Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Dutch psychic Jomanda & Breastimplants: The True Story

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    FE30033 wrote:
    Thus you agree it was your fantasy.

    I said it was no more fantasy than your claims that she can heal, given that both can be argued to have an equivalent amount of fact behind them.

    If you think this means I agree my assertion was fantasy, you implicitly accept that your healing claims also are.

    If you think your healing claims are not fantasy, despite the lack of evidence, then your argument about my claims being fantasy due to their lack of support is either farcical or hypocritical.

    As for your links about claims...PEAR are not a suitable authority to offer "proof" of their own beliefs.
    James Randi is not a reliable option, which would provide reliable scientific evidence, according to some people
    Why not?

    The only reason he seems unreliable to me is that he's refuted claim after claim after claim. Obviously claimants will see this as unreliability - they believe they're genuine, so they will be of the opinion that he must be cheating or wilfully setting them up to knock them down.

    Of course, they aren't qualified to act as neutral judges in the matter. A bit like one shouldn't trust believers in paranormal activity (e.g. PEAR) to act as their own judge and jury when it comes to asserting that they've proven the existence of certain abilities typically classed as paranormal. They're neither indepdant nor unbiased.

    However, Randi's reliability is still only a smoke-screen from my perspective. Its still a criticism of the man rather than of his challenge. The legally binding conditions of the challenge are publically available. Whether Randi is personally reliable or not should therefore no longer be an issue as his methodology in the case of this test is hard to fault, hasn't been faulted by yourself and is legally binding. The only details to be negotiated "post acceptance" are the specifics of the double-blind test.

    Why is this so unacceptable? All you've done is comment on Randi, not on the test he's offered. Indeed, why not encourage Jomanda to accept Randi's test on the proviso that Randi himself is not involved in any step of the process.
    Jomanda has been asking for testing for 30 years
    Randi is offering it. You suggest that Jomanda doesn't even know that Randi is offering it (as you maintain that the suggestion she's refused his offer is fantasy) which begs the question as to just how hard she's really trying to be tested.

    Its also noteworthy that despite being able to fund quite an impressive amount of stuff, she can't afford to pay for a simple double-blind test by an independant, respected third party herself.

    Sure, one can argue that the onus isn't on her to prove her own claims, but the reality is that it is.

    If you, as a drug company, claim to have a new super-drug, you don't get to hand it over to someone else and say "test that for me". You don't get to sell the drug on the open market on the grounds that you've asked others to test it and they've refused, but you believe its good so thats ok. Instead, you fund your own testing, carry it out in accordance with strict, controllable, verifiable standards, and then when you've met the standard of proof your claims are accepted as valid in the absence of someone else choosing to do their research to challenge your claim. Failing that, you strike a business deal with someone to fund your testing in exchange for a cut of the profits.

    Thats how the system works.

    You seem to be suggesting that in the case of Jomanda, it should work otherwise - that she should be accepted, or that someone else should pay for the testing and that this someone else has to be someone who meets trustworthy by your (unclarified) standards. And in the absence of someone trustworthy offering to do your testing at their cost, then we go back to the alternate option of "we should take her at her word".

    You can decry the system all you want, but Jomanda is being treated no differently to the latest miracle-drug. It doesn't work until its proven to work, and work safely, in accordance with predefined standards of testing, carried out at the expense of the claimant or someone supporting their cause. Treating Jomanda equally in this way is only perfectly fair.

    Ragarding Borst, you say : It would help if he as a start would contact Jomanda about it. I agree. It would help. However, his not contacting her is irrelevant to the question of verification. Borst has not been elected the world's voice on matters scientific, so his silence has absolutely no impact on anything in this regard. Arguing that it is significant is like saying a broken clock suggests our theory of time is wrong.
    Borst himself spoke in his column in Dutch newspaper 'NRCHandelsblad about a "simple test".(6 March 2004)
    And?

    I can say "I have a simple test to prove the existence of God", but it doesn't actually mean anything.

    If Borst didn't outline the details of this test, so that it can be independantly verified, then the possibility remains that he has no such test. If he did outline the details of the test, then that is what is important, not this sound-bite claim.

    See - this is how skepticism works. I'm as skeptical of Borst's claims as I am of Jomandas. Just because you say he's a quackbuster doesn't mean that he is, nor does it say anything about his quality as one. I'm not going to back him because he's allegedly "on my side" in this affair.

    Furthermore, researching Borst does not provide a wealth of information about his successful quackbusting. In fact, I can find no references anywhere about same. Has he ever actually done any? Or does he simply make media pronouncements about people being quacks?

    Its not critical to my argument, for even were he the best in the world, his silence still wouldn't be conclusive and thus - by your own line of reasoning and wording - drawing conclusions as to why he is silent would be fantasy. However, the less competent he is as a quackbuster, the less significant his refusal to carry out on his own challenges are.

    What is noteworthy, however, is that you've made it quite clear that you don't hold Borst in any high regard, but believe that he would be a worthy tester, where Randi wouldn't because you don't hold him in high regard.

    jc


  • Options
    #33
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    FE30033 wrote:
    Speaking of questioning the person/messenger and not the message:

    ...

    HOW MUCH MONEY JOMANDA MAKES ?
    - CONFIRMED IN COURT OF LAW: SILICONE BREASTIMPLANTS HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED ON HUMAN-BEINGS !
    - THE SAFETY OF SILICONE BREASTIMPLANTS HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN BY THE MANUFACTURERS
    - FROM US-STUDIES ON MICE AND DOGS IT WAS SHOWN SILICONEIMPLANTS CAUSE CANCER
    - THOUSANDS OF WOMEN AS GUINEAPIGS !?

    WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE !!!: EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE A FAIRYTALE ?

    How are those points are relevant to the question bolded above it?


  • Options
    #34
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    FE30033 wrote:
    I told you specifically that no scientific research has been done on Jomanda


    And yet you post it in the Skeptics Forum? That, imo, is asking for trouble. Here they deal with research, facts and science. I think maybe you should have posted it in Spirituality or Paranormal.

    So can I just check something? This chick has been asking for someone to research and validate her claims for 30 years? Why, if she claims such a high sucess rate, would people not want to do research on her?


  • Options
    #35
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    FE30033 wrote:
    That's your problem.

    sorry but it isnt! YOU claimed that the evidence whas ther and when asked for it you dont show where it is!

    Loook frank, let us say I claim 500 people are killed a year on Dutch roads and that the Dutch department of transport Annual report says that is true. Say you ask me "that isnt good enough where is the reopet and where in the report doe sit say that" . It isnt good enough for me to say "It is in the report"

    so where does it say Jomanda has paranormal powers? What doctors? what research specifically says that?
    because you are well, very well aware, that the scientific evidence what you are asking for is in fact an unreality, a fantasy,

    I am not aware of any claims being verified if you havent backed them up! YOU claimed Jomanda had powers and that scientists e.g. PEAR had confirmed that.
    So WHERE does PEAR confirm that?
    #(1)# Do you really actually 'believe' that Jomanda would put in her book that someone was cured from throatcancer (see first posting) if it were untrue ? Yes or no ?

    what I believe does not matter. I am not making the claims about her. You are! And putting a claim in a book is not proof of whether it happened or not. It is just argument from assumed authority. Even if she has paranormal poewers putting it in a book does not make it true and even if everyone in the world believes she has powers does not mean she has them.
    Where is the EVIDENCE for her powers?
    #(2)# Would YOU put in a book that someone got cured from throatcancer while knowing that the whole of the Netherlands (media, politicians, quackbusters, regular medicine, milllions of people) are breathing down you neck to take you down at the slightest mistake ? Yes or no ?

    what I would do is beside the point. But if you mean would "one" do it it is clear that in the past this is exactly what charalatans have done! As I stated putting it in a book or stating it in public has no bearing on whether it is true or not! where is the evidence you claim to have?
    - [Sonja]-"Are you also sure that that brother is cured ?" - [Jomanda]-"yes, yes, the prove is all there, of course, otherwise you would not put it in a book, those people went to the doctor, everything is checked"

    what is the source of this exchange (which in itself is opinion and not evidence) ?
    - [Jomanda]-"Yes, but I can back it up, but for that you do need the co-operation of the doctors and from the people themselves[/u]"
    - JOMANDA: PROOF OF MIRACLES - ( source - bco AVRO, Tv-programme '10 Lastige Vragen', 2 april 2002, Pieter-Jan Hagens )
    I have no idea this programme ever existed. Can you show anything from the TV channels web site?
    Can you produce three prople (who do not believe Jomanda has powers) who will attest that the programme was aired on that date?

    As regards being evidence this is just someone claiming thhat they have powers. It isnt any sort of proof. "i saw it on TV" isn't really proof is it? I saw the statue of Liberty disappear on TV. Do you believe it really happened? Millions of people saw it happening. dont you believe them?
    [ PJH ] - Jomanda, has one of your miracles ever been confirmed or proved by regular medical researches ? [ Jomanda]-"Yes, they all lay at home. But one does not come to look at it."

    this isnt evidence at all! It is just someone claiming that evidence exists. the same as you have done! where is the actual confirmed medical evidence Jomanda claims which shows she has curative powers?
    Where's the evidence ?
    REGULAR TREATMENT NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY I
    ( source - magazine Vruchtbare Aarde,nr.5/6, 2000 ) - "An American surgeon ...snip

    How is the above any evidence of Jomanda curing anything?
    TREATMENT NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY II
    ( source - Trimbos institution http://www.trimbos.nl/default37.html , Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction ) - Pressrelease

    A PRESS RELEASE in not evidence. I could release any hokum to the press tomorrow!
    ...7000 adults were examined on the prevention of depression, the impact of treatment with or without, and the change in the situation after a year. After a year 85% of the people who were not treated had no more depression.

    what has this to do with Jomanda?
    Results from the Netherlands Mental Health survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia 2001, 103, pp 19-24]

    where can one get this survey? have you actually read it or did you just cut and paste it and accept the claims of a press release?
    PROZAC MOST OFTEN UNNECESSARY MEDICINE
    (source - dutch Tv-programme NOVA, bco NPS, 25 juni 2005) -

    So what? the fact that people may overmedicate has NOTHING to do with evisdence for Jomanda having the powers you claim. What next "asprin not needed for headaches to stop!" Is that proof of Jomanda having curative powers?
    Where is the evidence (that I am shifting the burden) ? I do not see it, so according to your own arguments, I must not believe you.


    Please look up "shifting the burden" and "logical fallacy" . If YOU make a claim it is for YOU to support it! It is not for me to show how your claim is wrong.

    SAy you are in court and being accused causing someone to die. do you think it is fair for someone to say "show you did not kill her"? Or is it fairer to say the person being accused is assumed innocent and the person claiming she is guilty must prove that she is guilty?
    Well then if someone claiming she is guilty has to prove guilt based on evidence so also must you prove your claim of paranormal powers based on evidence.
    ...to make your claim "Jomanda does not work'.

    that is the negative claim! I dint make it. you made the positive claim i.e. you claimed jomanda had powers. I asked "prove it"! Saying "prove she doesnt!" is just shifting the burden and asking someone to prove a negative. Logical fallacies.
    Please look them up.
    I agree Jomanda has her burden of proof,

    Great! where is it!
    #(3)# On what do you base your claim that Jomanda cannot heal ?
    3.1 Where did I make such a claim?
    #(4)# On what do you base your claim that Jomanda's miracles are not real ?

    4.1 where did I make such a claim?
    I agree that I have to produce evidence to support my.[claims]

    Great! Where is the evidence?
    In Tiel where Jomanda once held her healings, sometimes 12.000 people visited her on a day.

    where is the evience that 12,000 people visited?
    #(5)# Do you really and actually 'believe' that your reality (with no scientific proof, and no contact with Jomanda) is worth more that the reality of thousands of Jomanda-visitors (with no scientific proof, but with personal proof/medical records, and in contact with Jomanda) ?

    I never met Blackstone, or Blaine, but I believe in my reality there is no verifable evidence that he actually levitated people. I didnt meed David Copperfield either but I do not believe he made the Statue of Liberty disappear! personal endoersements are notoriously nbad objective scientific evidence.
    #(6)# Do you actually and really belief that your 'testimonial' (Jomanda does not work, without scientific proof and without contact with Jomanda), is worth more, than the 'testimonials' of thousands of Jomanda-visitors

    do you actually believe I ever stated "Jomanda does not work?"
    6.1 Where did I state that?
    You are WRONG! again. I didnt!
    #(7)# If yes, Based on what ?

    7.1 dont try to shift the burden onto me! How can I answer yes to a question about something I never stated?
    #(8)# If no, than it is all a matter of 'Who is believed' ?,
    8.1 dont try to shift the burden onto me! How can I answer no to a question about something I never stated?
    #(9)# Do you find that equality of people and their believe-convictions are an important input for democracy ?

    I can tell you that if the vast majority of people believed that Pi is equal to three they would still not be equal to three. Numbers of believers is not argument about something being true! Indeed it is a very weak arguement on your part. since Jomanda would probably not be acceptable to Orthodox christians the Roman Catholic Russian Greek and Anglican churches - thats about 1,500 MILLION people! Do you find that the belief convictions of Christians (which I would suggest are in opposition to Jomanda) are important?


  • Options
    #36
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    FE30033 wrote:
    If you did not claim that Jomanda's miracles did not take place, I assume (correct me if I am wrong) you mean to say that Jomanda's miracles can take place under certain conditions brought and thought up by you by which you measure a fellowhuman performace.


    WRONG! AGAIN!

    You stated: "you [ISAW] claim miracles do not take place."

    Now I never made any such claim. where did I?
    Please dont start your usual prove a negative bullsh1the anout me having to show where I did NOT make such a claim!
    Where did I state "miracles do not take place."? I didnt! admit that I didnt!
    Admit you are WRONG about this!
    That really does really matter

    No it doesnt! what I believe has nothing to do with YOUR claim that Jomanda has powers. Wher is you evidence for YOUR claim. Dont try to wriggle out of it.

