My optician wouldn't have been given her job if she was incompetent.

I don't feel great about actually taking the money - it's what I can do with it that excites me. I am not proud of it but have attempted and fantasized about doing far worse which I will not discuss.

Dr Adequate
I just mentioned the people in that list as examples ;
there are far more people who've done worse than me ... you're beginning to sound as if you must have saintly principles.

I am not corrupt - you must just be Mother Teresa mark 2 or something.

[Dr Adequate]

I am not proud of it but have attempted and fantasized about doing far worse which I will not discuss.
You've attempted to do far worse? I'm glad that you're at least too ashamed to discuss it. It's better than boasting about it.
Dr Adequate
I just mentioned the people in that list as examples ;
there are far more people who've done worse than me ...
Agreed. Of those who are still alive --- do they number in their billions? They do not. Excusing your despicable theft by referring to the existence of serial killers... well, well, what a logician. Yes, I suppose you will always be able to point to someone worse than you, and take that, in your mixed up mind, as an excuse for whatever selfish, hateful and debasing thing you want to do.
you're beginning to sound as if you must have saintly principles.
Yes. Like everyone else, it's the practical test that gives me problems. But saintly principles? Yup. These, for example, might apply:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"Thou shalt not bear false witness."
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness."
"What shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?"

[Ashles]

My friends aren't criminals - not all of them have done that anyway just the vast majority.
It's illegal to pose as a charity worker and to obtain money by deception.
They've committed a crime, and sound like they still are - they're criminals.


My optician wouldn't have been given her job if she was incompetent.
Again, when you are older you will discover that incompetent people gets jobs everywhere, and at all levels.
If she didn't refer you after you complain of floating orbs and she can't find any problem with your eyes she's incompetent. Simple as that.
Still, don't believe me if you don't want to - it's your body these things are happening to. If you've got a brain disorder and don't visit the doctor it won't be me who has the subsequent health problems.

I don't feel great about actually taking the money - it's what I can do with it that excites me. I am not proud of it but have attempted and fantasized about doing far worse which I will not discuss.
Yeah, people do steal because they want to spend the money. We all kind of know this already.
You will probably get caught sooner or later (particularly if you are thinking of doing worse things) so good luck trying to get on in life with a criminal record.

Seems like not a very clever or inspirational or 'spiritual' way to start your life, but they're your choices. Let's hope you don't come to regret them.

[jambo372]

Ashles
How would you know what opticians are supposed to do in the mentioned circumstances ?

I never stole anything - they hand it over willingly.

Get caught - It's not as if I do it all the time - just once in a blue moon. Who would catch us anyway ? The police ?? lol.

Dr Adequate
I am not ashamed of what I've attempted I just won't discuss it.
I don't honestly believe you when you say you've never done anything like I've mentioned.

[Ashles]

How would you know what opticians are supposed to do in the mentioned circumstances ?
Well I have studied enough experimental psychology to know that visual problems without an obvious eye defect are often connected with brain disorders - chemical imbalance, pressure, damage, growths etc.
Don't believe me? Ask a doctor.

I never stole anything - they hand it over willingly.
Yes that's called fraud and deception.

Get caught - It's not as if I do it all the time - just once in a blue moon. Who would catch us anyway ? The police ?? lol
Yes you are of course the very first person to ever think like this. And there's no-one with a criminal record, is there?

[misawafan]

Originally posted by Ashles
Again, when you are older you will discover that incompetent people gets jobs everywhere, and at all levels.


With a particularly high percentage in management...

[jambo372]

Ashles
What has experimental psychology to do with anything ?
I'm not daft - I know visual disturbances can be related to the brain but you're no specialist - how do you know when an optician should refer to a doctor ?
Anyway I wouldn't ask my doctor for anything - he can't tell the difference between a stroke and a UTI or acne and impetigo.

How would I get caught ? - They'd think it was for charity or sponsored events.

Fraud and theft are entirely different.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by jambo372
Ashles
What has experimental psychology to do with anything ?
I'm not daft - I know visual disturbances can be related to the brain but you're no specialist - how do you know when an optician should refer to a doctor ?
Anyway I wouldn't ask my doctor for anything - he can't tell the difference between a stroke and a UTI or acne and impetigo.

How would I get caught ? - They'd think it was for charity or sponsored events.

Fraud and theft are entirely different.

Only in method. It's theft. There are multiple types of theft:

Burglary-theft by breaking into an area assumed private in order to remove items.
Robbery-theft by use or threat of force.
Larceny-theft by stealth, such as shoplifting or pickpocketing.
Fraud-theft by misrepresentation or omission.

And you can get caught. It happened a few years back where I live. Some people claimed to be collecting money for United Way.

Of course, in addition to being illegal, it's a despicable practice. You're lying to people in order to take their money. What you're doing is akin to a car dealer taking a customers money for a new Mercedes and then delivering them a Pinto. They intend to help someone less fortunate, but instead you give the finger to their wishes and blow the money on yourself, because you are apparantly too lazy or too incompetant to work for a living. It's theft by deception. That's pretty much the definition of fraud.

