The Power of Magnets to heal - my personal story...

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Agartha

It seems to come down to the power of belief essentially.

Research suggests that for psychological reasons, some placebos are more effective than others. Large pills seem to work better than small pills, colored pills work better than white pills, an injection is more powerful than a pill, and surgery gives a stronger placebo effect than injections do.[28]

wiki

Judging by the above quote it would seem the more one believes they are getting "the real deal" cure the better the effect... It's fascinating stuff really! It's also worth pointing out that this means so much dis-ease could also be due to the same effect to start with...

Fascinating indeed but still all speculation, exactly how it works and why has not been explained. We'll just have to wait for the peer reviewed studies.

a reply to: Agartha

Fascinating indeed but still all speculation, exactly how it works and why has not been explained. We'll just have to wait for the peer reviewed studies.

Considering how long the the placebo effect has been known about and documented, I would have hoped there might have been some peer reviewed studies done by now. Pfft...

Never mind though eh? It's all in our heads anyway..

heh...well, something interesting I read today, thanks to some other ats threads.

this is ats thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

this is the link to the article, which is discussing science and its views.
freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com...

basically, an article why science is a religion. And it is also connected to magnets and electromagnetism so it seems appropriate to put this here.
It is connected with what I was saying in here before, that modern science does not yet realize real nature of reality (aka. reality of subtle energies) and therefore does not accept real value of magnets or other alternative treatments.

well each one of us is entitled to an opinion and to think whatever we want...but it seems if you are in need of medical treatment and modern medicine does not seem to help much, it does not hurt to consider alternatives, well sometimes, not all the time!

a reply to: UniFinity

So you've managed to find some cranky blog that's got all butthurt because their magical beliefs weren't validated by science?

Ok.

a reply to: GetHyped

in my opinion, science has its own share of magic and validation.
copied right from the article, Terrence McKenna quote:

Modern science is based on the principle: ‘Give us one free miracle, and we’ll explain the rest.’ The one free miracle is the appearance of all the mass and energy in the universe and all the laws that govern it in a single instant from nothing.

heh, going by that, it seems to me, we all like to be "blind believers" in some shape or form to some degree.

well, anyway...be that as it may.
we can agree to disagree and still be friends and I will leave it at that.
thanks for an opinion.

Well done to Dr Fanelli for such literature review, as it has highlighted that 2% of scientists do fake data.

And you conveniently leave out the very significant "... and up to 34% admit to other questionable research practices ..."

The most extraordinary thing about this study is the fact that it even exists at all.

Here is the final sentence that you only partially referenced (wonder why - rhetorical question):

"However, it is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this."

I would just modify that a little - it really should read:

However, it is likely that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct is likely to be much higher than this.

I am not surprised, scientists are people too and not all of them are honest. Luckily for us, before anything this scientists have discovered is released to the public, they have to go through replication several times by other scientists,

Excuse me?? Have to?? I think you are confused. To the best of my knowledge there is no requirement (legal or otherwise) that anyone's work must be replicated before being reported on.

which is why I believe in science, as it is continually analyzed by third parties.

Riiiiiiight... this is just as untrue as the claim that just because the source for open source software is freely available, that there are millions - or thousands, or hundreds, or dozens, or even 5 - watchful eyes looking out for bugs and/or security holes (malicious or not)...

I'm glad Dr Fanelli made it public, as now the scientific community has begun to consider solutions. That's the beauty of science: it doesn't mind being challenged as it gets better when it is.
www.popsci.com...

Oh, sure, and our wonderful federal government is going to clean up its act after the very thorough Grace Commission Report that outlined a huge amount of the waste, but also how to clean it up.

So, how's that going?

You said:
Reproductive cells have been created

I said:
By whom - or what?

You said:
Created by the body.

How? Why?

I said:
If you can't answer that, then according to your own standard, you cannot believe it until you can answer it definitely, especially not unless/until it is proven by a PCRDB study.

You said:
I just did.

No, you didn't, you are engaging in false logic, and pretending otherwise.

I said:
And who (or what) created the body in the first place, and then defined these roles, and then provided for the mechanisms for these mysterious actions you are describing?

You said:
Evolution. Should I explain what that is, and don't fret, it is not mysterious.

Actually, yes it is... while I am not a believer in 'creationism', there are way too many holes in the theory of evolution to even begin to believe that it has all of the answers. It doesn't. I'm just honest enough to admit it, and that I don't really know.

I said:
Of course it is, for me. But I'm wondering why it is for you, since it doesn't meet the exact same standard you are demanding for anything that falls outside your comfort zone.

You said:
You are spending so much time talking about me and other stuff and are yet to show me any evidence about your magnets working.