    As you are very-well aware, the scientific evidence is not present, as others refuse to research Jomanda

    I am not aware of it. That is why I am asking you! Now you admit that YOU claimed that Jomanda had powers and that ther was scientific evidence to support this. You claimed PEAR and other research supported YOUR claims. You posted a long list of claimed support. It turns out that when asked wher PEAr for example actually supports your contention the Jomanda has powers that you admit that not alone PEAR doesnt support your claim but there is no scientific evidence at all.

    Asking others for miracles, is like asking a poor child in Africa who can not afford to buy rice, to hand over a million dollars as a condition before she is believed. I[f] you feel happy about that, if that way of reasoning makes you feel good and happy...who am I to contradict you.

    this is just an illogical appeal to pathos. How is asking you to show scientific evidence for YOUR claim that Jomanda has powers in any waylike asking a starving person for a million dollars?
    But I have a different way of dealing with people.

    that seems obvious. It is called "shifting the burden".
    No scientific evidence, but proof is present (medical records: or you might not believe doctors and medical records) which can, could be, and should be scientificly researched, as Jomanda has been asking for for 30 years !

    AHA! So you now madmit that ther is not evidence but Jomanda is prepared to submit to testing! So why doesnt Jomanda do the Randi Challenge or some similar objective scientific test? And wher is the record of Jomanda contacting scientific researchers over the last 30 years and asking them to test her claims? Where is your evidence of that? wher in 1976 did Jomanda ask someone to scientifically verify her "powers"?
    Thus you say, you might believe them, under certain conditions. Thus you say you might believe Jomanda. That is a better start than many people (media, politcians) in Holland produce. But also as before, you ask others to perform miracles, in which you 'might' not believe. Strange.

    I suggest you look up the work "skeptic". you are posting to a skeptic group. You really should know what a scientific skeptic is.
    #(1)# Do you believe regular-medicine doctors who provide Jomanda-testimonials ?

    What are the names of these doctors? what are their qualifications? Where are the copies of the testimonials?
    Read the quote (Jomanda even in blue). If you do not want to contact them. Fine, but I'll guess than in that case that if I should give you 900 witnesses of Jomanda's miracles, you will not contact them also. so why bother asking anyway ?


    Because you CLAIMED something to be true! You should be able to support this! If you cant you should admit it and withdraw the claim!
    PEAR is at least something compared to nothing..

    where does PEAR support you claim about Jomanda having powers?
    In reality I did not attribute. You did. It does say 'Utts' in the link.
    In your first post in a section related to curing cancer you state the following
    ...the effects of human intention and emotional resonance on the behavior of random physical processes. They have amassed an immense body of empirical evidence that indicates that effects such as those described are empirically demonstrable under controlled laboratory conditions.

    You gave the PEAR link there. Wher does PEAR suppoer you claim that Jomanda can cure cancer?
    I told (my very first posting) you specifically that no scientific research has been done on Jomanda,

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52324010&postcount=1
    Your first post contains phrases and headings like :"Dutch psychic" "Miracle healing" "NO CANCER"
    you quote the following from jessica Utts:
    While for example Dr. Jessica Utts (University Californie), who worked on the US-government sponsered Stargate-project, after research (1973, 1989, between 1992 en 1994) concluded about gifts of mediums (anomalous Cognition), that "It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria".

    Under "Cancer Cured" you attribute the following quote to jomanda
    The energy which is released on that moment, also via the CD, or via my voice on the radio, that works thus on the person on that moment. The energy which is positive energy, and eventually when the body can handle that all, that positive energy, will attack the negative energy.

    where is there ANY evidence for such "energy" or that Jomanda cured anyone?

    Let me be clear
    1. Where is the evidence any cure of anyone ever happened?
    2. what is the mechanism
    3. what measurable paranormal powers does Jomanda have?


    JOMANDA: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
    ...How many people have you researched ? ] [KW]- "332 people effectively[/u]"[/i]

    Let me guess your answer: "not good enough"

    where is the published research on the 332 people you claim?
    #(2)# Do you really actually 'believe' that ...

    2.1. already answered
    Verfiable evidence can be found in medical records.

    Care to please produce them then? You are beginning to sound like a UFO and space alien believer.
    VERIFIABLE EVIVIDEN:

    Addinf bolding and colour doesnt make it evidence

    snip big list


    Please show in each of these links exacely the part of that link which shows "verifiable evidence " of Jomanda having psychic powers.

    It just seems like a list of unrelated articles on alternative medicine.
    http://www.mercola.com/2006/jan/5/will_another_vioxx_critic_be_silence d.htm
    # The Prostitution of Science
    When you hear the words "scientific authority," check to be sure your wallet is still there and hold onto it tightly. Prostitution of science is using its good name for base purposes: falsifying data, and misinterpreting statistics to support a new theory, with the objective of gaining personal fame and fortune. Recent publicity about such debased conduct should have two consequences: (1) people ought to become more skeptical about new scientific pronouncements, and, as they do, (2) they ought to become more aware that the supposedly sharp dichotomy between scientific certainty and metaphysical inquiry is SIMPLY AN ILLUSION

    i agree with this quotee (the only one you actually quoted from) but it has nothing to do with Jomanda having powers.


    #(3)# How do you feel if I say "I do not believe you" "show me the evidence of what you claim (I did not attack anynone) ?

    3.1 already answered. It is called shifting the burden! I didnt walk into a naive situation wher I say I believe the opposite and you ask me to prove that. I never CALIMED the opposite and you continuing to claim that I did is lying about me!

    However I feel you cant call me a liar and get away with it if I chose to complain about it. It isnt for you to decide whether you personally attacked anyone. The moderators will decide that. If you continue to repost cut and paste claims with no support or personally attack people and other posters complain about that you will be BANNED form this group and people will not get to see you postings here. Whether or not you believe that i is true. I suggest you read the above discussion thread about the group Charter.


    Column
    FAIRYTALE "CANDY, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE & EVOLUTION"

    It is sometimes difficult in real life to talk to people who will ask for evidence for everything that is said or claimed, which will slow down conversation,
    ... snip the rest
    [/quote]

    This is a SKEPTIC group! that is what this group is for! Please read the charter!

    # Son (irritated) - "Proof it. Show me the evidence"
    # Father (loud voice) - "Maybe I should throw you out of the house and disinherit you"

    Not a happy end -

    Indeed and if you ignore the rules of a skeptic group e.g. No personal attacks and if you make claims you must support them or withdraw them they you will be "thrown out and disinherited"

    ...snip
    The son died of hunger. And the father said: "Is wasn't me. It was the lack of evidence".

    And people will not be hungry for your arguments when you are kicked out either and cant post her any more.

    If you make claims SUPPORT them or go away!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    FE30033 wrote:
    I do not believe you. Where's the evidence / reason (of what you claim 'do not believe based on good reason') ?

    About 500 years of medicine. And about 500 years of physics.

    How does Jomanda heal these people? In scientific terms what does she actually do? How the atoms from her head influence the atoms in the persons throat, or hand, or leg?

    I doubt you know.
    FE30033 wrote:
    #(1)# Do you not find medical records proof ?

    No, of course not.

    If I drive my mother to the doctor for a broken leg, and a week later her medical records show that her leg is healing, can I claim that those medical records are proof that I healed my mother? No, of course not that would be nonsense.
    FE30033 wrote:
    A cancer-tumor is gone or is not gone ?
    As soon as you can explain what exactly Jomanda actually did to make the cancer-tumor go away I will be impressed.

    How does she heal these people? What does she do? What actually happens.

    In detail please.
    FE30033 wrote:
    Conclusion ?

    Inconclusive. That is not proof that Jomanda healed the person, any more than saying that the coffee she had for breakfast healed her.

    The only reason you think Jomanda healed the person is because she claimed she did. That is not proof she did, or even reason to believe her.

    Imagine if someone else had claimed to have healed the person at the same time? Now you have 2 people claiming that in the week between doctors appointments they healed the patient? Without having any clue what either of these people actually did how do you know if either of them is telling the truth.

    I could claim that over the years I have, by remote viewing, managed to healed all the people that Jomanda has claimed to heal, that it was really me, not Jomanda.

    Prove I didn't, prove to me now that it wasn't me
    FE30033 wrote:
    Speaking of questioning the person/messenger and not the message:

    How much money does Jomanda make by claiming that she heals people?


  • Options
    #38
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    FE30033 wrote:
    Where's the evidence of what you claim 'no miracles happen'

    You are at it again! Asking me to prove a negative and shifting the burden

    Please alearn some logic. Above doen not say "no miracles happen"

    It says EITHER "no miracles" happen OR " <a list of other things>

    If I say either I am male OR I am female that is NOT a claim I am male is it?
    while in the meantime doctors have confirmed e.g. a miracle like this ? Do you not believe doctors ?

    i believe medical doctors exist yes. But I suggest while you are looking up "logical fallacy" you also look up "argument from authority"
    See example miracle troathcancer (earlier posting):
    [Sonja]-"In that book is a letter if a man who writes 'my brother had cancer on the throat. ...
    Also see "argument from analogy" and "anecdotal evidence"


  • Options
    #39
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    I actually healed all those people, and another 3,781 people besides. I am also currently stopping it from raining over Dublin city.


  • Options
    #40
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    DublinEvents wrote:
    This is always what happens. The authorities always try to cover up any miracles or ground breaking treatments that might pose a threat to the lucrative regular medicine world. The medical care industry is a huge business that generates billions every year. They are not about to admit that it's prone to misdiagnosis. Also, if they had accepted silicone to be the culprit, most women would have had second thoughts about getting implants and consequently this implanting business would have suffered severely. These governments are run by humans and just like any human, they are prone to greed and malice. Unfortunately, that's what most humans do when they reach a position of power.

    this is another fallacy. You cant have "proof by association". Ley us assume the whole world pharmachemical industry is ion a big conspiracy to make profit. that on NO WAY proves jamanda is doing miracles does it?

    Put it another way. suppose Hitler owned (or painted) some really good paintings. suppose I say "but we all know hitler was racist. how can you trust his judgement on what was good art?" It just doesnt stand up! Even the most evel man in the world can have an ability to paint. You cant associate a good painting with the fact that the owner was evil. Nor can you say "pharmachem is evil therefore Jomanda must be doing miracles since pharmachem oppoded her".

    By the way, in any case, whether or not they make profit, pharmaceuticals have been scientifically shown to work and are stringently controlled.


  • Options
    #41
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    DublinEvents wrote:
    This is always what happens. The authorities always try to cover up any miracles or ground breaking treatments that might pose a threat to the lucrative regular medicine world. The medical care industry is a huge business that generates billions every year. They are not about to admit that it's prone to misdiagnosis. Also, if they had accepted silicone to be the culprit, most women would have had second thoughts about getting implants and consequently this implanting business would have suffered severely. These governments are run by humans and just like any human, they are prone to greed and malice. Unfortunately, that's what most humans do when they reach a position of power.

    this is another fallacy. You cant have "proof by association". Ley us assume the whole world pharmachemical industry is ion a big conspiracy to make profit. that on NO WAY proves jamanda is doing miracles does it?

    Put it another way. suppose Hitler owned (or painted) some really good paintings. suppose I say "but we all know hitler was racist. how can you trust his judgement on what was good art?" It just doesnt stand up! Even the most evel man in the world can have an ability to paint. You cant associate a good painting with the fact that the owner was evil. Nor can you say "pharmachem is evil therefore Jomanda must be doing miracles since pharmachem oppoded her".

    By the way, in any case, whether or not they make profit, pharmaceuticals have been scientifically shown to work and are stringently controlled. Un like Jomanda.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    6th wrote:
    I actually healed all those people, and another 3,781 people besides. I am also currently stopping it from raining over Dublin city.


    Nice one!


  • Options
    #43
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    humanji wrote:
    Nice one!

    I am actually being serious, note it is still not raining in Dublin City. I may chnage that soon, then again ... I may not.