You are an admitted theif and liar, sir. That in itself can be forgiven, we all make mistakes. The reprehensible part is your defense of your theft.

Oddly enough, you'll probably fit right in with the herbalism and sCAM crowd.

Some links:
http://www.ftc.gov/charityfraud/
http://www.seniormag.com/legal/charity%20fraud.htm
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/092404_ns_charity_fraud.html
http://www.lapdonline.org/releases/2000/05/ovb1.htm--notice here they specifically refer to it as theft.

Your position is unsupportable and, frankly, disgusting.

[jambo372]

Huntsman
I don't consider it to be theft - they KNOW they're giving the money and are perfectly WILLING to do so.

I do want to get a job - but when you think about it it's a bit stupid to work for money when by using fraud you just sit on your arse, enjoy yourself and get gradually richer. You could also work and be a con artist as well - get double the money.

Dr Adequate
What are you so bothered about anyway ? Earlier on you advised me to be a professional con artist.

[jambo372]

Disgusting - you talk about it as if I'm a rapist or some kind of pervert.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by jambo372
Disgusting - you talk about it as if I'm a rapist or some kind of pervert.

That's about the level I place it with.

Yes, people give you money willingly, but ONLY becaue they expect it to go to something worthwhile, not to you.

And whether or not you consider it theft is not relavent. It is theft. Just as I might not consider running people over with my truck as murder, but the law has a different view.

Just like a rapist, you seem determined to defend your actions as being moral, when they are the farthest of the sort. Your comments remind me of the "she was asking for it" argument used by rapists to justify their actions.

Yes, disgusting.

Why don't we discuss your theories on why it's not theft with the FTC? I'm sure they would see the reasonable nature of your arguments.

Frankly, your attitude is the reason that many of us have very little use for and very short tempers with those who advocate alternative medicine practices. It's quite simply a field where practitioners don't give a flying f**k about the patients lives or health, but get to feel important without having to work through med school, and get to rake in money for selling useless bottles of water or weeds from their back yard.

It is the same type of attitude, the same level of care and empathy for their fellow man, that is displayed by rapists, pedophiles, and murderers.

Disgusting.

[misawafan]

Originally posted by jambo372
Huntsman
I don't consider it to be theft - they KNOW they're giving the money and are perfectly WILLING to do so.

I do want to get a job - but when you think about it it's a bit stupid to work for money when by using fraud you just sit on your arse, enjoy yourself and get gradually richer.

This thread has certainly taken an interesting turn...

[jambo372]

Huntsman
There is a difference between bad & disgusting.

The following things aren't disgusting they're just bad / evil :
murder
manslaughter
theft
fraud
drug addiction

The following things are both disgusting and bad / evil :
rape
pederasty
child molestation
other forms of paedophilia
cannibalism

Other things maybe disgusting without being bad .

Disgusting is usually used to term a crime of sexual / dirty nature.

What I done wasn't even bad it was merely devious.
Fraud and theft aren't always so bad - it depends on the extent.

[jambo372]

When did I say I wanted to be a herbalist ?

[Hellbound]

Jambo...

Thank you for describing my opinions to me. Funny, but I thought disgusting was what a person found to be so. I find you to be so. What you did was bad, disgusting, and devious, and frankly, I have no respect for you left. You are, quite frankly, a prime example of what goes wrong in society.

I would appreciate it if you would not lecture me on what my opinions should be. I take no advice from fools.

I never said you wanted to be an herbalist, by the way. I can, however, be pretty certain you'll never be a molecular biologist with the ability you've displayed so far.

And I'm done with this. I have no desire to talk with the morally bankrupt. I've vented my outrage, and obviously you don't have the character to understand why most people find your actions morally reprehensible.

You obviously are not only criminal and immoral, but proud of it. This is why you disgust me.

[jambo372]

I don't want to be a molecular biologist.

Personally I think you are disgusting for saying fraud is as bad as rape - you must have a really perverted mind.

[jambo372]

I do understand why people consider my actions as morally reprehensible but to be honest with you I couldn't care less. I have no respect for you nor have I ever had any for you.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Ashles
Posted by Mighty Thor:

I think you mean Jambo.

Yes this is what I have been trying to slowly get around to.

If jambo is seeing these things repeatedly then he needs to visit a doctor. Really quite soon I would recommend.

Sorry, my error. Probably meant to write:

Maybe someone like Ashles should . . .

I was merely thinking about his welfare. I wonder if he takes any herbal remedies?:) :)

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by jambo372
I do understand why people consider my actions as morally reprehensible but to be honest with you I couldn't care less. I have no respect for you nor have I ever had any for you.

Um... I'm sorry. You must have mistaken some of us as people who give a d#mn about your illogical rantings or even your pathetic existence in general.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by jambo372
I don't want to be a molecular biologist.

Personally I think you are disgusting for saying fraud is as bad as rape - you must have a really perverted mind.

Well yeah duh! The two have nothing at all to do with each other at all!

[Hellbound]

Just to clarify for our gentle readers...

