RE: Affecting Water

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: Affecting Water

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Affecting Water

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 1:35:57 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You're quoting a press release about a study. I'll simply quote from the actual study...

IOW just like I said the patients thought they felt better and that is what they reported. Their heart disease was not cured or in any way treated.

They just "thought" they felt better? What possesses you to post this kind of shit?

The part of the abstract that you neglected to quote reads:

The long-term beneficial effects of placebo therapy were evaluated in angiogenesis and laser myocardial revascularization trials in patients who had end-stage coronary heart disease. Improvements in mean angina class, exercise treadmill time, and quality of life were mostly maintained at 30 +/- 6 months of follow-up.

That's pretty good for folks with end-stage coronary heart disease who only just "think" they feel better.

K.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 101

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 1:45:04 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You're quoting a press release about a study. I'll simply quote from the actual study...

IOW just like I said the patients thought they felt better and that is what they reported. Their heart disease was not cured or in any way treated.

They just "thought" they felt better? What possesses you to post this kind of shit?

The part of the abstract that you neglected to quote reads:

The long-term beneficial effects of placebo therapy were evaluated in angiogenesis and laser myocardial revascularization trials in patients who had end-stage coronary heart disease. Improvements in mean angina class, exercise treadmill time, and quality of life were mostly maintained at 30 +/- 6 months of follow-up.

That's pretty good for folks with end-stage coronary heart disease who only just "think" they feel better.

K.

Angina class is reported under what conditions the patient reports chest pain. it is self reported.
Quality of life is obvious subjective and self reported.
Exercise treadmill time is the only objective measure and it is still subject to the mental state of the patient.

They literally expected to feel better so that is what they reported. That's why the authors chose to clearly state in the abstract that persistence of effect did not equal efficacy and that double blind studies were essential in this area. They quite clearly did not want anyone to draw the conclusion you have drawn.

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 102

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 1:45:59 PM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

Everyone knows exercise extends life and is great for heart issues. Denying the health benefit of being able to exercise because a person feels better is wrong

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 103

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 1:50:01 PM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/

I recommend reading this, it is from the NIH....

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 104

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 1:58:02 PM

heartcream

Posts: 3044
Joined: 5/9/2007
From: Psychoalphadiscobetabioaquadoloop
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

I think it can contribute to cancer, but genetic and environmental factors are a huge component as well

There is what is termed as genetic inheritance where stuff from great great grandparents, distant relatives can be inherited into the dna because in a sense we share our stuck places from so very long ago. Imprinting is a deep thing and we are all imprinted to believe things which in fact are not as true as we think they are. We all need to sort our stuff out as best we can and if we have folks around whom we can seriously trust they may help us out too.

I do think our twisted sub conscious places have farrrrrr more power than we even take a glancing nod at. It is not simple to get in there and we each have our own unique subjective path which is perfect for each of us. We are complex beings and every single part matters. The emotional is one part and it needs and deserves it's place as does any other part of us.

_____________________________

"Exaggerate the essential, leave the obvious vague." Vincent Van Gogh

I'd Rather Be With You

Every single line means something.
Jean-Michel Basquiat

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 105

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 1:59:06 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Tell me the absolute minimum number of crystals formed by freezing 50 water samples and then I'll continue.

Don't try to sucker me, Ken. If you have evidence that a large number (it was 200, not 50) of 0.5ml samples of water placed in petrie dishes and maintained at -25 to -30 degrees celsius for three hours should reliably produce a greater number of crystals at the peaks of the resulting ice droplets, produce it.

Then you can "continue" -- by establishing that only fraud, not convection, treatment effects, or other variables can explain the result.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 5/15/2011 2:00:20 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 106

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 2:07:33 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

They quite clearly did not want anyone to draw the conclusion you have drawn.

The conclusion I have drawn, and what the study shows, is that they didn't only just "think" they felt better.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 5/15/2011 2:08:17 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 107

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 3:57:16 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Tell me the absolute minimum number of crystals formed by freezing 50 water samples and then I'll continue.

Don't try to sucker me, Ken. If you have evidence that a large number (it was 200, not 50) of 0.5ml samples of water placed in petrie dishes and maintained at -25 to -30 degrees celsius for three hours should reliably produce a greater number of crystals at the peaks of the resulting ice droplets, produce it.

Then you can "continue" -- by establishing that only fraud, not convection, treatment effects, or other variables can explain the result.

K.

What is ice? Ice is crystallized water. Therefore every sample produced a crystal of some sort. If all the sample crystals were not part of the complete experiment it taints the entire process because someone chose which ones to include and which ones to exclude.

Therefore the entire experiment is a failure and since it is so obvious what the correct conditions for a valid experiment are the only conclusion is knowing fraud.

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 108

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 4:01:24 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/

I recommend reading this, it is from the NIH....

That stuy is not from the NiH. It is a study published in an Indian journal. Although I am curious what point you think is made in the paper.

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 109

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 4:15:23 PM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

If you read it you would see that it makes reference to many studies that were done with blind trials.... some of them showing the efficacy of prayer, some that do not show the efficacy of prayer. In the end it comes out a mixed bag. The conclusion is that while scientists have not shown conclusively in every double blind study that prayer has some impact, the mixed results show there is much more that scientists may never be able to explain going on.

If you had read the link, you may have gotten the same information out of it. BTW, I was mistaken about the source, because there are some of the same articles on the NIH site.... Most of the studies referenced for the article come from reputable medical journals that are refereed

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 110

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 5:35:18 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

What is ice? Ice is crystallized water.

Crystals were defined as hexagonal shapes.

See any?

K.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 111

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 6:02:27 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

What is ice? Ice is crystallized water.