  • Options
    #44
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    bonkey wrote:
    I said it was no more fantasy than your claims that she can heal, given that both can be argued to have an equivalent amount of fact behind them. If you think this means I agree my assertion was fantasy, you implicitly accept that your healing claims also are. If you think your healing claims are not fantasy, despite the lack of evidence, then your argument about my claims being fantasy due to their lack of support is either farcical or hypocritical
    Not farcical or hypocritical (speaking of ad-hominems), but realistic and 'skeptical'. I see your fantasy apart from the one, supposed by you, Jomanda has. Trying to hide/link it behind others (fantasies) does not make it less of a fantasy.
    bonkey wrote:
    PEAR are not a suitable authority to offer "proof" of their own beliefs.
    I do not believe you. Where is the evidence of your claim/belief 'not suitable'?
    FE wrote:
    James Randi is not a reliable option, which would provide reliable scientific evidence, according to some people
    bonkey wrote:
    Why not ?
    bonkey wrote:
    I thought you wanted to discuss Jomanda? This has nothing to do with her

    See the earlier presented evidence to support this belief: 'Randi is in my opinion not a reliable option' Others are, in my opinion. Randi was some kind of magician. Prof. Piet Borst e.g. is a wellknown highly respected researcher. If you really (not just find a stick to hit the dog) want to know how Jomanda feels about it, contact her. I really do not know and I do not care, as I presented 'S.M. The True Story' as a matter of discussion. James Randi linked to Jomanda is hot air, fantasy, shifting and drifting the burden. Prof. Piet Borst linked to Jomanda is a reality, as mentioned in 'S.M. The True Story'
    bonkey wrote:
    A bit like one shouldn't trust believers in paranormal activity (e.g. PEAR) to act as their own judge and jury when it comes to asserting that they've proven the existence of certain abilities typically classed as paranormal. They're neither indepdant nor unbiased
    It seems to me that everybody and everything that does not match you believeconviction is warded off. Maybe you (to protect your belief) even belief the Chinese-government is crazy.
    China Accepts The Paranormal: amazing Powers of New Children
    "Since 1974 the Chinese government has discovered over 100.000 children who have extraordinary psychic powers. These children, when blindfolded, can "see" with either their ears, nose, mouth, tongue, armpits, hands or feet. The "New Children" have come to Earth with a clear purpose. These kids know who they are and why they are here. They carry a new vibration and have come to transform the consciousness of humanity"
    http://www.linkgrinder.com/articles/Super_Psychic_Kids_Amazing_Powers_of_New_Children_1714_0_article.html
    bonkey wrote:
    Its also noteworthy that despite being able to fund quite an impressive amount of stuff, Jomanda can't afford to pay for a simple double-blind test by an independant, respected third party herself.
    You can use your fantasy all you want. I do not know. And if you 'really' (not just find a fantasy-stick to hit the dog) want to know contact Jomanda. I present 'S.M. The True Story' as a matter of discussion.
    bonkey wrote:
    If you, as a drug company, claim to have a new super-drug, you don't get to hand it over to someone else and say "test that for me". You don't get to sell the drug on the open market on the grounds that you've asked others to test it and they've refused, but you believe its good so thats ok. Instead, you fund your own testing, carry it out in accordance with strict, controllable, verifiable standards, and then when you've met the standard of proof your claims are accepted as valid in the absence of someone else choosing to do their research to challenge your claim. Failing that, you strike a business deal with someone to fund your testing in exchange for a cut of the profits. Thats how the system works....You seem to be suggesting that in the case of Jomanda, it should work otherwise
    Maybe so in some cases or in fantasy. In other cases reality seems different and reality proves that people in some cases are not willing to research and only able to act in cases which are complying with own beliefs. Sadly, because when Jomanda had healings in Tiel, sometimes 12.000 visitors cam a day !

    DUTCH MINISTRY HEALTHCARE (VWS)
    http://www.minvws.nl/en/
    ( source - letter, 2 February 2004, director Innovatie, professions and ethics, drs. N.C. O.) -
    "For the judgement, appraisal of treatment methods in the Netherlands there have been certain agencies and fixed procedures set up. With respect to scientific research the minister of Healthcare (VWS) lets himself be supported by external agencies, such as the Council for Health Research (RGO) http://www.rgo.nl/ , the Health Council (GR) and Care Research the Netherlands / Medical Sciences (ZonMw). Your request for public hearing both sides in the case of Jomanda cannot be fullfilled. It is not the task of the minister of Health, Welfare and Sport to get mixed up in such discussions. This obstructive attitude you do not need to see as a rejection of alternative medicine in my part. The ministry wants not to discourage use of alternative treatments, nor does it want to promote it and adopts a neutral position. What counts is, if a treatment method after tests has shown to be effective, whether the method is alternative or not"

    DUTCH HEALTH COUNCIL (GR)
    http://www.gr.nl/index.php?phpLang=en
    ( source - letter, 16 April 2004, Dr. M. v. L., general secretary) - "The Health Council advises the government concerning the standing of science with respect to questions in the area of public health. The Council bases itself thereby on results of good set up scientific research, published in international profession illustrated magazines which put on very strict standards with respect to the methodological quality of the research workers. The scientific data then are weighed within the Health Council and interpreted by commissions of top-experts. The minister of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) has not asked the Health Council recommendation, advice concerning the matter Jomanda, and the Health Council is also not intending to give such a recommendation on own initiative. There is thus no Health point of view in this matter"

    CARE RESEARCH NETHERLANDS (ZONMW) I
    http://www.zonmw.nl/en/home.html ( source - letter, 26 april 2004, H.J.S. director ) -
    "Concerning the by Jomanda applied treatment ZONMW has the point of view that all new treatments thoroughly must be examined on their effectiveness, before applying these on patients and to link health-claims to them. This research has to take place according to the standards in the scientific world in an independent and controllable manner and must also be repeatable"

    CARE RESEARCH NETHERLANDS (ZONMW) II
    ( source - letter 19 may 2004, director H.J.S)
    - "Thus ZonMW has gotten in the period 1996-1999 FROM THE DUTCH MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VWS) the assignment to give support to alternative practitioners and professiongroups with literature-studies and for working out research-proposals"
    - "The Dutch Ministry of Health has RECENTLY given ZonMW the assignment to write a plan of handling in which will be adressed how research in the area of complenmentary treatment in the Netherlands should look like and a format can be given to earlier mentioned intensive guidance. Since there are many kinds of therapies among complementary medicine, the DUTCH MINISTRY OF HEALTH has stated that we in line of this assignment ARE TO LIMIT OURSELVES TO DCOTORS who practition acupuncture, homeopaths and naturemedicine"

    DUTCH MINISTER OF HEALTH HOOGERVORST
    ( source- 15 july 2004, ouf of name, director Innovation, drs.N.O.)
    - "In my opinion it is to the practitioners themselves to show effectiveness of their methods. For this they can apply researchproposals with the organisations mentioned earlier in my letter from 2 february 2004 (RGO, GR, ZonMw)"
    - "To support alternative doctors by solving methodological problems I HAVE RECENTLY GIVEN ZONMW THE ASSIGNMENT to make a plan of dealing with reference to research into complementary medicine that is FOCUSED ON: the development of just reserachmethods, and the education of reseachers, and clearing the path for existing researchquestions for regular-financing"

    DUTCH GOVERNEMT: PVDA PARTY
    Sent: friday 17 september 2004
    RE: - KNMG (as everybody) is silent concerning Jomanda
    "I do not ignore your letters, nor what you put in your letter. Sentences as 'the murderer of Millecam' you will not hear from my mouth and with you I believe that everyone is entitled to show what he or has to offer. The public governing board then tries consequently also to watch the public interest a bit. I think honestly that we do not differ about that from opinion. To not hear again that it does not interest politics at all, I propose to you the following. After the coming busy months of budget handling The Hague I want gladly to visit Jomanda a time with you of hear from you both which form of research you concretely suggest.
    Kind regards,
    X.X.
    Member PVDA-party

    Nothing was heard ever again from PVDA on this matter. Claiming....words...but deeds....
    bonkey wrote:
    You can decry the system all you want, but Jomanda is being treated no differently to the latest miracle-drug
    # The Case of Royal Raymond Rife
    Royal Raymond Rife was the inventor of the Universal Microscope which he presented to the world in 1933. The scientist who discovered that the unique electronic 'signature' of each specific disease can be modified to eliminate nearly every affliction known to man
    - Why is the pharmaceutical industry afraid of this man ?
    Then why not get FDA approval for this therapy ? - Primarily because bringing a product to market through FDA approval costs about $359 million dollars for each use approved. That's only about 3 days of earnings for the prescription drug industry, but beyond the reach of others. And the FDA only approves devices which are substantially similar to devices it has already approved. So unless you can shell out 359 million dollars for FDA approval for each medical use, the rules are rigged to maintain the drug industry's monopoly on health care.
    http://www.cdromcsc.com/rife.htm
    Obstacles to research in complementary and alternative medicine
    In most countries, CAM research funding is on a very small scale. For instance, only 0.08% of the British National Health Service research budget goes towards CAM research.
    http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_06_150903/ern10442_fm-1.html
    Complementary medicine in Europe
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/309/6947/107
    bonkey wrote:
    Borst has not been elected the world's voice on matters scientific, so his silence has absolutely no impact on anything in this regard
    Drifting and shifting the burden as a world's voice on matters scientific was not the matter at hand. And it has no impact, when you think unlawfull handling is okay.
    DUTCH CODE OF LAW: ORAL AGREEMENT
    - (1) BW 6:4 Article 1375 - "To which agreements link - not only to that which is explicitly expressed, but also to everything that, to the nature of the agreement, is progressed by fairness, the use, or the law"
    - (2) BW 6:4: Article 1385 "Doubt - in case of doubt, an agreement is explained at the disadvantage of the one who stipulated something (Piet Borst), and in the advantage who has joined, bound to the agreement (Jomanda)".

    PROF. PIET BORST & HEALTHCARE GAMBLING
    Prof. Piet Borst took on a bet, on national television (12 August 2000), in the tv programme 'The Black Sheep' of bco VARA, with Jomanda, to research Jomanda's energised water with the following words: - [Piet Borst]-"..May I make a proposal, a proposal that you (Jomanda) energise 1000 bottles of water, and that we then take a 1000 bottles which are not energised, and that we look, if there is any difference..." -[Jomanda ] - "Gladly" -[Piet Borst]-"I would not mind putting 100,000, gildens on that, that if I energise, that that works just as well, than if Jomanda energises, that means that there is no difference" - [Jomanda ] - " Yes, I will very gladly participate to the testing of prof. Borst, why not.."....-[Jomanda ] - "..You want proof. With that I am very happy because I think that afterwards the bridge can be made between the Divine World and your world.." -[Piet Borst] -"I do not think so, because I think there is no difference"

    QUACKBUSTER FOUNDATION SKEPSIS: THE BLACK SHEEP
    10 augusts 2000. - In a retransmission of VARA's 'The Black Sheep' Jomanda debated with Piet Borst, Karin Spaink, Marcel Moring (all known from the jubilee congress of Skepsis), an expert [ prof. W. of Hoorn ] whom had readr the book of Ewald Vervaet about Jomanda, and Prof. B. Smalhout. Skeptics saw purely beating around the bush and Jomanda and believers saw how she wrapped up her opponents. Piet Borst presented really that Jomanda would do the Skepsis - tests, with a controled research with 1000 bottles instead of 10 (see magazine 'Skepter', December 1994 and March 1995). Piet Borst dared to commit 100,000 dutch gildens on the outcome. Jomanda did not dare, and has also afterwards never let anything heard from her http://www.skepsis.nl/sdp-2000.html

    Quackbuster organization Skepis twist and turn the facts. Because in reality Jomanda did and does dare, but Prof. Piet Borst chickened out. It does have impact when one 'claims' to be a quackbuster, which in reality one is obviously not in this case. Put up or shut up, is a well heard statement by the quackbusters.
    bonkey wrote:
    What is noteworthy, however, is that you've made it quite clear that you don't hold Borst in any high regard, but believe that he would be a worthy tester, where Randi wouldn't because you don't hold him in high regard.

    Shifting and liking the world together does not make it more clear and especially not more true. What is noteworthy, however, is that you seem to walk over the facts presented in 'S.M. The True Story' as a matter of discussion: Silicone-Gate, A Jihad based on Believe-Conviction: An Example casus ?

    Or maybe that is just my fantasy.


  • Options
    #45
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    bonkey wrote:
    How are those points are relevant to the question bolded above it?
    isaw wrote:
    Ad hominem means attacking the person and not the argument

    Some people seem to be more troubled and worried about how much money a person earns, that thousands and thousands of women including Sylvia Millecam: the matter/claim/argument at hand.


  • Options
    #46
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    6th wrote:
    And yet you post it in the Skeptics Forum? That, imo, is asking for trouble. Here they deal with research, facts and science. I think maybe you should have posted it in Spirituality or Paranormal. So can I check something ?

    Scientific evidence is a believe-conviction (see earlier posting 'fraud'-links etc), and very not objective: one moment alchohol is good for me according to 'evidence' while another moment another studies proves alchohol gives me cancer according to 'evidence'. Who is 'believe'd ?

    Scientific evidence was part of the matter of discussion I presented. Asking for scientific evidence is in this Jomanda case asking for miracles, which you must be aware of, but still headstrong you ask for .... like asking a poor child in Africa who has even no money to buy rice, to hand over a million dollars, as a condition (posed on by you, your responsibility) to whether or not she is accepted into your world and your reality. If your world and your reality only exists out of scientific evidence (see 'Fairytale) I guess I will not have any fun with you at a party.

    #(1)# Do you mean to say, that something is or could only be true if you are able to check it ? What if something is true but you are not able to check it ? In Iraq there once were weapons of mass-destruction: did you believe that ? Did you ckeck it ?

    Following your line of reasoning, everything you say, I cannot check. Your 'testimonial' is as good or as worthless as mine.

    #(2)# Do you really and actually 'believe' that your reality (with no scientific proof, and no contact with Jomanda) is worth more that the reality of thousands of Jomanda-visitors (with no scientific proof, but with personal proof/medical records, and in contact with Jomanda) ?

    #(3)# Do you actually and really belief that your 'testimonial' (Jomanda does not work, without scientific proof and without contact with Jomanda), is worth more, than the 'testimonials' of thousands of Jomanda-visitors (with no scientific proof, but with personal proof/medical records, and in contact with Jomanda) ?

    #(4)# If yes, Based on what ?

    #(5)# If no, than it is all a matter of 'Who is believed' ?, believeconviction: thus you actually and really are proving a point of my story: A Jihad based on Believe-Conviction: An Example casus ? Because the intention was to prosecute Jomanda, and the big difference is that you and your belief was not intended to be on trial !

    #(6)# Do you find that equality of people and their believe-convictions are an important input for democracy ?

    #(7)# If someone goes to a doctor, and being refered to a hospital, where a heartattack is being ascertained, and a appointment is made for a second research later, and a person goes to a healing of Jomanda in the place of that sick-person (note - also for Sylvia Millecam people went to healings), and the sick-person after that goes to the second appointment in another hospital, and there after research it shows that 'nothing can be seen anymore of a heartattack', conclusion despite scientific evidence ?


