Originally posted by Kokatsi
Please re-read my sentence, Bedlam. In your haste, you understood the opposite of what I said.
I said sinus pathogens were cleared when I could FEEL the current going through my head, not the other way around!
No, I understood you. A dramatic placebo with a bad taste, a weird sensation, or some tangible side effect (like, for example, giving you some Niacin)
typically has a stronger result than one that doesn't "do" anything.
This is not a logical problem. I have a background in linguistics and logic. Western science has advanced as an EMPIRICAL path. That is, you first
have a phenomenon, like bacteria showing up together with certain symptoms, THEN you try to explain it with a hypothesis, which, after much
experimentation and theorizing can be accepted by mainstream science. This is how all advances were done by scientists like Koch and doctors like
If you exclude experimentation protocol because your current theory disallows it, you are a closed minded opponent of scientific progress.
Again, with physics it may be different, but medical and healing sciences are EMPIRICAL professions.
However, when your putative healer states "these long wave radio signals are totally selective in narrow ranges of frequencies for exact strains of
bacteria because all bacteria have golden magic resonances" or the like, and there IS no way that that happens, then you have to wonder about the
research. That's why you do double blinded testing outside of a partisan group, otherwise you get Tobacco Institute or CSPI studies. It also helps if
the testing is done by a group that does that sort of research, with skilled researchers that can do a proper design of experiment, to keep the
variables down to one as far as possible and eliminate bad test design by reducing confounders and bad assumptions such as confusing correlation with
It's generally why you don't have BS level guys doing experiment design. It's not that easy.
It's also a good idea in the case where you've got a Keely-ish guy with the magic microscope, just sayin'.
To this day we do not know how certain treatments work accepted by mainstream medical science. We have HYPOTHESES about them.
If you exclude hypotheses merely based on the limitations of your theory, you are not advancing science.
Ah, but we know a lot of them, and newer treatments are being sought by first understanding the effect you want and then designing something to do
that instead of, say, culturing wild fungi and seeing which ones kill bacteria. Not that that's a bad way to do it, but even in that case we know
what's going on, in many cases.
I know that. I also know he is a devout Christian, which is just as unscientific. However, he and a lot of his correspondents experimented with
post-Rife technologes and there are empirical results.
Empirical evidence suggests that RF waves as well as certain electric currents do kill pathogens without harming the host human. Rife had a hypothesis
that certain frequencies kill certain pathogens because he has seen that happen in his lab.
Cell cultures or Petri dishes in a lab are immune to suggestion and the placebo effect - unless you are a hard-core esotericist.
The intent of double blinding is also to eliminate experimenter bias, either in application of the 'treatment' or in evaluation of the results.
Something I'm rather sure exists in Adachi's 'researchers'. The other thing I'd expect is that their experiments have a lot of bad controls,
small sample sets and confounders they're not dealing with.
How many reputably published double-blind studies ever successfully demonstrated the success of either Rife or Clark's (or Drown's homo-vibro
machine, or whatever)?
If large wavelengths happen to kill certain pathogens, and we cannot explain it - so be it, let us proceed with trying to understand what is happening
in detail. Mere armchair theories cannot help. Healing is a practical issue.
I'm sure that's been said by every guy that's selling Dr Nature's Patented Wigwam Oil. Look, if you state that doing Morris dance with bells on
kills E. Coli, but with hankies doesn't, great, but then the research should go away from you into someplace that can replicate it properly. And when
it fails to do so, it ought to end there instead of the proponent squealing about men in black stealing his magic Morris bells that only he can
How on earth would Pasteur react to such an illogical attitude?
It is OK to personally dislike anything that is has not yet been proven completely and accepted by the mainstream medical community. But then you have
probably nothing worthwhile to say on any experimental therapies.
Pasteur kept records and his results were replicable. He didn't have magic Pasteurization that only worked when he ran the machine in his lab and
kept the samples in his storage.
He published the details of what needed to be done to effect his methods. And then put them into action, not with himself at the magic controls that
no-one else could run, but in a production environment that was run by workers trained to do them.
Pasteur would spit on Rife, IMHO.
I think experimental therapies are interesting. If it involves something that has radionics attached to it, or dowsing, or Reiki, or telepathy,
fairies, orgone, or the magical piano playin' finger bones of St Cecilia, I'll be honest with you, it'll have to be astoundingly well replicated
many many times by someone I'd have faith in.
edit: and by 'faith' I mean trust that they know how to carry out a proper experiment and aren't affiliated in some way with the original
[edit on 22-6-2010 by Bedlam]