Crystals were defined as hexagonal shapes.

See any?

K.

All ice crystals are hexagonal. That is the shape water takes when it crystalizes.

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 112

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 6:09:23 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

If you read it you would see that it makes reference to many studies that were done with blind trials.... some of them showing the efficacy of prayer, some that do not show the efficacy of prayer. In the end it comes out a mixed bag. The conclusion is that while scientists have not shown conclusively in every double blind study that prayer has some impact, the mixed results show there is much more that scientists may never be able to explain going on.

If you had read the link, you may have gotten the same information out of it. BTW, I was mistaken about the source, because there are some of the same articles on the NIH site.... Most of the studies referenced for the article come from reputable medical journals that are refereed

Actually I read the study and had already read a couple of the studies that were referenced and have seen more recent studies on the subject. What the researchers actually concluded was that a review of previous work resulted in no firm conclusion one way or another. In science this is a strong indication that nothing is going on since people tend to bias studies to the positive outcome not the negative. It is the primary function of reviews like this one.

Remember a few years ago when some early results for a prayer study at Duke got a lot of press. Guess what the actual complete study found? Prayer did nothing,
http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/9136

(in reply to juliaoceania)

Post #: 113

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 6:13:47 PM

juliaoceania

Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline

You do understand for a result to be considered accurate it has to be verifiable. If you cannot reproduce a result, you have to do it again. You have to do it again and again until you get a repeatable result... anyways, there were several studies being discussed on the thread that I showed you, intercessory prayer was the one I was least interested in... the one about placebo effect and about the power of spiritual meditation over relaxation were the two studies I found most interesting... and the most supportive of my points on this thread

_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 114

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 6:27:59 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

All ice crystals are hexagonal. That is the shape water takes when it crystalizes.

The fact that ice has a not visually apparent hexagonal crystalline structure at the molecular level does not suffice to support this bizarre notion of yours that there is no basis for distinguishing between smooth solid ice and macroscopic crystals that elaborate a visually apparent hexagonal structure.

K.

< Message edited by Kirata -- 5/15/2011 6:42:24 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 115

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 8:12:26 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

All ice crystals are hexagonal. That is the shape water takes when it crystalizes.

The fact that ice has a not visually apparent hexagonal crystalline structure at the molecular level does not suffice to support this bizarre notion of yours that there is no basis for distinguishing between smooth solid ice and macroscopic crystals that elaborate a visually apparent hexagonal structure.

K.

Consider very carefully, if the samples were prepared and handled identically why so few crystals? I'm no expert and I'm certain I could produce multiple identifiable crystals (with 100x and 200x magnification available like they used) from each of 50 samples given the environment and equipment they report using.

probably the simplest method would not involve much work at all. Simply chill a sheet of metal to well below 0. Then pour each sample across it. wait a few minutes. Photograph a few spots with clearly visible frost. clean surface rechill and repeat.

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 116

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 8:39:11 PM

Kirata

Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Consider very carefully, if the samples were prepared and handled identically why so few crystals? I'm no expert and I'm certain I could produce multiple identifiable crystals (with 100x and 200x magnification available like they used) from each of 50 samples given the environment and equipment they report using.

probably the simplest method would not involve much work at all. Simply chill a sheet of metal to well below 0. Then pour each sample across it. wait a few minutes. Photograph a few spots with clearly visible frost. clean surface rechill and repeat.

Well in all fairness, your idea sounds like a good one. But as you say, 'consider very carefully' that that's NOT the procedure they employed. Instead, they placed single ~0.5ml drops in the middle of room temperature petrie dishes and then placed them in a freezer. The fact that a better procedure would have more produced more crystals is irrelevant.

K.

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 117

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 8:52:06 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Consider very carefully, if the samples were prepared and handled identically why so few crystals? I'm no expert and I'm certain I could produce multiple identifiable crystals (with 100x and 200x magnification available like they used) from each of 50 samples given the environment and equipment they report using.

probably the simplest method would not involve much work at all. Simply chill a sheet of metal to well below 0. Then pour each sample across it. wait a few minutes. Photograph a few spots with clearly visible frost. clean surface rechill and repeat.

Well in all fairness, your idea sounds like a good one. But as you say, 'consider very carefully' that that's NOT the procedure they employed. Instead, they placed single ~0.5ml drops in the middle of room temperature petrie dishes and then placed them in a freezer. The fact that a better procedure would have more produced more crystals is irrelevant.

K.

It is very relevant in considering the study. Bad protocols produce bad results. the numerous flaws in the double blind protocol as well as the flaws in the actual conduct of the experiment render its results useless even if you do not believe the design of the experiment was to insert bias, which is what most skeptics who have looked at these claims believe.
http://www.sciencepunk.com/2006/10/masaru-emoto/

(in reply to Kirata)

Post #: 118

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 9:05:03 PM

heartcream

Posts: 3044
Joined: 5/9/2007
From: Psychoalphadiscobetabioaquadoloop
Status: offline

I like this part of the link DK proided above:

"Just like Emoto, I see absolutely no sources cited or credible information used to support claims such as “…is a crackpot.”
Umm, talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Where’s the objectivity? Isn’t this supposed to be a scientific site?
Piss poor writing, regardless of the validity of Emoto’s claim"

_____________________________

"Exaggerate the essential, leave the obvious vague." Vincent Van Gogh

I'd Rather Be With You

Every single line means something.
Jean-Michel Basquiat

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 119

RE: Affecting Water - 5/15/2011 9:08:42 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

uhh its a blog post not a research paper or encyclopedia entry.

(in reply to heartcream)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Affecting Water

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.094