OT: How to debunk just about everything



"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, It doesn't.

I never said it does but you simply don't know if it works or not.

> > > > There could be other stuff that maybe be giving results, such as the
> > herbs
> > > > she's using etc.
> > >
> > > You appear to be laboring under the mistaken assumption that Hulda is actually getting results
> > > with her "treatment." There is no evidence
that
> > > she is.
> >
> > Then why is she quoting it then and people quoting that she cured them?
>
> Anecdotal evidence and testimonials. Do I have to explain it to you again?
>
>
> > Are you saying that they are all liars cheats and dispicable people or
just
> > plain ignorant?
>
> No, I'm saying that Hulda is a quack. None of the "evidence" in her book proves her "treatment"
> does what it claims.

Well in her books she shows shrinking tumours, but no long term follow ups. Anth

> [Snip]
>
> --
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |
> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:

> OK, how does this sound: "Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet theories
> shot down in flames by warm, fuzzy reality."

The human side of reality is warm and fuzzy. Physics would be cold and hard, until you get to the
subatomic scale, which would be cold and fuzzy. Sociology and economics would be warm and hard.
Meteorology is pretty fuzzy.

The shooting down part is what I have a problem with. Questioning, yes; blasting people, no.
 
"hotmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:
>
> > OK, how does this sound: "Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet
theories
> > shot down in flames by warm, fuzzy reality."
>
> The human side of reality is warm and fuzzy. Physics would be cold and hard, until you get to the
> subatomic scale, which would be cold and fuzzy. Sociology and economics would be warm and hard.
> Meteorology is pretty fuzzy.
>
> The shooting down part is what I have a problem with. Questioning, yes; blasting people, no.

I have no interest in "blasting people." Blasting silly health theories based on impossible theories
of anatomy and physiology, and defending against gratuitous attacks on the scientific approach to
knowledge about nature and the universe is fair game.

--Rich
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Rich Shewmaker" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "hotmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

> > The shooting down part is what I have a problem with. Questioning, yes; blasting people, no.
>
> I have no interest in "blasting people." Blasting silly health theories based on impossible
> theories of anatomy and physiology, and defending against gratuitous attacks on the scientific
> approach to knowledge about nature and the universe is fair game.

Indeed. The problem is, alties can't always seem to tell the difference.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
"Anth" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:eek:rac-
> [email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, It doesn't.
>
> I never said it does but you simply don't know if it works or not.

I know that the odds that it might actually work are so small as to be essentially zero, you know,
the way the reciprocal of infinity is zero.

> > > > > There could be other stuff that maybe be giving results, such as the
> > > herbs
> > > > > she's using etc.
> > > >
> > > > You appear to be laboring under the mistaken assumption that Hulda is actually getting
> > > > results with her "treatment." There is no evidence
> that
> > > > she is.
> > >
> > > Then why is she quoting it then and people quoting that she cured them?
> >
> > Anecdotal evidence and testimonials. Do I have to explain it to you again?
> >
> >
> > > Are you saying that they are all liars cheats and dispicable people or
> just
> > > plain ignorant?
> >
> > No, I'm saying that Hulda is a quack. None of the "evidence" in her book proves her "treatment"
> > does what it claims.
>
> Well in her books she shows shrinking tumours, but no long term follow ups.

She doesn't even really show that. Indeed, analyses of some of her books conclude that many of her
patients probably didn't even have cancer in the first place. Hulda claimed to have "cured"
103/138 patients. (Conveniently, the ones who weren't "cured" were reported not to have followed
her treatment plan completely.) However, many of these patients didn't even have cancer. Their
cancer was "diagnosed" by one of Hulda's devices, her "syncronometer" or her "ortho-phospho-
tyrosine" test. In
59/103 patients, there was no report of any medical test that would support a diagnosis of cancer.
They were diagnosed only by her "tests." Of the ones who actually did have cancer, nearly all of
them had undergone conventional treatment and most of them had early stage tumors that were quite
treatable with conventional medicine.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"hotmoon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:
>
> > OK, how does this sound: "Most of us involved in a science related area have seen our pet
theories
> > shot down in flames by warm, fuzzy reality."
>
> The human side of reality is warm and fuzzy. Physics would be cold and hard, until you get to the
> subatomic scale, which would be cold and fuzzy. Sociology and economics would be warm and hard.
> Meteorology is pretty fuzzy.
>
> The shooting down part is what I have a problem with. Questioning, yes; blasting people, no.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that my theories have been shot down and trashed by
other people. In fact, that is not the case. Other people are usually too nice and polite to
question my theories. Where they get shot down is when I test them. This is where I pit my thoughts
and ideas against reality, and it is quite common to find that reality has some nasty suprises
waiting. So, I question. Reality does the blasting. If I refused to listen to all the knockers (of
which there are not too many in my circle of friends) I would still have to recon with reality. The
universe is how it is. The laws of physics, chemistry and medicine are how they are. No amount of
belly aching or *****ing about 'coldness' or 'hardness' or 'left-brain-ness' is going to change
this. I accept this, and so do most of the skeptics on this NG. Ulitmately, only the truth can set
you free, no matter how cold and hard it
is.Only knowing how the world works, free from any fantisies or crazy notions, can actually give you
any chance of curing diseases or controling your own destiny.

--
"The emperor is naked!"
"No he isn't, he's merely endorsing a clothing-optional lifestyle!"

to email me
Please remove "all your clothes"

Doug