  • Options
    #47
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    FE30033 wrote:
    Actually and really it is you who do not believe people. But your belief does not say anything about reality or healing. Because there is proof that Jomanda can heal, as confirmed e.g. by RM-practitioners (e.g. healthinspection doctor - see firstposting).
    ISAW wrote:
    This isnt good enough !
    FE wrote:
    That's your problem. Something should be better than nothing. You blame others for your own high expectations of others..
    ISAW wrote:
    sorry but it isnt ! YOU claimed that the evidence whas ther and when asked for it you dont show where it is!
    Sorry, but is is. That 'something' (medical records, testiomonials) is not good enough for you (as you stated) has to do with you, and only you. Thus your problem. Shifting and drifting (it behind others) will not make ir less of a problem. It might look that way, but in reality... I claim that 'something' was/is there which could and should be scientifically researched, as mentioned in the presented S.M. case.

    #(1)# In daily life, when you e.g. take medicine, do you also check the 'evidence' whether or not it has been proven effective ? Do you ask your prescribing doctor to 'show you where it is' ?
    ISAW wrote:
    Loook frank, let us say I claim 500 people are killed a year on Dutch roads and that the Dutch department of transport Annual report says that is true. Say you ask me "that isnt good enough where is the reopet and where in the report doe sit say that" . It isnt good enough for me to say "It is in the report"
    You seem to forget that what you are saying, is exactly a point of me, in my very first posting. Your believeconviction - VS- Jomanda, mine, thousands of Jomanda-visitors. But your belief is not supported by nothing (only fantasy, which could be right, but because you have nothing in hand, no research, no evidence), while the believeconviction of Jomanda, me and thousands of Jomanda-visitors is supported by proof (medical records, testiomonials, doctors/visitors) which could and should be investigated so that scientific evidence can be obtained, because only then, and only then you are and should be able to draw a conclusion Jomanda does or does not work. Not presumptively assume, based on nothing, Jomanda does not work. The conclusion Jomanda does work is already clear to Jomanda, me, thousands of Jomanda-visitors and testimonial-doctors with or without scientific evidence. A cancertumor is gone or it is not. Simple as that.
    ISAW wrote:
    so where does it say Jomanda has paranormal powers?
    So where does it not say ? Jomanda claims, see her website, her books. Thousands of Jomanda visitors, testimonial-doctors etc experience personally these powers. When you presumptively assume she does not have these powers, at a distance without having personally experienced Jomanda, maybe you have 'psychic powers'. So where does it say....

    #(2)# What do you think and claim about paranormal powers in general ?
    FE wrote:
    because you are well, very well aware, that the scientific evidence what you are asking for is in fact an unreality, a fantasy,
    Shifting and drifting.....
    ISAW wrote:
    I am not aware of any claims being verified if you havent backed them up! YOU claimed Jomanda had powers and that scientists e.g. PEAR had confirmed that. So WHERE does PEAR confirm that?
    PEAR confirmed (see earlier postings) that phenomena such as those demonstrated by Jomanda is supported by collective scientific evidence. e.g.
    - Information, Consciousness, and Health - http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/JahnATpages.pdf
    - Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations - http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/m5.pdf
    Jessica Utts confirmed.....etc etc. If you really (and not just want to find a stick in your mind to think you are able to hit the dog with) want to know (more) 'where', contact PEAR, Jessica Utts. If you do not like the message, do not shoot the messenger.

    #(3)# Do you think, claim that you know it better than PEAR ?
    #(4)# Are you aware, that the scientific evidence you are asking for in Jomanda's case is in fact an unreality, a fantasy ?
    #(5)# Or do you believe there is scientific evidence / research done into Jomanda ?
    - If yes, how do you know ? Where is it ?
    - If no, why do you ask for it, if you know it is not there ?
    FE wrote:
    Do you really actually 'believe' that Jomanda would put in her book that someone was cured from throatcancer (see first posting) if it were untrue ? Yes or no ?
    ISAW wrote:
    what I believe does not matter. I am not making the claims about her...
    Well, in reality the book is, the medical record is, the doctor is, the Jomanda-visitor is. If you do not like the message do not shoot the messenger.

    #(6) Would you put in a book for the whole world to read that you have performed a miracle if you knew it were untrue, while also very very awarely knowing the whole of the country is breathing down you neck and trying to bring you down on the slightest mistake ?
    ISAW wrote:
    [Jomanda] yes, yes, the prove is all there, of course, otherwise you would not put it in a book, those people went to the doctor, everything is checked" ... what is the source of this exchange (which in itself is opinion and not evidence) ?
    I am not responsible for your bad sight or lack in reading. Source is mentioned earlier.
    ISAW wrote:
    I have no idea this programme ever existed. Can you show anything from the TV channels web site? Can you produce three prople (who do not believe Jomanda has powers) who will attest that the programme was aired on that date?
    #(5)# Why is that relevant to you ? What will it show you ?
    ISAW wrote:
    It isnt any sort of proof. "i saw it on TV" isn't really proof is it? I saw the statue of Liberty disappear on TV. Do you believe it really happened? Millions of people saw it happening. dont you believe them?
    #(6)# Why should I belief any word you say ?
    #(7)# Do you mean to say that if I presumptively should not belief you, you might as well not say anything at alll ?
    I present 'S.M. The True story' as a matter of dicsussion.
    ISAW wrote:
    this isnt evidence at all!
    If you are so very good at saying e.g. things are wrong, not true, not real, what you did not say, what can not happen and what is not possible, you surely must have a very good expert opinion about things which are right, true, real, waht you did say, what can happen and what is possible.
    #(7)# What is to your opinion real evidence made out off ?
    #(8)# What will satisfy you ? What will be 'good enough for you' ? What do you need , what will it take so that you will belief Jomanda. so that you will belief a fellowhuman ?
    FE wrote:
    REGULAR TREATMENT NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY I
    ( source - magazine Vruchtbare Aarde,nr.5/6, 2000 )
    ISAW wrote:
    How is the above any evidence of Jomanda curing anything?
    #(10)# Where did I say that was evidence of Jomanda curing anything ?
    ISAW wrote:
    A PRESS RELEASE in not evidence
    Do humans breath air ? Geeeeh, I guess I must have been wrong all the time.
    FE wrote:
    7000 adults were examined on the prevention of depression, the impact of treatment with or without, and the change in the situation after a year. After a year 85% of the people who were not treated had no more depression
    ISAW wrote:
    what has this to do with Jomanda?
    #(10)# Where did I say it had to do with Jomanda ?
    Shifting and drifting, both statements were a reply to your question, reality:
    ISAW wrote:
    How do you explain that for the placebo group the prayer somehow didnt get through and it only got through to the group actually taking the medicine?
    FE wrote:
    PROZAC MOST OFTEN UNNECESSARY MEDICINE
    ISAW wrote:
    So what? the fact that people may overmedicate has NOTHING to do with evisdence for Jomanda having the powers you claim. What next "asprin not needed for headaches to stop!" Is that proof of Jomanda having curative powers?
    You (A) spoke of, put a question out on placebo. Prozac seems to be a placebo, according to that statement, my answer (AA). Prozac indeed has nothing to do with Jomanda. That is your fantasy-link: drifting and shifting to (B) instead of (AAA)
    ISAW wrote:
    SAy you are in court and being accused causing someone to die. do you think it is fair for someone to say "show you did not kill her"? Or is it fairer to say the person being accused is assumed innocent and the person claiming she is guilty must prove that she is guilty?
    ISAW wrote:
    I never met Blackstone, or Blaine, but I believe in my reality there is no verifable evidence that he actually levitated people. I didnt meed David Copperfield either but I do not believe he made the Statue of Liberty disappear! personal endoersements are notoriously nbad objective scientific evidence.
    ISAW wrote:
    I can tell you that if the vast majority of people believed that Pi is equal to three they would still not be equal to three. Numbers of believers is not argument about something being true! Indeed it is a very weak arguement on your part. since Jomanda would probably not be acceptable to Orthodox christians the Roman Catholic Russian Greek and Anglican churches - thats about 1,500 MILLION people! Do you find that the belief convictions of Christians (which I would suggest are in opposition to Jomanda) are important?
    I presented the 'S.M.-case' as a matter of discussion and look where you end up. I like to stick to the point presented initially. The matter at hand. I do not like shifting and drifting away in fantasy, before you know it it will be 'two weeks later' (see Fairytale), and before I'll know it a UFO might even land.
    ISAW wrote:
    Do you actually believe I ever stated "Jomanda does not work?"
    ISAW wrote:
    what I believe does not matter
    You do not belief people and maybe even belief anything, as you state continuesly, unless certain conditions are full-filled which are 'good enough for you'. Since all I have heard from you is, what is wrong, not true, not real, what you did not say, what can not happen and what is not possible, the only logical conclusion could be that you really might mean, claim/state Jomanda does not work, because if you would believe Jomanda did work, you wouldn't constantly ask for evidence.

    #(11)# If this conclusion is wrong, do you mean to say (based on what you have read) Jomanda does work or could work ?

    Not speaking out, not making a claim, not taking a stand, not answering questions, drifting and shifting, can speak, claim, answer lots and lots of things on itsself.

    I presented 'S.M. The True Story' as a matter of discussion. If you do not believe it and/or all you can say/claim is 'where is the evidence' (see Fairytale), good for you, if that makes you feel very happy and good about yourself, who am I to contradict you. I did not present this case to convince you, if you should think that. The only one who can convince you, is you, yourself ! Not others ! Not evidence !


  • Options
    #48
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    FE30033 wrote:
    #(1)# In daily life, when you e.g. take medicine, do you also check the 'evidence' whether or not it has been proven effective ?
    I frequently do.
    Do you ask your prescribing doctor to 'show you where it is' ?
    Depending on what it is, I might well go and seek the double-blind test results for myself. If they're not available I'd happily go back to any prescribing physician and ask him/her to 'show me where it is'. My doctor is quite a reasonable sort and pretty sharp, I don't see that she'd have a problem telling me.


  • Options
    #49
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    ISAW wrote:
    You stated: "you [ISAW] claim miracles do not take place."
    FE wrote:
    If you did not claim that Jomanda's miracles did not take place, I assume (correct me if I am wrong) you mean to say that Jomanda's miracles can take place...
    ISAW wrote:
    Where did I state "miracles do not take place." ?

    #(1)# Do or do you not think Jomanda miracles can take place ?
    According to your own way of reasoning, if you do not answer this question, I will just as easily assume (based on what I have read from you) you realy claim 'Jomanda miracles do not take place'. I can and will only be able to change my mind, see that my assumption is wrong, if you provide, your own argument: 'the evidence' of that assumption being wrong.
    ISAW wrote:
    How is asking you to show scientific evidence for YOUR claim that Jomanda has powers in any waylike asking a starving person for a million dollars?
    Both are unrealistic.
    ISAW wrote:
    AHA! So you now madmit that ther is not evidence but Jomanda is prepared to submit to testing! So why doesnt Jomanda do the Randi Challenge or some similar objective scientific test? And wher is the record of Jomanda contacting scientific researchers over the last 30 years and asking them to test her claims? Where is your evidence of that? wher in 1976 did Jomanda ask someone to scientifically verify her "powers"?
    Scientific evidence, that's what Jomanda has been asking for 30 years, as stated in my very first posting, while proof (but not scientific) of miracles is present (e.g. confirmation by a Dutch Healthcare Inspcetion doctor). When you want to know why Jomanda..... contact Jomanda. I do not know. I am not responsible for your bad sight or lack of reading or selective way of reading in earlier postings one scientific studie has been performed (332 cases), another was planned (letter Jomanda), and another Jomanda agreed to (Prof Piet Borst).

    #(2)# You seem to be able to tell very well what is not, what is wrong, so I assume you must clearly know what can be or what is right - so what do you think Jomanda should do to get her powers verified ? What kind of concrete plan should she follow, according to you ? Who should she contact ?
    ISAW wrote:
    What are the names of these doctors? what are their qualifications? Where are the copies of the testimonials?
    FE wrote:
    Read the quote about PEAR (Jomanda even in blue). If you do not want to contact them. Fine, but I'll guess than in that case that if I should give you 900 witnesses of Jomanda's miracles, you will not contact them also. so why bother asking anyway ?
    If you really, and not just trying to find a stick with which you think in fantasy you can hit the dog with, want to know contact Jomanda for names of doctors and their qualifications.

    JOMANDA: PROOF OF MIRACLES
    ( source - bco AVRO, Tv-programme '10 Lastige Vragen', 2 april 2002, Pieter-Jan Hagens ) [ PJH ] - Jomanda, has one of your miracles ever been confirmed or proved by regular medical researches ? [ Jomanda]-"Yes, they all lay at home. But one does not come to look at it."