It's not that I consdier fraud as bad as rape, per se.

What I consider as bad is the mental/emotional acrobatics of a fraud in trying to rationalize their actions as something allowable or even eviable, something that everyone should do. The arguments of "They gave it to me willingly" and "I didn't force anyone" and "it lets me get things I want" are what disgust me.

If you're going to commit a crime, at least have the intestinal fortitude to take responsiblity for it.

I also find disgusting the idea of taking money given to help others and using it for one's own purposes. It's the specifics of this act which disgust me.

[steenkh]

I find this debate with Jambo372 absolutely fascinating! His "I am holier than thou"-attitude flies in the face of his occupation as a criminal. Not being religious, I cannot put my finger on the exact spot where God forbids fraud; it does not seem to be part of the ten commandments as I know them, yet I have this nagging feeling that God frowns upon it!

Isn't Jambo372 afraid of what God will say of him on Judgment Day? If the Christians are right, I have of course earned my place in the eternal fires of Hell by not believing in the Almighty God, but Jambo372 is a believer, and yet he voluntarily opts for a vacant spot in Hell by stealing money donated to charity?

Another funny thing about Jambo372's statements: In Denmark we say "A thief believes that every other person steals". I thought that was underestimating the criminal mind, but here we have mr. Jambo372 believing that we have all performed such acts! Amazing!

[Ashles]

Just for fun let's remember Jambo's first ever post:

James Randi is a great debunker of psychics & mediums - NOT !!!
He lied about debunking Nina Kulagina , he said she used threads - this theory was already found by other researchers to be impossible way back in the sixties !!! She could move the objects when they were placed under a glass cube .
1 ) The glass would have blocked any threads or hairs she tried to use .
2 ) She was examined for threads anyway before starting the experiments .
But she still moved the objects !
Other possibilities of fraud were also dismissed one by one including static electricity , magnets & blowing on objects .
No possible method of fraud has yet been found . Any secrets Nina did have , she took to the grave with her in 1990 . I believe in Nina Kulagina's abilities - regardless of what the rest of you say . Nina was tested by no less than 40 investigators over a 10 year period notably Professor Leonid L Vasiliev , Dr Genady Sergiev & Dr Edward Naumov .
She demonstrated her ability on ping pong balls , matches , matchboxes , heavy crystal bowls , clock pendulums , compass needles , pen lids amongst other things .
In one experiment an egg was cracked open & it's contents poured into a tank of saline - Mrs Kulagina was able to seperate the yolk from the white by just focusing her eyes on it .
She also stopped the beating of a disembodied frog's heart in another experiment .
Nina's psychokinetic abilities must have been genuine .
A lesser known ability of Mrs Kulagina's was the ability to diagnose illness with a kind of x-ray vision - like Natasha Demkina's . Mrs Kulagina was actually called on to help a sick Nikita Khrushchev . And even if it was fake ( which it wasn't ) why would Randi care so much about uncovering it - it's not as if she was doing any harm or taking money from people .
James

Oh the irony. (Particularly in regard to the last sentence.)

A gullible fraudster - they're so rare to see these days.

[jambo372]

Steenkh
Have you never heard the expression turn or burn ?
You can be forgiven and as I've said I only did it a few times - I know lots of people who've also did it more so than myself.

Huntsman
You were indeed comparing rape and other crimes with fraud earlier.
Basically comparing rape to fraud is like comparing murder to pinching sweets from a corner shop in my opinion.

PS Can we please either change the subject or shut up ?

I'M FREE !!!

[Hellbound]

Comparing, yes.

Equating, no.

My comments, verbatim:
Just like a rapist, you seem determined to defend your actions as being moral, when they are the farthest of the sort. Your comments remind me of the "she was asking for it" argument used by rapists to justify their actions.

Now, take your strawmen and your juvenile con games and run off to someplace where people accept your type of "reasoning".

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
What are you so bothered about anyway ? Earlier on you advised me to be a professional con artist.
No, you disgusting little liar, I said that the intrinsically dishonest way in which you think about the world makes you suited to be a con artist but not a scientist. And I was right, wasn't I? since you are in fact a swindler and a thief.

I have told you before how mendacious, rude and stupid it is to lie to me about the content of my own posts. If the argument that telling lies is wrong cuts no ice with a crook like you, could I just point out that it makes you look like a halfwit.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
I don't want to be a molecular biologist.

Personally I think you are disgusting for saying fraud is as bad as rape - you must have a really perverted mind.
And here you are lying about what Huntsman posted. We can all read.

I notice you say that murder does not disgust you. Why not?

[Dr Adequate]

...edit/ quote confusion...

[jambo372]

I've never considered evil/criminal behaviour as disgusting.

Disgusting is more a word I'd use to describe someone who picks their nose.

[Ashles]

I've never considered evil/criminal behaviour as disgusting.

jambo further up the page:
The following things are both disgusting and bad / evil :
rape
pederasty
child molestation
other forms of paedophilia
cannibalism

Other things maybe disgusting without being bad .

