From: Rich on

"Researcher" <ital1(a)boursorama.com> wrote in message
news:1133891259.898577.181540(a)g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> I have seen you talking for while about scientific research into Hulda
>> Clarks claims. I'd like to point out to you that what you are doing does
>> not even remotely resemble 'scientific testing'.
>
> So are you ready for a REAL scientific discussion ? Can you answer all
> the questions I've asked since the beginning of this thread ? So are
> you ok for answering to these ?
> Since now, NOBODY in this thread has had a scientific approach... All
> that you say has not any proof.
>
>
>>As a matter of fact,
>> this sort of 'testing' has kept ineffective and sometimes even dangerous
>> treatments (like bloodletting) alive in the past and some even today.
>
> Ok... I believe that what you say can be real. So... Please, GIVE ME
> THE EMAIL ADDRESS OR CONTACTS OF THESE PEOPLE WHO HAD BLOODLETTING
> BECAUSE OF USING THE ZAPPER... GIVE ONLY ONE AND I'LL CONTACT THEM.
> THEN I'LL GET SOME DATA FROM A REAL PEOPLE WHO TRIED IT.

Ahem, you are shouting again. JohnDoe did not say that anyone "had
bloodletting because of using the zapper." What he is saying is that relying
on self-report of results, i.e.: testimonials, can result in ineffective
products and procedures (such as bloodletting,) being practiced over an
extended period of time before their worthlessness and danger is discovered.


>
> Please describe how the bloodletting came... How long have the zapper
> been used ? By whom ? When ? What kind of bloodletting... In which
> country ? Which people ? Have you got photos of bloodletting caused by
> a zapper ? Can you tell us why a 5V positive offset voltage can cause
> bloodletting ? There should be scientifical data on that, isn't there ?

Again, the zapper has nothing to do with bloodletting. Bloodletting was just
given as an example of a useless, harmful practise that was perpetuated by
faulty "science"


>
>
>> It has been pointed out to you before, but I'll just do it again: there
>> is no scientific basis whatsoever for Clark's claims. None. Nobody but
>> her is able to find liverstones and liverflukes everywhere. Nobody.
>> There is not even a fringe scientific theory that could form the basis
>> for the zapper, none, nowhere. There are no scientifically validated
>> reports of anyone ever being cured of anyhting with the zapper, just
>> stories like yours, which aren't scientific.
>
> So... Can you tell us precisely what is not scientific or what is
> scientific in Hulda Clark's claims... Stop shooting in the dark (I tell
> you that but also to the other ones -the kids-) and tell us precisely
> what seems strange or not in her book...

Okay, we'll begin at the absolute beginning, with the title(s) of her
book(s). "The Cure for All . . ." is unscientific in the extreme. To support
the claim that she has a cure for ALL, she would have to provide scientific
evidence for each and every, a Herculean feat so daunting that she has not
even attempted it. She does keep the title, though, echoing it is subsequent
books.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/


From: Tim Campbell on

Peter Moran wrote:

> Nothing has been more repeatedly proven in medical science than
> that sham treatments or sugar pills can produce the results you describe in
> up to 50% of people with subjective complaints (i.e. perceived symptoms as
> opposed to objectively measurable aspects of disease) or self-limiting
> ailments. So you are wise to be wary.
>

Of those I have spoken with who have tried the Zapper far more than 50%
report positive results; the majority do.

At some point along the way anecdotal reports become data.

As Lee Cowden, M.D. observes: "The anecdotal reports of one million
Chinese IS data."

From: Mark Probert on
Tim Campbell wrote:
> Peter Moran wrote:
>
> > Nothing has been more repeatedly proven in medical science than
>
>>that sham treatments or sugar pills can produce the results you describe in
>>up to 50% of people with subjective complaints (i.e. perceived symptoms as
>>opposed to objectively measurable aspects of disease) or self-limiting
>>ailments. So you are wise to be wary.
>>
>
>
> Of those I have spoken with who have tried the Zapper far more than 50%
> report positive results; the majority do.

That is because they believed that the gizmo would do something. Your
cohort is poorly chosen.

>
> At some point along the way anecdotal reports become data.

Yes, and in your case, the data says your cohort stinks.

>
> As Lee Cowden, M.D. observes: "The anecdotal reports of one million
> Chinese IS data."
>
From: Tim Campbell on

Mark Probert wrote:
> >
> > At some point along the way anecdotal reports become data.
>
> Yes, and in your case, the data says your cohort stinks.
>

Mark...I'm tellin' ya, you really should be doing stand-up...

From: Tim Campbell on


Mark Probert wrote:

> >
> > Of those I have spoken with who have tried the Zapper far more than 50%
> > report positive results; the majority do.
>
> That is because they believed that the gizmo would do something.


I'm still waiting for you to present the evidence that the placebo
effect is repeatedly demonstrable.