    Why not publish ? Some have been published (including names/qualifications), and guess what happened.... no-one seemed to be actually 'really' interested after all. E.g.
    BOOK JOMANDA'S MIRACULOUS HEALINGS (1999)

    mr. H. E. (pg.61) - "Dear Jomanda,... I am a heart patient, who had to be in the academic hospital in Maastricht on Wednesday at 9 o'clock on an empty stomach There was to be a bridge placement give the heart the right rhythm again...... A woman from Sliedrecht asked me, if she could put a written 'wish' for me in the bucket in your healing hall at a healing. I supported her entirely. It is a two hours drive to Tiel where the healing was.... What came to our surprise ? I was on the operation table in Maastricht and the doctor whom had prepared me for the treatment, told me that it did not look so bad. The films of last time were called in. My specialist who was busy with appointments upstairs, had to come down to be convinced. He looked at the monitor, and then at me: ' Sir, I have never experienced this in my entire 17 years of practice. A miracle has happened"

    Ms T.S. (p. 51) - " Dear Jomanda, in St.Lucas Andreas hospital in Amsterdam, I had a second opinion-research for my painful shoulder. The ortopedic surgeon there, doctor V., told me that I had to undergo a serious operation to my shoulder. I had to stay about 7 days in the hospital and probably one and a half month in a nursing home to recover. Thus I found it worth it to bring you a visit. Thus I came 20 November 1994 with my daughter for the first time in Tiel... In January 1995 went to the general practitioner to discuss to postpone the operation. From both sides questions. Fortunately: a serious approach. In May I had an appointment again at doctor V. I almost did not have any pain anymore, could comn my hair, dry myself and dress. Not to believe. Also doctor V. took me seriously. Because of this I had the courage to ask him if he wanted to cooperate with the book of Jomanda. That's why this letter, from a very grateful and still wundered human child, and the letter of doctor V.
    [ DR. P.G. V., Ortopedic surgeon. - "...Dear Ms S., also until now I am astonished about what Jomanda has achieved concerning your shoulder. There are things between heaven and earth which we can not explain medically"

    mr. E.W.B. (pg. 24) -"diabetic patient.... since my impatience increased concerning the closing of the wound, I tried in last resort to put your energised water on my foot. The remarkable result of it was, which within three days the wound had closed. This result I communicated with doctor of the AZU, who reacted cool: " I have heard something of the phenomenon Jomanda", whereupon a silence fell and he left. It was very funny, that the nurse present also, after the doctor left, said: "you must especially continue mr.B. with using the energised water, because we see such positive results of it" Became clearly, that regular medicine still has difficulty recognising these kinds of healings"
    FE wrote:
    Read the quote about PEAR (Jomanda even in blue). If you do not want to contact them. Fine, but I'll guess than in that case that if I should give you 900 witnesses of Jomanda's miracles, you will not contact them also. so why bother asking anyway ?
    Jessica Utts: "It is a waste of time, to continue this kind of reaearch, if it is only meant to find even more evidence. 'There is few expectations of continuesly handing over evidence, for those who are not willing to accept the presently available data"

    #(4)# If someone goes to a doctor, and being refered to a hospital, where a heartattack is being ascertained, and a appointment is made for a second research later, and a person goes to a healing of Jomanda in the place of that sick-person (note - also for Sylvia Millecam people went to healings), and the sick-person after that goes to the second appointment in another hospital, and there after research it shows that 'nothing can be seen anymore of a heartattack', conclusion ?
    FE wrote:
    Read the quote about PEAR (Jomanda even in blue). If you do not want to contact them. Fine, but I'll guess than in that case that if I should give you 900 witnesses of Jomanda's miracles, you will not contact them also. so why bother asking anyway ?
    ISAW wrote:
    Because you CLAIMED something to be true! You should be able to support this! If you cant you should admit it and withdraw the claim!

    #(5)# Provide me the evidence of what you claim, otherwise I do not believe you, what did I claim to be true in reference to PEAR as you make this claim as an answer to my PEAR quote ? You should be able to support this! If you cant you should admit it and withdraw the claim!
    ISAW wrote:
    where does PEAR support you claim about Jomanda having powers?
    You seem to be confused a bit. I quote PEAR. I quess I could quote them a hundred times if necessary. PEAR claimed that they have "amassed an immense body of empirical evidence that indicates that effects such as those described are empirically demonstrable under controlled laboratory conditions. PEAR speaks of collective scientific evidence supporting phenomena such as those demonstrated by Jomanda, even so much evidence that the term "paranormal" should be inappropriate" and "normal" is more upto reality.

    To maybe make it more understandable, PEAR speaks of that phenomena such as those demonstrated by Jomanda are "normal", in their expert opinion. That does not mean PEAR have researched Jomanda. But I guess you could have figured that out by yourself. It is always easier if someone else spells it out, so that that (outspelling) will create new opportunity to (be able to) look for new mistakes, a new stick to hit the dog with.

    And if no new stick can be found, you can always turn the matter into a litlle word-game where Sherlock Holmes could come in handy. Twisting, turning, mixing things up, pulling them out of context (as you seem very good at just quoting 1 sentence and leaving the rest out), and drifting away from reality, the points made earlier, the content, context, the facts. This could either be a hobby or confusion. By not answering the questions to proof what you claim, I will just assume you agree with me, because in that case I see no evidence of disagreeing.
    ISAW wrote:
    In your first post in a section related to curing cancer you state the following:
    the effects of human intention and emotional resonance on the behavior of random physical processes. They have amassed an immense body of empirical evidence that indicates that effects such as those described are empirically demonstrable under controlled laboratory conditions"
    ISAW wrote:
    You gave the PEAR link there. Wher does PEAR suppoer you claim that Jomanda can cure cancer?

    #(6)# I do not believe you, provide evidence of what you claim, where did I say PEAR support my claim that Jomanda can cure cancer ? If you do not claim this, why ask the question if then the question does not belong to you and your personal opinion ?
    ISAW wrote:
    where is there ANY evidence for such "energy" or that Jomanda cured anyone?
    In your opinion there is no evidence for such 'energy' or that Jomanda can cure anyone.

    #(7)# Do you claim that a Jomanda miracle can not take place, Jomanda could not work, based on your opinion that there is no evidence that Jomanda can cure anyone ?
    #(8)# Or do you claim that a Jomanda miracle can take place, Jomanda could work, despite your opinion that there is no evidence that Jomanda can cure anyone ?
    ISAW wrote:
    Let me be clear
    1. Where is the evidence any cure of anyone ever happened?
    2. what is the mechanism
    3. what measurable paranormal powers does Jomanda have?
    1. Medical records, testimonials (doctors/visitors) which could and should be scientifically researched.
    2. What is what mechanism ?
    3. Posting one: "Jomanda has been giving healings for 30 years. She's born with certain paranormal gifts which (combination) only a few people in the world possess: clairaudient, second-sighted (remote viewing), has clear-feelings (precognition), and the greater part is clear-knowing" Measurable - see e..g. Fritz Albert Popp, Jessica Utts (anomalous cognition "It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria"
    I am no researcher. I just write about Jomanda. If you 'really' want to know more contact someone more familiar with these matters.

    It could be made very difficult, but a cancertumor is gone or it is not.
    JOMANDA: HOW DELIVER PROVE ?
    (source - Tv-programme 'Het Levenslied', bco KRO?, 29 aug 1995, conversation with prof. B. Smalhout) - [ Jomanda ] - "Nevertheless easy, because I think if you are honest, then that does not touch you, I do have nothing to hide, also everyone, every journalist can freely go its way, one can researche, I always have a big wish - a dressingroom in the beginning, is quit some work, everybody can undress, with doctors present, research, and then after the healing again, because it is just true, it is for real"
    FE wrote:
    JOMANDA: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
    ...How many people have you researched ? ] [KW]- "332 people effectively[/u]"[/i]
    Let me guess your answer: "not good enough"
    ISAW wrote:
    where is the published research on the 332 people you claim?
    Thus, Not good enough. I do not know. Contact the bco. I just write, quote and present the 'S.M.case'
    ISAW wrote:
    Verfiable evidence can be found in medical records. Care to please produce them then?
    Jomanda visitors can.

    #(9)# What are you claiming ? What difference will it make if you should be given a medical record ? Will you 'suddenly' belief Jomanda ? What will you do with the record ?

    Show me your intentions before asking something so that your purpose and goal will be clear before full-filling, meeting your expectations/what you aks for so that afterwards when your are given what you asked for, you can comply with what you yourself claimed beforehand. Otherwise it makes no sense, because if the rules (expectations) change afterwards, it is of no use at all in giving it, because it must be clear 'why' something has to be given, so that just giving for the sake and heck of it, because you say so, is use-less, because the use is not clear.
    FE wrote:
    VERIFIABLE EVIVIDEN:
    ISAW wrote:
    Addinf bolding and colour doesnt make it evidence
    Pulling 1 sentence out of its context does not make things more clear. It confuses, misleads, distracts from content... I guess that is not your intention at all. Or maybe.....?
    ISAW wrote:
    Please show in each of these links exacely the part of that link which shows "verifiable evidence " of Jomanda having psychic powers.
    I do not see the links in your/this quote/answer, so I can and will not show....
    Furthermore, you really have a big fantasy, if you do not answer question 10. I will assume you agree with me, because I will then see no evidence of disagreement.
    :#(10)# I do not believe you, show me the evidence of what you claim, twist and turn, where did I state that these links show 'verifianle evidence' of Jomanda having psychic powers ?
    ISAW wrote:
    i agree with this quotee (the only one you actually quoted from) but it has nothing to do with Jomanda having powers.
    It is becoming very laughable. You make a joke of it / yourself.
    :#(11)# I do not believe you, show me the evidence of what you claim, twist and turn, where did I state that that quote had to do with Jomanda having powers ?
    ISAW wrote:
    If you make claims SUPPORT them or go away !
    Maybe you should say that to the thousands and thousands of women with breastimplants ! You dare to ask me for evidence while silicone breastimplants (the almost first sentence in my very first post SILIONE-GATE) have never been tested on humans, never been 'proven' safe. I think you must have great courage and be very proud of yourself.

    Even the headinspector of Dutch healtchare walked over a Jomanda-miracle (confirmed by a present IGZ-doctor) which came to word during the IGZ-investigations. That experience makes me 'believe' that you also are not 'really' interested at all in this matter, no matter what I will give you. You just want it (reality) to go away, and maybe out of that motivation you'll search for any stick..... Thus, It just seems very clear to me: nothing and nobody will be 'good enough for you' because you simply do not and will not belief Jomanda ever, no matter how many scientific evidence will be provided, no matter what will be given to you, in and is my assumption, based on what I have read from you. I could be wrong and mistaken, but as long as I do not see the 'evidence' of me not being right on this, I simply will assume that I am right because I do not belief you just because you say so, according to your own way of reasoning.

    At some point in life........see Fairytale.


  • Options
    #50
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    Wicknight wrote:
    About 500 years of medicine. And about 500 years of physics.
    See FAIRYTALE: so much for evolution. Or you might think that what people believed in the early days (e.g. earth is flat) is the truth, and nothing but the whole truth ever and for ever.Simply Red "'Holding back the years....". Einstein was 'simply' wrong on a matter but life does go on in reality:
    "I don't believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
    ( Albert Einstein, New York Times, April 19, 1955 )
    Wicknight wrote:
    How does Jomanda heal these people? In scientific terms what does she actually do? How the atoms from her head influence the atoms in the persons throat, or hand, or leg? I doubt you know.

    CARL JUNG: ILLUSION WORLD
    "We must take into account that the world as we experience is only appearance. This means that she in fact is part of a larger whole in which a totally different order of things dominates - where ' here ' and ' there ', space and time do not exist"
    ( C. Jung druing a meeting of a psychological studygroup, Basel, 1957)
    CARL JUNG: SUBCONSCIOUS
    "Look, I know that I sit with you here now, talking, and you know, as far it concerns you, the same. But between us a exchange of words have taken place. But besides words whom we aim at each other, there are so many other things which move from the one to the other - feelings, images, parts of the soul. If we leave ourself on the nature-science and the so-called realistic view of the world which accumulates of that, we are often not aware how much we make abstracts and isolate. The true reality one can only enter spiritually"
    < source- C. Jung, july 1955, to a reporter of a Swiss newspaper >

    "We think we have controle, but mostly we act first and than we make up a story.....the conscious, aware controle of a human about his or her behaviour and deeds is 1%"

    JOMANDA: HOW DOES HEALING WORK ?

    JOMANDA: EACH SICKNESS IS HEALABLE
    ( source - Tv-programme 'Het Levenslied', bco KRO?, 29 aug 1995, conversation with prof. B. Smalhout ) -
    -[Jomanda]-"Every sickness can be healed, not every sick person, there are many people with soul-pain, and than you enter a different territory, past lifes"
    -[Jomanda]-"Because the energy that comes free via me, is a love-energy that touches the core of people, and if one suddenly feels, that sorrow from, out of a youth, coming up, and suddenly one thinks 'heee, I now have to scream or I must suddely cry' and suddenly feel that space, and then the positive energy comes into the body, and that can accomplish that a healing, or certainly an improvement, will take place"...(...)..."It is so beautiful what people tell afterwards, that they were allowed to decharge, that the depth of their soul, the deepest sorrow will rise and that gives a human so much room, that is so great"
    - [Jomanda] -"I am convinced of that. Sometimes I get a clue from a patients past lives. For example, once I said to a gentleman 'Well, Sir, do you know you have been a fighting-boxer in a past life ?', the man looked at me and replied ' I have always had pain in my hands, but no body is able to find anything'. I replied 'Than that pain will disappear' and the core was struck, the subconscious recognised it and he was instantly cured, healed of the pain in his hands. I believe absolutely in Life after this life, to be born is living and dying, but the soul lives on. If life would only be this life, it would have no purpose. I think people have to learn, we are here to learn, I think that than the soul will get richer and I think if you go about life very well, listen well to your body, and try to be honest to yourself and your fellow-human, that on that moment you realise that you are growing, and that is very important. A lesson, you pay for death, you do not get it free. You pay it with your life"

    JOMANDA: HOW DOES HEALING WORK ?
    ( source - Tv-programme '5 Uurshow', bco RTL4, 11 dec1995 ) -
    [Jomanda]-"A medium is quit different from a paranormal healer, normally one uses it's own energy, I do not use that, it happens through me, theenergy that comes free that touches the core of people, and as a result things can happen, so the positive energy which enters the body of people, will battle with the negative energy in the body, that is a complaint, a sickness, a other kind of problem, a fear, a negative thought, and when you get the batlle between good and evil, then it is indeed possible to get improvement or healing"

    JOMANDA: HOW DOES HEALING WORK ?
    ( source - Tv-programme 'RondomTien', bco NCRV, 15 febr 1994,Violet Falkenburg ) -
    Is jomanda, a miracle, real healing, suggestion or witchcraft ? - [Jomanda]-"If there is a negative energy inside a human, than that can be a disease, a pain, a blockade, a negative thought, than you get the battle good-evil, and that means that than the body can react, and thus as a result of the battle good-evil, to try to work the negative energy out of the body, than people get reactions, that is the easiest explanation, so one could start to shake, one could get it very hot, and there are also people who have to go to the toilet extra more often and find black relief, stools, which is ofcourse a nice easy method"

    JOMANDA: ONE HEALS, ANOTHER DOES NOT ?
    (1) ( source - Tv-programme 'Barend & Witteman',13 mei 1999, Sonja Barend) -
    [Jomanda]- "Not all people, but everything what mat happen is for the good. every reduction of pain, is profit"
    (2) ( source- Tv-programme 'Rondom Tien', bco NCRV, 15 febr 1994, Violet Falkenburg ) - [Jomanda]- "There are many people who do not cure, heal. Imagine that everybody would could be healed, that would be a revolution on earth, that is not the intention, it is possible fo one person, for another not, evry sickness can be healed, but not every sick-person, there are many people with soul-pain/smart, soul-agony,anguish, mental suffering, and than you come onto another territory, wich dates from past-lives. It is also possible that people get a bit of acceptation and that is also a form of healing"
    FE wrote:
    Do you not find medical records proof ?
    Wicknight wrote:
    No, of course not. If I drive my mother to the doctor for a broken leg, and a week later her medical records show that her leg is healing, can I claim that those medical records are proof that I healed my mother? No, of course not that would be nonsense.
    If your mothers leg is broken, she visits the doctor who put this in the medical record (moment A) and then later she visits Jomanda, and after that she visits the doctor again and the leg is healed, that will also be put in the medical record (moment B). Between moment A and B is Jomanda. Thus medical records can show something.