I already provided all of the evidence I had. As I have repeatedly stated, I did not make this post as if it was supposed to be a formal scientific study. What I did do is provide very strong anecdotal evidence of cause and effect.

I said:
But this just illustrates my point: in a thousand years, they will laugh at and ridicule your so called 'rigorous standards', just as you do those of a thousand years ago.

You said:
Ah, we can also predict the future now, eh?
lol

Yeah, when you can't answer an argument logically, fall back to attempts to misdirect (in this case through ridicule).

I said:
Really? According to the link I provided earlier:
"Survival Rates According to the American Cancer Society, for all stages of pancreatic cancer combined, the one-year relative survival rate is 20%, and the five-year rate is 6%."

You said:
Funny how your own link back up what I said. Here:

These low survival rates are attributable to the fact that fewer than 20% of patients' tumors are confined to the pancreas at the time of diagnosis; in most cases, the malignancy has already progressed to the point where surgical removal is impossible.

It doesn't matter why, it only matters that the survival rates are extremely low. Anyone who claims otherwise is merely guessing.

I said:
This specifically contradicts your claim, and like I said - it is a pretty lousy success rate.

You said:
Nope, it backs up my statement, read again: only a small proportion of pancreatic cancers are diagnosed early whilst still in the pancreas (have not metastasized to the rest of the body). This is why you should leave the promotion of medical treatments for those who understand what they are talking about.

You mean those who are over-educated to the point they are able to make grand sounding claims using impressive sounding words, that all comes down to 'we really believe that if we could detect these cancers early enough, we could cure them all.' - sorry, it just isn't true. Modern medicine has gotten better and better at early detection, and what has that gotten us? More and more people who survive past the 5 year 'statistical cure' mark - meaning, anyone who dies of cancer (or the treatment) one day after the 5 years remains in the camp of being a statistical cure.

I said:
I'm getting tired of doing your work for you...
Here is one link... google for others.

You said:
The Daily Mail? You are joking, right? The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper that reports rubbish all the time.

And the NYT doesn't? Seriously, why not comment on the content?

And even if it was serious, why should we believe one man who claims to be a doctor?

It is, but you obviously didn't bother to read it - it wasn't written by one doctor, it was a story about a number of different doctors from different practices and co

I am not that gullible.

You have to actually read or hear content to even be a candidate for 'gullible'.

I said:
You can say anything you like, but that doesn't make it true.

You said:
It's not me saying it, it's his own autobiography:
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8841347/Steve-Jobs-regretted-trying-to-beat-cancer-with-alternative-medicine-for-so-long.html]LINK[/u rl]

I didn't say he didn't regret it, I said there is no way to know what would have happened.

If you bothered to actually read the article, the pertinent part reads:

"Some cancer experts have said that Mr Jobs may have extended his life or even survived..."

MAY have...

He may have died much sooner, too.

Now what about going back to your magnetic cure? Shouldn't we be discussing that?

Thats on you...

People interested in this thread might be interested in First in Israel: Surgery that Removes Shaking due to Parkinson's Disease about a procedure using an MRI machine, a helmet, and ultrasound.

a reply to: tanstaafl

I'm very curious - as far I know, this is the 'placebo effect' - meaning, the Placebo effect is caused by the expectation of the subject...

I totally get what your saying, however the way I understand it is that the Placebo works on your unconscious level, that is it's subliminal, as with what I believe is now 'illegal' subliminal advertising, it works without you consciously being aware it will. Having said that it does depend on a persons susceptibility to suggestion I would have thought?

Regardless the power of the mind and unconscious mind, or just being 'mindful' can have phenomenal effects on health and well being it would seem.

originally posted by: surfer_soulRegardless the power of the mind and unconscious mind, or just being 'mindful' can have phenomenal effects on health and well being it would seem.

No idea how or why, but I totally agree... an interesting book on this is 'Anatomy of an Illness' by Norman Cousins, whose life story is very interesting in and of itself, as he always believed in the power of the mind and emotions to heal the body. Contrary to the overly simplified version of his story though, he not only 'laughed' himself well, but he also took massive doses of intravenous vitamin C (one of the things on my list if I were to ever be diagnosed)...

a reply to: tanstaafl

Pretty amazing, good thing you went to that Health Expo in Atlanta

a reply to: tanstaafl

I'll go all out with what I consider rings true, and that is the mind has the ability to control and direct the body's energy/lifeforce, Chi or Prana whatever you choose to call it, and that is the true healing mechanism, chemistry is the secondary part of it, but also essential in the body/minds health.

As you recommended me a read I haven't heard of, thanks if your not familiar already with this lecture by Manly P Hall I recommend you have a listen. he's quite elderly in this lecture and the audio recording is poor, but what he has to say is golden..