Disgusting is usually used to term a crime of sexual / dirty nature.
Your lies and contradictions are getting worse and worse.

Anyway you may not consider what you do to be disgusting.
I do.

You have seriously damaged what little credibility you had.

Maybe you are representative of believers. If so that's a very sad reflection. Although, of course, we already know many of them are frauds and liars so I don't know why I'm so surprised that you are too jambo.

[jambo372]

I was referring to crime in general as not being disgusting - the crimes I mentioned earlier are a few exceptions.

I'M FREE !!!

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
I don't honestly believe you when you say you've never done anything like I've mentioned.
Yes, you've made your delusion quite clear. You believe that almost everyone must be such a low, cynical, parasitic swindler that they would steal charitable donations ("who wouldn't?" you ask). In your repulsive world-view, nearly the whole of humanity are selfish, compassionless, lying, swindling, cheating filth.

Except for "psychics". They are honest as the day is long.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Except for "psychics". They are honest as the day is long.

Well of course, Dr. A. I mean, if they weren't honest, the spirits wouldn't talk to them and their powers wouldn't work! They'd have to fake it!

:D

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate
Who do you think you are ? Mother Teresa mark 2 ?
You're ranting on as if you had never told a lie in your life.

When I say psychics don't lie I mean they don't lie about their mediumship or work for spirit or the techniques they use - and at that I am only referring to some, not all, psychics. They may lie about other affairs for all I know but I don't particularly care.

[Eos of the Eons]

Of course you don't care. You don't care that they can't prove anything they say. You don't care that we can prove they're lying. All you care is that somehow you can still feed your beliefs. The old "Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome. You can't believe the truth, it means somehow your world isn't as it seems.

That's okay. At least you're not one of the "psychics" taking peoples' money. You're just a person who wants to believe.

Just learn something now and then and then visit your beliefs periodically with a skeptical eye. It won't hurt to do that.

[Suezoled]

Okay, how many times is Jambo going to keep saying "I don't care" as if that will convince others that what people are saying (mainly about his inconsistencies, his motivations, his outlook on fraud and deceit, etc) about him doesn't bother him.

No, really, he doesn't care.
Nope, not at all. Well you can call him a fraud and compare it to, say, another sort of crime, but nope, he doesn't care after all.
I mean, why should he care?
Of course he doesn't care.
I mean, if he cared, he wouldn't be saying so often "I don't care" and then coming back with more statements that are rebutted and then of course he has to state again -just in case we forgot- that he doesn't care.
Just because some people are honest and choose not to defraud others because that perpetuates gullibility and ill will, doesn't mean that Jambo cares.
I mean, he defrauds people and knows it but he doesn't care about how others feel.
No, he means it.
He doesn't care.
That's why he has to keep coming back; to remind us how much he doesn't care.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
You're ranting on as if you had never told a lie in your life.
No, you stupid little liar, I am "ranting on as if" you accused me of being, like you, sufficiently vile and disgusting as to comit the same degrading crimes as you. You did indeed make this accusation, and it is a filthy and disgusting lie, like practically everything else you post. Please do not accuse me, ever again, of being like you. It is a hideous and vicious slander.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by steenkh
Not being religious, I cannot put my finger on the exact spot where God forbids fraud; it does not seem to be part of the ten commandments as I know them
I can't remember what number it is, but I'm pretty sure one of them says "thou shalt not steal."

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jambo372
Steenkh
Have you never heard the expression turn or burn ?
You can be forgiven and as I've said I only did it a few times - I know lots of people who've also did it more so than myself.Jambo, I can only assume that you're very young, and haven't had the benefit of association with genuinely moral people, whether religious believers or not (and many nonbelievers are extremely moral, by the way).

"You can be forgiven." Yes, if you truly repent. However, gleefully continuing to sin with the intention of staging a deathbed repentance is probably one of the surest roads to Hell described in religious literature for centuries. Excusing yourself by asserting that others are worse than you is another common variant. If you really had any understanding of what you were doing, you would stop, you would beg forgiveness, and you'd do it now. You'd also try to do anything you could to repay the money you stole, either by returning it to the donors, or passing it on, with interest, to the charities who should have had it in the first place.

This is what following Christ is about. It's about trying to live a Christ-like life now, because that's the way to true happiness and joy. And if you don't understand that, it's because you're not following Christ, whatever it is you think you're doing.

I'm not sure if I believe in a personal devil, but let's just assume for the moment that I do, because it's the easiest way to explain this to you. Tricking people into believing that they're one of "the elect", and so will go to heaven no matter what (either by predestination, or by a deathbed repentance), and then tempting them into sin and immorality, is one of Satan's oldest snares. You've walked into it with both feet.Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.Jambo, you're a tinkling cymbal. You're selfish, and the only person you care about is yourself. And you're not even trying to live a better life. Yes, the vilest sinner who truly repents will be forgiven, but to go through life sinning at will, with the little caveat that it will all be OK because I'll repent later, is a perfect recipe for being entirely unable to do that, because the very sense of morality that should have you recoiling in horror as you understand the vileness of your actions will be atrophied and useless.Love God, and do what you like.I don't know who said that, but it's a profound truth. If you truly love God, you can do what you like, because what you like will be pleasing to God.