    #(1)# If someone goes to a doctor, and being refered to a hospital, where a heartattack is being ascertained, and a appointment is made for a second research later, and a person goes to a healing of Jomanda in the place of that sick-person (note - also for Sylvia Millecam people went to healings), and the sick-person after that goes to the second appointment in another hospital, and there after research it shows that 'nothing can be seen anymore of a heartattack', conclusion ?
    Wicknight wrote:
    How does she heal these people? What does she do? What actually happens
    See above. But also:

    JOMANDA & BREASTCANCER
    A woman, a Jomanda-visitor (M. H. from town Haarlem) got once during a Jomanda healing, a (spiritual) 'thumb-push' from Jomanda (type of energy injection) on her breast, without Jomanda knowing why, because Jomanda treated people massively in this case, and in this case people came forward in rows, where upon the thumb-push was given to a person in front of the wiating line, and then it is the following person' turn, as a result of which Jomanda is in the presence of concerning person only split seconds, whereas further no words are spoken and there therefore absolutely no patient information exchange takes place. This thumb-push was painful for the concerning woman and this little spot, print on het body stayed that way after the healing, so that she decided after twoo weeks to visit a regular doctor. This doctor observed cancer (diagnosis) in a very early stage, as a result of which an adequate regular treatment could be given and worse scenario's could be prevented.

    The treatment, spiritual operation of Jomanda, in this case, the thumb-push, had a primarily goal to prevent (more terrible) sickness, and with that promoting the medical condition of the woman. If the woman had got no (painful) thumb-push from Jomanda, then she would have walked on much longer, not knowing she had cancer, as a result of which she would have knocked on regular' door in a much further stage in time, as a result of which cancertreatment would have been more difficult with higher costs for national health care. Jomanda wishes cooperation with regular medicine for 30 years. Informant Jomanda (of causes) and the 'finisher' regular medicine (to prevent more serious impact) without both parties being damaged in their profession and study.

    JOMANDA: CAUSE-NOSIS
    Above thumb-push example shows that Jomanda does not occupy herself with diagnosis proposition (impact of a cause). Jomanda does cause-proposition: 'cause-nosis'. Jomanda knows nothing of patients and wants to know nothing about them. So, through the view of regular medicine seen the quantity of patient information regular medicine needs to make a diagnosis, diagnosis-proposition by Jomanda is impossible.

    Jomanda treats her visitors without Jomanda knowing who, what, how and where. Jomanda only gets, in above example, to 'see' the spot where she must press her thumb. And that in split seconds, from the moment that one person steps away from her after having received the thumb-push to the moment the next person in line steps forward. Also this treatment, the spots are a total surprise for Jomanda herself, because afterwards frequently it proves to be just the right spot. Like for instant when the person walking away after the thumb-push is calling out to Jomanda "well what a co-incidence that I get the Thumb in my backside, I just went through my back this week", or "well what a co-incidence, that I get the Thumb on my hand, I will be operated on my hand next week".

    JOMANDA & MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS: UNREALISTIC
    Also seen the large number of people that Jomanda can treat at once (full rooms), diagnosis proposition is thus not practical, feasable and realistic. Jomanda's unique revealing uncommon treatment technique with as an aim awareness, reallisation of the 'cause' of sickness from consequentual diagnostic-complaints. Jomanda goes directly to the cause by means of her combined paranormal gifts (technique) which has nothing to do with diagnosis. Simply because Jomanda is no doctor, but a paranormal healing medium.

    QUOTES WEBSITE JOMANDA: CAUSES
    "...By means of Jomanda the cause of a sickness or complaint may be traced. Her deceased father is her guide and at the same time mediator for so-called spiritual doctors who can use Jomanda as medium / channel to cure sicknesses of body and soul. That can happen via Jomanda's hands, voice or total fysical radiation. Also healing takes place via so-clled 'spiritual operations" , "The positive energy which is released through Jomanda as medium is an energy of love. This energy touches you in the depth of your being and in that depth everything lies hidden, including the cause of your complaint. Jomanda began her first practice around 1978. Since then many miracles have happened. Many more will follow... also today. You don't have to believe it; you may experience it, as many have done before you"
    Wicknight wrote:
    Inconclusive. That is not proof that Jomanda healed the person, any more than saying that the coffee she had for breakfast healed her.
    #(2)# What does actually and concrete proof to you that Jomanda healed a person ?
    A cancertumor is gone or it is not after having visited Jomanda.
    Wicknight wrote:
    The only reason you think Jomanda healed the person is because she claimed she did. That is not proof she did, or even reason to believe her
    The only reason you think Jomanda did not healed the person is because she claimed she did, what is not good enough for you. That is not proof she didn't, or even reason not to believe her. It just proves what you do or do not find 'good enough'.

    #(3)# What kind of proof is good enough for you ?
    Maybe you mean such excelent and fantastic proof as for some regular medicine which are not based on scientific evidence at all but on consent between professiongroups. (see post earlier 'evidence based') Or the reliable evidence out of evenmore reliable scientific studies (see earlier quotes on 'fraud' etc)
    Wicknight wrote:
    Imagine if someone else had claimed to have healed the person at the same time? Now you have 2 people claiming that in the week between doctors appointments they healed the patient? Without having any clue what either of these people actually did how do you know if either of them is telling the truth. I could claim that over the years I have, by remote viewing, managed to healed all the people that Jomanda has claimed to heal, that it was really me, not Jomanda. Prove I didn't, prove to me now that it wasn't me

    #(4)# Do you mean to say regular medicine might not be so effective as some claim it to be, because when I go to a doctor for treatment, or take medicine, maybe at the same time someone is praying for me in Africa, or maybe even an alien might be beaming at me.or maybe I might be eating some kind of special pruple fruit or vegeatable when laying on the operation table etc etc etc. Without having any clue what either of these people actually did how do you know if either of them is telling the truth. Prove it was really just the regular medicine. and it wasn't anything else. That might be a fantasy, which might also explain why someone gets cured from cancer by medicine and another person does not with the same medicine.
    Wicknight wrote:
    how do you know if either of them is telling the truth
    See FAIRYTALE.."at some point if life..."
    Wicknight wrote:
    How much money does Jomanda make by claiming that she heals people?
    Ask Jomanda. Healing is unaffordable.
    How much money do churches make by claiming that they heal people ?


  • Options
    #51
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    ISAW wrote:
    You are at it again! Asking me to prove a negative and shifting the burden
    Please alearn some logic. Above doen not say "no miracles happen" It says EITHER "no miracles" happen OR " If I say either I am male OR I am female that is NOT a claim I am male is it?

    See FAIRYTALE: "In reference to a to the eye simple earthly question, after two weeks of discussion and conversation......"

    #(1)# - Do you think/claim that Jomanda can perform miracles ?
    #(2)# - Or do you think/claim Jomanda cannot perform miracles ?

    Just answering the questions will make (life) a lot easier. If you refuse (having problems with simple quotestions) I see no point why I should bother to answer your questions.

    I asssume and will continue to assume you think/claim 'Jomanda can not perform miracles'. If I see no written for me checkable disagreement, no arguments ('evidence') against this assumption of me, I can only draw the conclusion that you actually agree with my assumption that you claim 'Jomanda can not perform miracles'.

    A claim which you cannot support, not proof with evidence. And in that case I can understand why you want to believe or make it look like you claim nothing, for the simple reason as that will look kind of contradicting foolish and silly, asking other to proof what they claim, while in the meantime you yourself cannot proof what you claim.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    FE, can you prove this chick performs miracles?


  • Options
    #53
    Sir Digby Chicken Caesar
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    wth? as soon as you leave the paranormal board you start demanding proof of people?


  • Options
    #54
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    FE30033 wrote:
    Not farcical or hypocritical (speaking of ad-hominems), but realistic and 'skeptical'. I see your fantasy apart from the one, supposed by you, Jomanda has. Trying to hide/link it behind others (fantasies) does not make it less of a fantasy.

    shifting the burden. You cam in claiming "i believe in Jomandas powers" someone else says "I dont ! I prefer to believe it an scientific alternative." You then ridicule the scientific alternative! It isnt for them to prove science. they didnt arrive here making claims about Jomanda. YOU did! they don't have to prove an alternative.
    I do not believe you. Where is the evidence of your claim/belief 'not suitable'?

    Same again. shiften the burden! It isnt for then to show PEAR up as a bad source (although they might well do so). YOU supplied PEAR and when asked how PEAR in any way supports claimms that Jomanda has phychic powers you uttserly (i mean utterly) failed!
    See the earlier presented evidence to support this belief:
    What earlier "evidence"? You havent shown any supporting scientific evidence for you claims about Jomanda. where is the evidence about Randi?
    'Randi is in my opinion not a reliable option' Others are, in my opinion. Randi was some kind of magician.

    the point isnt about the PERSON it is about the foundation JREF whcih has legal documentation which offers the million dollars and which proposed an OBJECTIVE test for which Randi does not even have to be present!
    Prof. Piet Borst e.g. is a wellknown highly respected researcher.
    Argument from authority. Scientists can and have been fooled by magicians parlour tricks.
    If you really (not just find a stick to hit the dog) want to know how Jomanda feels about it, contact her.

    Sorry that is shifting the burden. YOU made claims YOU support them. dont ask others to supply the research for YOUR claims! I may as well ask you to go and research the Unicorns on my front lawn.
    I really do not know and I do not care,

    What you know or care is beside the point1 If you claim Jomanda had powers then it is for you to supply evidence. You havent done so! In the absence of evidence it is reasonable for people to assume she hasnt any powers.
    It seems to me that everybody and everything that does not match you believeconviction is warded off. Maybe you (to protect your belief) even belief the Chinese-government is crazy.

    What the chinese government believe is a Red Herring (or where Falun gong is concerned probably a good straw man for your detractors unless of course the chinese government made a statement about Jomanda). did the chinese government say anything about Jomanda? If they didnt then shut up about them.
    China Accepts The Paranormal: amazing Powers of New Children
    "Since 1974 the Chinese government has discovered over 100.000 children who have extraordinary psychic powers. These children, when blindfolded, can "see" with either their ears, nose, mouth, tongue, armpits, hands or feet.

    Oh they did! Well start another thread on this unsupported rubbish then! Unless it has to do with Jomanda. It is clearly argument from authority.
    The "New Children" have come to Earth with a clear purpose. These kids know who they are and why they are here. They carry a new vibration and have come to transform the consciousness of humanity"
    http://www.linkgrinder.com/articles/Super_Psychic_Kids_Amazing_Powers_of_New_Children_1714_0_article.html

    LOL! Please please please start another therad on this subject. we all need a laugh now and again.

    By the way the Weekly world News once ran a headline "Marilyn Monroe returns to Earth - As a Lettuce! if and when jomanda arrives here: http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
    (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_World_News) her incarnation will be complete
    Maybe so in some cases or in fantasy. In other cases reality seems different and reality proves that people in some cases are not willing to research and only able to act in cases which are complying with own beliefs. Sadly, because when Jomanda had healings in Tiel, sometimes 12.000 visitors cam a day !

    Where is your evidence that
    1. healings happened that day
    2. 12,000 people came that day
    DUTCH MINISTRY HEALTHCARE (VWS)
    http://www.minvws.nl/en/
    ( source - letter, 2 February 2004, director Innovatie, professions and ethics, drs. N.C. O.) -
    ...snip...What counts is, if a treatment method after tests has shown to be effective, whether the method is alternative or not"[/i]

    Note the bit after the snip?
    DUTCH HEALTH COUNCIL (GR)
    http://www.gr.nl/index.php?phpLang=en
    ( source - letter, 16 April 2004, Dr. M. v. L., general secretary) - ...There is thus no Health point of view in this matter"[/i]

    NO point of viev is not supporting evidence.
    CARE RESEARCH NETHERLANDS (ZONMW) I
    http://www.zonmw.nl/en/home.html ( source - letter, 26 april 2004, H.J.S. director ) -
    "Concerning the by Jomanda applied treatment ZONMW has the point of view that all new treatments thoroughly must be examined on their effectiveness, before applying these on patients and to link health-claims to them. This research has to take place according to the standards in the scientific world in an independent and controllable manner and must also be repeatable"

    Yes. where and when did this ever happen in the case of Jomanda? that would then be evidence.