You're so far away from this that I don't think you even see what the problem is. Well, think about it, before your entire sense of right and wrong is completely destroyed.

Rolfe.

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate

Originally posted by myself :
"You're ranting on as if you've never told a lie in your life."

I never said you were on the same level as me you ignoramus. You are indeed very different from me and I can't honestly say I would ever want to be like you.
See above - I was merely pointing out that you criticise others but rave on as if the sun shines out of your arse.
I never denied I had done wrong - I just don't honestly think for a moment that you have never lied yourself.

" Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Rolfe
I never said I had never repented or that I continued to con, indeed I have more than made up for it by paying money to genuine causes.

[Ashles]

Just give up on this thread jambo, you're contradictions are piling up:

Quotes from Jambo:
"I am not ashamed of what I've attempted I just won't discuss it."
"I do want to get a job - but when you think about it it's a bit stupid to work for money when by using fraud you just sit on your arse, enjoy yourself and get gradually richer. You could also work and be a con artist as well - get double the money."
"I don't feel great about actually taking the money - it's what I can do with it that excites me."


And this new one is great:
I never said you were on the same level as me you ignoramus. You are indeed very different from me and I can't honestly say I would ever want to be like you.
See above - I was merely pointing out that you criticise others but rave on as if the sun shines out of your arse.
I never denied I had done wrong - I just don't honestly think for a moment that you have never lied yourself.

" Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Wow. Can you even SPELL hypocrite let alone understand the meaning of the word?

You are in no position to lecture anyone about anything. You sound like an amoral, self-serving, over-rationalising, cynical, hypocritical, fraudulent adolescent.
Maybe you aren't actually like this, but everything you have said points to this.
You try to sound cool with your criminal tendences. You fail.
You try to claim moral equality with those who criticise you. You fail.
You try to wiggle and squirm out of what you have said. You fail.
You try to sound apologetic. You fail.
You try to come across as spiritual. You fail.
You try to justify your crimes by comparison to others. You fail.

You have tried almost every position now on this thread and they all disagree with each other.

I don't believe for one second that you have tried to repay any of the money.

But then it shouldn't really matter whether I do or not. It's your conscience and your life.

If you do keep doing this kind of stuff you will get caught. You are not a very convincing liar. And it sounds like you you are one of those kids who do whatever the crowd tell you to do - those kids almost always are the ones who get caught.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jambo372
I never said I had never repented or that I continued to con,....Really?"I am not ashamed of what I've attempted...."and similar other remarks.

Repenting is being ashamed of what you've done.

Rolfe.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
I never said you were on the same level as me you ignoramus.
Yes you did, you disgusting little liar:
Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
I am not ashamed of what I've attempted I just won't discuss it.
I don't honestly believe you when you say you've never done anything like I've mentioned.
There is no point in lying about the contents of your posts any more than about the contents of mine. We can all read, and see what a halfwitted liar you are.
You are indeed very different from me and I can't honestly say I would ever want to be like you.
No, that would involve you stopping lying and stealing. And you'd have to grow up.
See above - I was merely pointing out that you criticise others but rave on as if the sun shines out of your arse.
I have made no such claim. I would, however, claim not to be degraded filth.
I never denied I had done wrong
Liar.
- I just don't honestly think for a moment that you have never lied yourself.
Of course I have. And I have never claimed otherwise.
" Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
(1) Do not quote Jesus to me, you filthy hypocrite. I might puke.

(2) I am not proposing to stone you to death. I am telling you that what you have done is wrong. Only a stupid hysterical child could equate the two things.

[jambo372]

Rolfe
Quote originally from me posted by Rolfe :
"I am not ashamed of what I've attempted ..."

Quote from Rolfe :
"Repenting is being ashamed of what you've done."

I've always thought of repentance as a combination of the following :

a) Admitting what you've done.
b) Appologising for what you've done.
c) Where possible physically making up for what you've done by carrying out tasks to outweigh it.
d) Never repeating the crime.

If repenting was as simple as being ashamed of what you've done then the Lord would forgive you just for feeling guilty about it.

Dr Adequate
"Yes you did you disgusting little liar."

Provide a quotation proving this.

"No that would have to involve stopping lying and stealing."

and then some ...
"Of course I have and I've never claimed otherwise."

In the latter of these 2 quotes you admit you've lied. In the former you say in order to be like you I'd have to stop lying. i sense complete contradiction you putrid ignoramus ... oh the hypocrisy !

Dr A quoting myself ;
" I never denied I had done wrong."
Provide a quotation giving evidence to support the contrary.

"Don't quote Jesus to me you filthy hypocrite."
I can and will quote the Good Lord if I want.



" I might puke ."
Bringing into consideration the fact that I won't be present to witness it, i couldn't be less bothered.

" I am not proposing to stone you to death."
Very different case - highly similar concept. I was making a comparison not declaring the two cases as equivalent.

" I have made no such claim."
Taking into account that you admit to being imperfect yourself it would be a wise precaution not to judge others.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Provide a quotation proving this.
I did in the post I made, you halfwit, but just so that everyone can see what a pathetic halfwitted liar you are, here it is again.
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Yes you did, you disgusting little liar:
Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
I am not ashamed of what I've attempted I just won't discuss it. I don't honestly believe you when you say you've never done anything like I've mentioned.
There is no point in lying about the contents of your posts any more than about the contents of mine. We can all read, and see what a halfwitted liar you are.

Originally posted by jambo372
In the latter of these 2 quotes you admit you've lied. In the former you say in order to be like you I'd have to stop lying. i sense complete contradiction you putrid ignoramus ... oh the hypocrisy !
Hypocrisy! I see you've learned a new word! Ahhh. Our little sociopath is growing up so fast! So I'm a "putrid ignoramus" and a professional scientist; and a "hypocrite" who publically admits to his faults... oh the irony.
:dl:
I do indeed tell a few lies, like "I'm OK" when I'm not. I do not continualy drivel out a stream of filthy halfwitted lies, nor do I lie in order to swindle people and then boast about it in public. So, let's make it clear, since you have detected a "contradiction". In order to be like more like me, you must stop continually vomiting out disgusting halfwitted criminal nonsense. Nor should you trample the name of Jesus into this disgusting bile.

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate
Dr Adequate quoting myself:
"I'm not ashamed of what I've attempted - I just won't discuss it. I don't honestly believe you've never done anything like what I've mentioned."

The key word was like, I never said you had done the same as me - you admit yourself you've lied.

Scientists are no less likely to be hypocrites than anyone else.

I don't boast about my so called 'swindling'.

The name of Jesus ? - Why would a sceptic believe in Jesus anyway ? I mention Jesus because he is the final judge - not you or anyone else.

Perhaps you picked me up wrongly before ... don't lecture me on how to be like you ... if I was like you I think I'd shoot myself.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jambo372
I've always thought of repentance as a combination of the following :

a) Admitting what you've done.
b) Appologising for what you've done.
c) Where possible physically making up for what you've done by carrying out tasks to outweigh it.
d) Never repeating the crime.

If repenting was as simple as being ashamed of what you've done then the Lord would forgive you just for feeling guilty about it.You seriously don't get it, do you?

If you really, genuinely understand the evil that you've done, and are genuinely ashamed of it, and genuinely sorry for it, then you will, inevitably, do all of the above to the very best of your ability.

If, however, you merely go through the motions, a to d, without feeling any shame or any remorse, there is no repentance.

You didn't read what I said about tinkling cymbals, did you?

God sees into your heart, you disgusting little creep. He understands when repentance is sincere, or mere lip-service aimed at avoiding the "bad fire". He loves you, but because of that very same love, he cannot tolerate evil within you. True repentence, truly accepting the infinite mercy and infinite forgiveness, is what's needed. Insincere "going through the motions" means nothing.

You're so ensnared in your smugness that you don't even realise what's going on. With every uncaring sin against another, every excuse that someone else is even worse and never mind I'll repent later, your natural sense of right and wrong, your very ability to understand that you're doing evil, is eroded. Eventually (if not already), you'll be incapable of true repentance, because the sense of shame will have gone.

Then, God help you indeed.

Rolfe.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
The key word was like, I never said you had done the same as me - you admit yourself you've lied.
The last retreat "You have caught me lying again and again, so now I'm going to pretend I didn't mean what I said." So, any little white lie is "like" what you did. Except in being a filthy swindle. So long as I am not "like" you in that way, then that's fine. All I claimed was that I was not filth like you, and if you acede to that, and will stop telling halfwitted lies, that's fine.
Originally posted by jambo372
I don't boast about my so called 'swindling'.
Yes you do, you disgusting little liar:
Originally posted by jambo372
Like the idea of professional con artist but I don't really consider it a profession - the simple schemes can make quite a bit of money and be quite fun ie taking money for a non - existent charity event - you should try it - you end up loaded.
You boasted of it publicly and advocated it. Can't you go a single paragraph without telling some halfwitted lie apparent to every reader of this thread?
Originally posted by jambo372
Perhaps you picked me up wrongly before ... don't lecture me on how to be like you ... if I was like you I think I'd shoot myself.
No, if you were like me you'd would hoot with laughter at the halfwitted ravings of a delusional teenage sociopath who boasts of his piety in one breath and his crimes in another. That's what you'd do if you were like me. By the way, you're in breach of forum rules.

[misawafan]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
So I'm a "putrid ignoramus" and a professional scientist; and a "hypocrite" who publically admits to his faults... oh the irony.


You know, it's one thing to be called a "putrid ignoramus" and even more painful to be called a "hypocrite", but to be called a "professional scientist"? That's taking things way too far...

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by epepke
...substances that were originally discovered in plants. Examples include penicillin and related antibiotics...

Come again? How was the discovery of penicillin related to plants?

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Come again? How was the discovery of penicillin related to plants?