    ARE TO LIMIT OURSELVES TO DCOTORS who practition acupuncture, homeopaths and naturemedicine"[/i]

    Because they wont waste their resourses testing Jomanda is no reason why Jomanda couldnt pay for the tests herself!
    DUTCH MINISTER OF HEALTH HOOGERVORST
    ( source- 15 july 2004, ouf of name, director Innovation, drs.N.O.)
    - "In my opinion it is to the practitioners themselves to show effectiveness of their methods. For this they can apply researchproposals with the organisations mentioned earlier in my letter from 2 february 2004 (RGO, GR, ZonMw)"

    exactly! Why cant jomanda fund the research herself. Offer to pay for non biased scientific research?
    DUTCH GOVERNEMT: PVDA PARTY
    Sent: friday 17 september 2004
    RE: - KNMG (as everybody) is silent concerning Jomanda
    ..snip... The public governing board then tries consequently also to watch the public interest a bit. I think honestly that we do not differ about that from opinion.

    Exactly ! for "the public interest" please dont confuse it with "what the public is interested in" or "what is popular" . Try using "purse" instead of "interest". why should the State fund research into the paranormal?

    [/quote]
    X.X.
    Member PVDA-party

    Nothing was heard ever again from PVDA on this matter. Claiming....words...but deeds....

    Really? How do I know? I note you dont use the actual name. You seem to be happy to suggest people contact Jomanda but you fail to supply the name of the person in the PVDA party. who was it? Again in the absence of a name how am I to know any such correspondence ever occurred? since yu are so happy to claim that this letter was sent and nothing happened since how is it you refuse to say the persons name?
    # The Case of Royal Raymond Rife
    Royal Raymond Rife was the inventor of the Universal Microscope which he presented to the world in 1933. The scientist who discovered that the unique electronic 'signature' of each specific disease can be modified to eliminate nearly every affliction known to man
    - Why is the pharmaceutical industry afraid of this man ?
    ...snip

    dont know if they are but it has nothing to do with Jomanda has it?


    Drifting and shifting the burden as a world's voice on matters scientific was not the matter at hand. And it has no impact, when you think unlawfull handling is okay.
    DUTCH CODE OF LAW: ORAL AGREEMENT


    PROF. PIET BORST & HEALTHCARE GAMBLING
    Prof. Piet Borst took on a bet, on national television (12 August 2000), in the tv programme 'The Black Sheep' of bco VARA, with Jomanda, to research Jomanda's energised water with the following words: - [Piet Borst]-"..May I make a proposal, a proposal that you (Jomanda) energise 1000 bottles of water, and that we then take a 1000 bottles which are not energised, and that we look, if there is any difference..." -[Jomanda ] - "Gladly" -[Piet Borst[/quote]

    Great! this IS a test. What was the outcome?
    Quackbuster organization Skepis twist and turn the facts. Because in reality Jomanda did and does dare, but Prof. Piet Borst chickened out. It does have impact when one 'claims' to be a quackbuster, which in reality one is obviously not in this case. Put up or shut up, is a well heard statement by the quackbusters.


    Okay so where is the 1000 bottles of "energised" water? When did jomanda supply them?

    I am Irish skeptics will gladly take say 100 bottles. could you actually supply a litre of "energised" water and we can seperate it into 100 bottles and test it? Better yet. we supply the water and jomanda energise it and send it back! then in a double blind test we both analyse the water and test it on 200 people and look to see if there is any differences.

    What does Jomanda claim the "enigerised" can do that normal water does not do?

    If under proper test conditions you cant tell the difference and it does not have any significant difference from the placebo (normal water) will you then accept this is NOT evidence of Jomanda having powers.

    Now all you have to do is supply a liter of "normal" water and a liter of "energised" water taken from the same source as the normal water. Two kilos- that wont cost you ten euros to post to ireland I would not think.

    I think we could get someone to run them through a HPLC machine with a multi channel analyser. We might also get some medical doctors to give it to patients though you would have to get an MD to collect the water (even if only buying it in a shop) and seal it and make sure it is not tampered with. Actually it might even be done by a legal officer who buys two bottled of sealed shop water hands one to Jomanda to "energise" takes it back and marks both bottles (say bottle A and B) and then gives then to skeptics to test. The skeptics wont know what bottle is what and they will test them.
    How does that sound? My expecvtations are that there wont be any difference between the water in the two bottles.

    So what is "energised" water?


  • Options
    #55
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    FE30033 wrote:
    Some people seem to be more troubled and worried about how much money a person earns, that thousands and thousands of women including Sylvia Millecam: the matter/claim/argument at hand.

    Skeptics may think it is silly but they do not usually mind when people have personal beliefs in aliens /religion/ paranormal etc. skeptics begin to get concerned when people make CLAIMS about these so called "paranormal" powers and skeptis REALLY GET CONCERNED when people CHARGE FOR their services.

    Usually if someone claims to practic astrology/healing etc. and do it anonomously and dont contradict medicine skeptics are happy to tolerate them. when they claim science is wrong and that they have powers and when they charge money or make material gain based on their claims then skeptics are interested.


  • Options
    #56
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    FE30033 wrote:
    Not farcical or hypocritical (speaking of ad-hominems), but realistic and 'skeptical'. I see your fantasy apart from the one, supposed by you, Jomanda has. Trying to hide/link it behind others (fantasies) does not make it less of a fantasy.

    shifting the burden. You cam in claiming "i believe in Jomandas powers" someone else says "I dont ! I prefer to believe it an scientific alternative." You then ridicule the scientific alternative! It isnt for them to prove science. they didnt arrive here making claims about Jomanda. YOU did! they don't have to prove an alternative.
    I do not believe you. Where is the evidence of your claim/belief 'not suitable'?

    Same again. shiften the burden! It isnt for then to show PEAR up as a bad source (although they might well do so). YOU supplied PEAR and when asked how PEAR in any way supports claimms that Jomanda has phychic powers you uttserly (i mean utterly) failed!
    See the earlier presented evidence to support this belief:
    What earlier "evidence"? You havent shown any supporting scientific evidence for you claims about Jomanda. where is the evidence about Randi?
    'Randi is in my opinion not a reliable option' Others are, in my opinion. Randi was some kind of magician.

    the point isnt about the PERSON it is about the foundation JREF whcih has legal documentation which offers the million dollars and which proposed an OBJECTIVE test for which Randi does not even have to be present!
    Prof. Piet Borst e.g. is a wellknown highly respected researcher.
    Argument from authority. Scientists can and have been fooled by magicians parlour tricks.
    If you really (not just find a stick to hit the dog) want to know how Jomanda feels about it, contact her.

    Sorry that is shifting the burden. YOU made claims YOU support them. dont ask others to supply the research for YOUR claims! I may as well ask you to go and research the Unicorns on my front lawn.
    I really do not know and I do not care,

    What you know or care is beside the point1 If you claim Jomanda had powers then it is for you to supply evidence. You havent done so! In the absence of evidence it is reasonable for people to assume she hasnt any powers.
    It seems to me that everybody and everything that does not match you believeconviction is warded off. Maybe you (to protect your belief) even belief the Chinese-government is crazy.

    What the chinese government believe is a Red Herring (or where Falun gong is concerned probably a good straw man for your detractors unless of course the chinese government made a statement about Jomanda). did the chinese government say anything about Jomanda? If they didnt then shut up about them.
    China Accepts The Paranormal: amazing Powers of New Children
    "Since 1974 the Chinese government has discovered over 100.000 children who have extraordinary psychic powers. These children, when blindfolded, can "see" with either their ears, nose, mouth, tongue, armpits, hands or feet.

    Oh they did! Well start another thread on this unsupported rubbish then! Unless it has to do with Jomanda. It is clearly argument from authority.
    The "New Children" have come to Earth with a clear purpose. These kids know who they are and why they are here. They carry a new vibration and have come to transform the consciousness of humanity"
    http://www.linkgrinder.com/articles/Super_Psychic_Kids_Amazing_Powers_of_New_Children_1714_0_article.html

    LOL! Please please please start another therad on this subject. we all need a laugh now and again.

    By the way the Weekly world News once ran a headline "Marilyn Monroe returns to Earth - As a Lettuce! if and when jomanda arrives here: http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/
    (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_World_News) her incarnation will be complete
    Maybe so in some cases or in fantasy. In other cases reality seems different and reality proves that people in some cases are not willing to research and only able to act in cases which are complying with own beliefs. Sadly, because when Jomanda had healings in Tiel, sometimes 12.000 visitors cam a day !

    Where is your evidence that
    1. healings happened that day
    2. 12,000 people came that day
    DUTCH MINISTRY HEALTHCARE (VWS)
    http://www.minvws.nl/en/
    ( source - letter, 2 February 2004, director Innovatie, professions and ethics, drs. N.C. O.) -
    ...snip...What counts is, if a treatment method after tests has shown to be effective, whether the method is alternative or not"[/i]

    Note the bit after the snip?
    DUTCH HEALTH COUNCIL (GR)
    http://www.gr.nl/index.php?phpLang=en
    ( source - letter, 16 April 2004, Dr. M. v. L., general secretary) - ...There is thus no Health point of view in this matter"[/i]

    NO point of viev is not supporting evidence.
    CARE RESEARCH NETHERLANDS (ZONMW) I
    http://www.zonmw.nl/en/home.html ( source - letter, 26 april 2004, H.J.S. director ) -
    "Concerning the by Jomanda applied treatment ZONMW has the point of view that all new treatments thoroughly must be examined on their effectiveness, before applying these on patients and to link health-claims to them. This research has to take place according to the standards in the scientific world in an independent and controllable manner and must also be repeatable"

    Yes. where and when did this ever happen in the case of Jomanda? that would then be evidence.

    ARE TO LIMIT OURSELVES TO DCOTORS who practition acupuncture, homeopaths and naturemedicine"[/i]

    Because they wont waste their resourses testing Jomanda is no reason why Jomanda couldnt pay for the tests herself!
    DUTCH MINISTER OF HEALTH HOOGERVORST
    ( source- 15 july 2004, ouf of name, director Innovation, drs.N.O.)
    - "In my opinion it is to the practitioners themselves to show effectiveness of their methods. For this they can apply researchproposals with the organisations mentioned earlier in my letter from 2 february 2004 (RGO, GR, ZonMw)"

    exactly! Why cant jomanda fund the research herself. Offer to pay for non biased scientific research?
    DUTCH GOVERNEMT: PVDA PARTY
    Sent: friday 17 september 2004
    RE: - KNMG (as everybody) is silent concerning Jomanda
    ..snip... The public governing board then tries consequently also to watch the public interest a bit. I think honestly that we do not differ about that from opinion.

    Exactly ! for "the public interest" please dont confuse it with "what the public is interested in" or "what is popular" . Try using "purse" instead of "interest". why should the State fund research into the paranormal?

    [/quote]
    X.X.
    Member PVDA-party

    Nothing was heard ever again from PVDA on this matter. Claiming....words...but deeds....

    Really? How do I know? I note you dont use the actual name. You seem to be happy to suggest people contact Jomanda but you fail to supply the name of the person in the PVDA party. who was it? Again in the absence of a name how am I to know any such correspondence ever occurred? since yu are so happy to claim that this letter was sent and nothing happened since how is it you refuse to say the persons name?
    # The Case of Royal Raymond Rife
    Royal Raymond Rife was the inventor of the Universal Microscope which he presented to the world in 1933. The scientist who discovered that the unique electronic 'signature' of each specific disease can be modified to eliminate nearly every affliction known to man
    - Why is the pharmaceutical industry afraid of this man ?
    ...snip

    dont know if they are but it has nothing to do with Jomanda has it?


    Drifting and shifting the burden as a world's voice on matters scientific was not the matter at hand. And it has no impact, when you think unlawfull handling is okay.
    DUTCH CODE OF LAW: ORAL AGREEMENT


    PROF. PIET BORST & HEALTHCARE GAMBLING
    Prof. Piet Borst took on a bet, on national television (12 August 2000), in the tv programme 'The Black Sheep' of bco VARA, with Jomanda, to research Jomanda's energised water with the following words: - [Piet Borst]-"..May I make a proposal, a proposal that you (Jomanda) energise 1000 bottles of water, and that we then take a 1000 bottles which are not energised, and that we look, if there is any difference..." -[Jomanda ] - "Gladly" -[Piet Borst[/quote]

    Great! this IS a test. What was the outcome?
    Quackbuster organization Skepis twist and turn the facts. Because in reality Jomanda did and does dare, but Prof. Piet Borst chickened out. It does have impact when one 'claims' to be a quackbuster, which in reality one is obviously not in this case. Put up or shut up, is a well heard statement by the quackbusters.


    Okay so where is the 1000 bottles of "energised" water? When did jomanda supply them?

    I am Irish skeptics will gladly take say 100 bottles. could you actually supply a litre of "energised" water and we can seperate it into 100 bottles and test it? Better yet. we supply the water and jomanda energise it and send it back! then in a double blind test we both analyse the water and test it on 200 people and look to see if there is any differences.

    What does Jomanda claim the "enigerised" can do that normal water does not do?

    If under proper test conditions you cant tell the difference and it does not have any significant difference from the placebo (normal water) will you then accept this is NOT evidence of Jomanda having powers.

    Now all you have to do is supply a liter of "normal" water and a liter of "energised" water taken from the same source as the normal water. Two kilos- that wont cost you ten euros to post to ireland I would not think.

    I think we could get someone to run them through a HPLC machine with a multi channel analyser. We might also get some medical doctors to give it to patients though you would have to get an MD to collect the water (even if only buying it in a shop) and seal it and make sure it is not tampered with. Actually it might even be done by a legal officer who buys two bottled of sealed shop water hands one to Jomanda to "energise" takes it back and marks both bottles (say bottle A and B) and then gives then to skeptics to test. The skeptics wont know what bottle is what and they will test them.
    How does that sound? My expecvtations are that there wont be any difference between the water in the two bottles.

    So what is "energised" water?


  • Options
    #57
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    Mordeth wrote:
    wth? as soon as you leave the paranormal board you start demanding proof of people?

    Check every post I've ever made .. I never tell people what to believe. In this case the OP is presuming that if people cant prove he's wrong then he must be right.