Well, it comes from a mold, and many people equate molds and plants...

What are molds classified as now, anyway?

[Nex]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Well, it comes from a mold, and many people equate molds and plants...

What are molds classified as now, anyway?

I'm pretty sure they're fungi.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by Nex
I'm pretty sure they're fungi.

Duh!

It's been too long since I've taken biology :) I forgot fungi were their own group.

What is it, Fungi, Plants, Animals, Protozoa, Eukaryites? Something along those lines?

Found a site :) Animalia, Fungi, Monera, Plantae, Protista. Animals, 'Shrooms, Germs, Plants, and Fancy germs. Got it :)

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Well, it comes from a mold, and many people equate molds and plants...

What are molds classified as now, anyway?

Yikes. "Many people," yes. Scientists? Surely not!

Molds haven't been "plants" for nearly 30 years now. They're fungi.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by flyboy217
Yikes. "Many people," yes. Scientists? Surely not!

Molds haven't been "plants" for nearly 30 years now. They're fungi.

Yeah, I knew they weren't, but couldn't think of what they were. I'm getting old *sigh*.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by Huntsman
Yeah, I knew they weren't, but couldn't think of what they were. I'm getting old *sigh*.

I was more concerned with epepke's post. Sounded quite authoritative... until that. Presumably, he went to school when molds were plants :)

[jambo372]

Praise the Lord - relevant posts !

Flyboy217
originally posted by flyboy217 :
"Moulds haven't been 'plants' for 30 years now. They're fungi."

Yes but Fleming discovered Penicillin in 1928 and it came into medical use in 1941 - both dates well over 30 years ago.
To date the only 'closely related' antibiotics to Penicillins in medical usage which also originated in mould are the Cephalosporins which were also discovered before the classification was changed.
Penicillins are related to antibiotics other than Cephalosporins eg Carbapenems, Monobactams, Cephamycins but these, despite being structurally related to Penicillins originate not in Mould but in strange bacteria which share characteristics with fungi as do most antibiotics.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by jambo372
[B]Praise the Lord - relevant posts !

Flyboy217
originally posted by flyboy217 :
"Moulds haven't been 'plants' for 30 years now. They're fungi."

Yes but Fleming discovered Penicillin in 1928 and it came into medical use in 1941 - both dates well over 30 years ago.


Erm... that was kind of a joke. It's not as though molds jumped from plantae to fungi magically--we just found better ways of classifying them more recently. So penicillin's discovery still had nothing to do with plants.

Either way, I wasn't trying to nitpick. I thought there might be something I wasn't aware of about its discovery.

Edit: interesting how your direct quote of me has an altered spelling ("mold"->"mould")

[jambo372]

I didn't notice I'd changed the spelling - where I come from we spell it with a u.

I was just pointing out to you that Penicillin was discovered some 4-5 decades before the classification was changed meaning that Epepke's plant theory was indeed correct at the actual time.

[flyboy217]

Originally posted by jambo372
I didn't notice I'd changed the spelling - where I come from we spell it with a u.

No harm done. Just pointing out the dangers of not cutting-and-pasting for quotes.


I was just pointing out to you that Penicillin was discovered some 4-5 decades before the classification was changed meaning that Epepke's plant theory was indeed correct at the actual time.

...except that epepke wrote it closer to 4-5 days ago than 4-5 decades ago, so it was wrong at the time of writing.

If we were trying to gather a list of medicines derived from plants, I would think we would want to look at those organisms currently classified as plants rather than those that had at any point been classified as such.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by misawafan
You know, it's one thing to be called a "putrid ignoramus" and even more painful to be called a "hypocrite", but to be called a "professional scientist"? That's taking things way too far...
I know, I know, everything that goes wrong is my fault.

I'M SORRY. I'M REALLY, REALLY SORRY...

Ok, fungi aren't plants. What's more, there's no such thing as reptiles. Or insectivores. Bleedin' cladists...

[misawafan]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I know, I know, everything that goes wrong is my fault.


So you are the reason the coke machine here at work hates me.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by misawafan
So you are the reason the coke machine here at work hates me.
Not personally, but I share the collective moral guilt, yes.

[misawafan]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
I know, I know, everything that goes wrong is my fault.

I'M SORRY. I'M REALLY, REALLY SORRY...

Ok, fungi aren't plants. What's more, there's no such thing as reptiles. Or insectivores. Bleedin' cladists...

Actually, I just noticed that jambo never did accuse you of being a professional scientist - you mentioned it merely in a compare/contrast way to his insults. I was hoping he had called you a professional scientist as a derogatory thing. Sort of steals any humor from my arch little reply to him. I blame the misread to holes in my eyes...

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by jambo372
Praise the Lord - relevant posts !

Flyboy217
originally posted by flyboy217 :


Yes but Fleming discovered Penicillin in 1928 and it came into medical use in 1941 - both dates well over 30 years ago.
To date the only 'closely related' antibiotics to Penicillins in medical usage which also originated in mould are the Cephalosporins which were also discovered before the classification was changed.
Penicillins are related to antibiotics other than Cephalosporins eg Carbapenems, Monobactams, Cephamycins but these, despite being structurally related to Penicillins originate not in Mould but in strange bacteria which share characteristics with fungi as do most antibiotics.

Do please document your information source, you impudent rip-off

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by misawafan
So you are the reason the coke machine here at work hates me.

Funny, the coke machine likes me. Usually you put in a dollar and get a coke. I put in a dollar and get 2 cokes.

[jambo372]

Suezoled
My information source ?
Look it up on google. Penicillin was discovered by Fleming accidentally in 1928 when he took a holiday and came back to find that a neglected culture plate had become contamminated by the mould Penicillium notatum and that the Staphylococcus aureus he'd been growing in the petri dish wouldn't survive near the areas infected with the mould. In 1941 Florey and Chain managed to make the first stable preparation of Penicillin G from the mould but it was reserved to treat infected war wounds as it could only be produced at the time on a very small scale and the unmetabolised penicillin was even recycled from patient's urine for re-use due to this short supply.
The antibiotics I mentioned all have in common that they have a beta-lactam ring however of them only the penicillins and cephalosporins are true products of mould.
Carbapenems are semi-synthetic derivatives of Thienamycin which comes from the soil bacterium Streptomyces cattleya.
Cephamycins are also come from the various species of Streptomyces.
Monobactams are products of another bacterium Chromobacter violaceum.
Most antibiotics are bacterial in origin most coming from actinomycetes eg Chloramphenicol,Tetracyclines,Erythromycin and earlier Aminoglycosides most famously streptomycin all originated in Streptomyces. Vancomycin, Rifamycins and some newly discovered compounds resembling Tetracyclines are products of Amycolatopsis bacteria formerly classified as Nocardia. polymyxins and bacitracin come from Bacillus sp.

Here are some information sources:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/dm28ep.html

http://www.unica.it/~webcontu/brotzu/brotzu3.htm

http://www.drus.com/PDR/Vancocin_HCI_Pulvules.html

http://eduserv.hscer.washington.edu/pharmacy/medchem401/PDF%20files/401 dbl

[jambo372]

Excuse the faulty links.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by jambo372
[B]Suezoled
My information source ?
Look it up on google. (snipped)

No no. Okay, let me use small words:

You say "this is true."
You give an example.
You cite your sources.
So:
You said "this is true."
You need to give credit to sources that help you (it's obvious you can't think of all this yourself. You copied someone.)
No one else does it for others.
You said it, you prove it, you source it.
You you you.
Did I mention You have to uphold your own "this is true" words?
It's not for me to find your sources.
You give them yourself.

*gasps...dang, this babytalk thing is really wearing me out!*

Or you can add willful copyright infringement to all the other sh#tty things you've done.

[jambo372]

I gave you some sources further down that post.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by jambo372
I gave you some sources further down that post.

2 of them pull up nothing
1 requires membership
1 is prose you present as fact. No sources for that prose piece.

[jambo372]

Suezoled
Fine, try this link :

http://helios.bto.ed.ac.uk/bto/microbes/penicill.htm

[jambo372]

ps . not all information in that article is up to date.

[jambo372]

By not up to date I mean the following :

Vancomycin isn't strictly speaking produced by Streptomyces orientalis, it was reclassified as Nocardia orientalis then reclassified again as Amycolatopsis orientalis.

It's the same with Rifamycin - the organism which produces it was changed from Streptomyces mediterranei to Nocardia mediterranei to Amycolatopsis mediterranei to Amycolatopsis rifamycinica.

Not all Tetracyclines come from Streptomyces rimosus some come from Streptomyces aureofaciens.

Florey wasn't actually British - he was Australian, Chain was British but was born in Germany.

It says Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1929 - it was actually discovered by Fleming in 1928.

Other than this the article seems pretty much correct.

[Suezoled]

Man. You really know how to phuck things up, don't you?

Sorry, I have to spend more time with a bunch of lowdown liars and opportunists. Which is to say it's a higher class of person than you seem to be.

[jambo372]

WTF are you on about ?

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372

It says Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming in 1929 - it was actually discovered by Fleming in 1928.


Nope it was discovered by Ernest Duchesne in 1896/1897.

[jambo372]

Ernest Duchesne did discover an antibiotic but it wasn't 'Penicillin' as we know it.

He isolated the substance from Penicillium glaucum ( gorgonzola mould).

Penicillin as we know it today comes from a different type of Penicillium - Penicillium chrysogenum ( formerly Penicillium notatum.)

The 2 substances also showed different properties.
So it wasn't infact Penicillin but a similar substance.

Unfortunately Duchesne's research was forgotten about until Fleming discovered a similar case.

[jambo372]

For example the substance Duchesne isolated was active against Salmonella typhi and E.coli ( both gram negatives ) but Penicillin as we know it has activity almost exclusive to gram-positive bacteria with a few notable exceptions such as the organism which causes Gonorrhoea & Meningococci.

[Eos of the Eons]

Are you copying this from a book?

[jambo372]

No.