  • Options
    #58
    6th
    Registered Users Posts: 17,247 ✭✭✭✭6th


    ISAW wrote:
    Skeptics may think it is silly but they do not usually mind when people have personal beliefs in aliens /religion/ paranormal etc. skeptics begin to get concerned when people make CLAIMS about these so called "paranormal" powers and skeptis REALLY GET CONCERNED when people CHARGE FOR their services.

    Usually if someone claims to practic astrology/healing etc. and do it anonomously and dont contradict medicine skeptics are happy to tolerate them. when they claim science is wrong and that they have powers and when they charge money or make material gain based on their claims then skeptics are interested.

    Perfect post. 100%

    My problem with Jomanda, is that she offering her "healings" as an alternative to medicine. As ISAW has poited out, most dont have a problem with Complimentary treatments as long as science and medicine isnt throw aside.

    Again with regards to Mordeths post, my beliefs are my beliefs.


  • Options
    #59
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    FE30033 wrote:
    Sorry, but is is. That 'something' (medical records, testiomonials) is not good enough for you (as you stated) has to do with you, and only you. Thus your problem.


    Testimonials are NOT scientific evidence! they are advertising. They are not reliable! Under strict controlled conditions what people see is reliable. Otherwise, as I have already pointed out, millions of people can testify that they saw the statue of Liberty disappear! Do you believe it did?

    As for medical records. Yes they ARE evidence. But they must show for example that someone had cancer that they had no other medical treatment and that the cancer disappeared. If you could produce five such cases I would be really convinced that this should be tested.

    But you have not produced any medical evidence.

    All you have done is suggest that there is medixcal evidence. Please

    1. Name five people
    2. name their general practitioner.
    3. list when they were first diagnosed and what they were diagnosed with
    4. list any treatment they had and the medical doctors involved
    5. list when they met jomanda, how many times and what she did.
    6. state if they are alive today

    Now I assume if people really believe they were cured by Jomanda ( which is not proof they were cured it is just their belief) you could supply their names. given you claim 12,000 people arrived in a single day you should be able to supply FIVE cases of miracle cures. Can you do that? You clainm you have medical evidence. where is it?
    #(1)# In daily life, when you e.g. take medicine, do you also check the 'evidence' whether or not it has been proven effective ? Do you ask your prescribing doctor to 'show you where it is' ?

    i am not the one claiming the Medicine works. YOU are! The company claiming the medicine works has strict legal guidlines to follow, the medicine MUST be tested under law! those tests ARE available!
    You seem to forget that what you are saying, is exactly a point of me, in my very first posting. Your believeconviction - VS- Jomanda, mine, thousands of Jomanda-visitors. But your belief is not supported by nothing (only fantasy, which could be right, but because you have nothing in hand, no research, no evidence), while the believeconviction of Jomanda, me and thousands of Jomanda-visitors is supported by proof (medical records, testiomonials, doctors/visitors) which could and should be investigated so that scientific evidence can be obtained, because only then, and only then you are and should be able to draw a conclusion Jomanda does or does not work.

    this is nonsence! It isnt a case od "balance" Skeptics are not making the claim YOU are! You are claiming that that Jomanda hads powers. it is for YOU
    to supply evidence to prove it! You cant claim that skeptics have to prove the negative i.e. she has NOT powers!

    Put it this way. Suppose I claim Jomanda caused someones death. i get the State to put her in court and accuse her of causing someiones death. I claim I believe she caused a death and she says she believs she didnt cause the death. Should she have to prove she didnt cause the death or should the State (who claims she DID cause it) have to assume the negative until proof positive arrives to prove she did cvause death? It isnt a case of "balancing beliefs" it is a case of those making the claim having to prove it and the negative being assumed if evidence is absent.

    Similarly one can assume she does NOT have powers until proof positive arrives!
    A cancertumor is gone or it is not. Simple as that.

    What is the name and case history of the patients whers cancer tumors have gone? What is the name and contact addresses of their doctors? YOU claimed to have medical records. Where are they?
    So where does it not say ? Jomanda claims, see her website, her books. Thousands of Jomanda visitors, testimonial-doctors etc experience personally these powers.

    What medical doctors have evidence for these powers?
    When you presumptively assume she does not have these powers, at a distance without having personally experienced Jomanda,

    When Jomanda was in court accused of causing the deqath of Millicam do you think it was wrong to assume she did NOT cause the death and to expect others to provide evidence?
    #(2)# What do you think and claim about paranormal powers in general ?
    2.1
    I am a skeptic. I believe claims require supporting evidence if they wish to be validated. In this case YOU havent provided any convincing supporting scientific evidence.
    PEAR confirmed (see earlier postings) that phenomena such as those demonstrated by Jomanda is supported by collective scientific evidence. e.g.
    - Information, Consciousness, and Health -

    that is just a listing of a URL. WHERE in that document is any confirmation of what was claimed? I suspect you didnt even read the documents you listed did you? It is a standard requirement of citation that one had read and understood the earlier work.
    Jessica Utts confirmed.....etc etc.

    But like saying "doctors claimed" this is just an unsupported claim. WHERE does this confirmation take place? Where in the publication? Where is the actual test Utts did and how can one repeat that test?

    You seem to think that people that references to someone like "a scientist" who is continually listed in Weekly World News is evidence. It isnt! you have to show the publication and WHERE in the publication the test was done which specifically supports what you claim!
    If you really (and not just want to find a stick in your mind to think you are able to hit the dog with) want to know (more) 'where', contact PEAR, Jessica Utts. If you do not like the message, do not shoot the messenger.

    No sorry this isnt good enough! YOU made the claim. First Saying "Jessica Utts did research into the paranormal" proves nothing about Jomanda. But it proves nothing about the paranormal either. You have to show specifically WHAT Utts tested, how it was tested and where and when the test was done and what conculsions can be drawn for it. Otherwise you are just cutting and pasting a reference. If you tride to publish a parer by following this method or if you tried to do it in a thesis your supervisor would find out by using exactly the same methods I am doing or you would be exposed by not actually having read the sources you claim as back up.

    In short .
    1. Utts is not backup for jomanda is she?
    2. You didnt read any of Utts research and are ignorant of it arent you?

    Please go and read it.
    #(3)# Do you think, claim that you know it better than PEAR ?
    3.1. At lease I have heard of PEAR before. Your "argument from authority" will not work. In any case
    You have not shown PEAR confirms Jomanda.
    You seem not to have read anythinr by PEAR as you only refer to titles and dont seem to be able to quote from the sources you provide.
    #(4)# Are you aware, that the scientific evidence you are asking for in Jomanda's case is in fact an unreality, a fantasy ?

    4.1 So you therefore admit that there is NO scientific evidence for Jomandas so called powers. If there is no evidence for Jomanda cousing a death ( maybe she did cause it but there is no convincing evidence) we can assume she is NOT guilty and leave it at that. But if there is no scientific evidence for her powers you insist we assume she has then and we dont leave it at that? dont you note a logical contradicion here?

    #(5)# Or do you believe there is scientific evidence / research done into Jomanda ?
    - If yes, how do you know ? Where is it ?
    - If no, why do you ask for it, if you know it is not there ?

    You claim she had powers. It is for you to produce the evidence. Otherwise the claim falls. Just as otherwise the claim she caused a death falls. One can assume innocence ie. that she is NOT guilty if there is no evidence. One can also assume she has NOT powers if there is no evidence. Maybe she DID cause the death and maybe she HAS powers but until we see the evidence we cant assume she did can we?
    Well, in reality the book is, the medical record is, the doctor is, ...

    What are the names of these doctors and patients that were involved in miraculous cures. since you claim 12,000 visited her on one day surely you can produce FIVE medically doccumented cases. Can you?

    #(6) Would you put in a book for the whole world to read that you have performed a miracle if you knew it were untrue, while also very very awarely knowing the whole of the country is breathing down you neck and trying to bring you down on the slightest mistake ?

    What I would do is beside the point. whether others have done it :
    http://www.amazon.com/Flim-Flam-Psychics-Unicorns-Other-Delusions/dp/customer-reviews/0879751983

    I am not responsible for your bad sight or lack in reading. Source is mentioned earlier.

    You ARE responsible for showning you actually READ and UNDERSTAND your source!
    #(5)# Why is that relevant to you ? What will it show you ?
    Good Grief!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation
    "Citations permit readers to put claims to the test by consulting earlier works."

    Have you consultedd the earlier work or just cut and pasted it?
    #(6)# Why should I belief any word you say ?
    Because you can consult the earlier work!
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/106318/statue_of_liberty/

    That is full of testimonials!

    One great quote from an observer "I have never a Statue of Liberty disappear as much as this one did!" :)

    If you are so very good at saying e.g. things are wrong, not true, not real, what you did not say, what can not happen and what is not possible, you surely must have a very good expert opinion about things which are right, true, real, waht you did say, what can happen and what is possible.
    #(7)# What is to your opinion real evidence made out off ?
    #(8)# What will satisfy you ? What will be 'good enough for you' ? What do you need , what will it take so that you will belief Jomanda. so that you will belief a fellowhuman ?

    What I believe does not come into it! What is an objective measurement that anyonme can look at does. Make a claim about Jomanda. Suggst a test she can do which will show if she has power or show she has not the power she claims. Then we can do the test. What powers do you suggest Jomanda has?
    #(10)# Where did I say that was evidence of Jomanda curing anything ?

    Hey what happened to #(9)# ? You jumped from #(8)# to #(10)#!
    You claim Jomanda has powers. wher is the EVIDENCE?
    I presented the 'S.M.-case' as a matter of discussion and look where you end up. I like to stick to the point presented initially. The matter at hand. I do not like shifting and drifting away in fantasy, before you know it it will be 'two weeks later' (see Fairytale), and before I'll know it a UFO might even land.

    Who is shifting topic now. If you want to start a discussion on evidence for UFOs start another discussion. This one is about providing evidence that Jomanda has powers!
    You do not belief people and maybe even belief anything, as you state continuesly, unless certain conditions are full-filled which are 'good enough for you'.

    Wrong! Objectively verfiable empirical evidence is what I require form you. where is it?
    you really might mean, claim/state Jomanda does not work, because if you would believe Jomanda did work, you wouldn't constantly ask for evidence.

    You are at it again! Trying to shift teh burden to getting me to prove the negative. I have asked you before several times and you didnt answer me. where idid I say jomanda is not performing miracles? You refused to answer because I didnt fall into that trap! Not dont try to shift the burden onto what I believe! What I believe does not matter! YOU claim Jomanda has powers. Provide evidence or withdraw the claim!
    #(11)# If this conclusion is wrong, do you mean to say (based on what you have read) Jomanda does work or could work ?

    I really think you should look up what skeptics are! You didnt do that either did you? Try looking up "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
    Not speaking out, not making a claim, not taking a stand, not answering questions, drifting and shifting, can speak, claim, answer lots and lots of things on itsself.

    It avoids the shifting of the topic to definding personal beliefs and proving negatives and shifting burdens. YOU made the claims about Jomanda. YOU supply the evidence! What anyone else believes has nothing to do with YOU providing back up for YOUR claims!
    I presented 'S.M. The True Story' as a matter of discussion. If you do not believe it and/or all you can say/claim is 'where is the evidence' (see Fairytale), good for you, if that makes you feel very happy and good about yourself, who am I to contradict you. I did not present this case to convince you, if you should think that. The only one who can convince you, is you, yourself ! Not others ! Not evidence !

    this is nore rubbish. what i feel about things makes NO DIFFERENCE! What the EVIDENCE suggests is what is important. You havent presented any! SM is a case about whether Jomanda caused a death. It isnt proof of Jamandas powers! the evidence was not there to say Jomanda caused the death. so it was assumed she didnt. The evidence isnt there to show she has psychic powers so one can assume she hasnt until evidence arrives!


  • Options
    #60
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    FE30033 wrote:
    #(1)# Do or do you not think Jomanda miracles can take place ?

    You diodnt look up whay a skeptic is did you?
    skeptics dont know. If paranormal powers exist they push science to extraordinary leimit. But YOU are making the claim. It is for YOU to support it. Please dont try to turn supporting YOUR claim into a personal attack on people asking you to back it up.
    According to your own way of reasoning, if you do not answer this question, I will just as easily assume (based on what I have read from you) you realy claim 'Jomanda miracles do not take place'.

    somebody must have put a logic bomb in your head! Please look up "proving a negative" One can ASSUME the neagtive however in the absence of evidence. This is true across science. One assumes a theory to be true unless some test falsifies the theory.
    I can and will only be able to change my mind, see that my assumption is wrong, if you provide, your own argument: 'the evidence' of that assumption being wrong.

    shifting the burden again. Believe what you want. that is your OPINION. But when you come here and claim opinion is FACT you have a problem. I can claim unicorns on my lawn and believe it. I can come here and insist it! I can say any test people suggest is not working becausr the measurements dont show up unicorns because the Unicorns have ways of making it look like ther is nio evidnece. So, what is the difference between no evidence for unicorns and NO UNICORNS?
    Both are unrealistic.

    It isnt a balance of opinions! You claim a fact and you can support it!
    Scientific evidence, that's what Jomanda has been asking for 30 years, as stated in my very first posting,

    so what? asking for a test isnt doing one is it?
    while proof (but not scientific) of miracles is present (e.g. confirmation by a Dutch Healthcare Inspcetion doctor).

    dont come to a skeptic group and claim "proof" but no "scientific proof"
    What is the name of the doctor?
    ... one scientific studie has been performed (332 cases),

    Where is the study published. If you cant produce it then what is the difference between claims of a study (unicorn) and no study?
    If you really, and not just trying to find a stick with which you think in fantasy you can hit the dog with, want to know contact Jomanda for names of doctors and their qualifications.

    Shifting the burden again! YOU claim it! YOU support it!

    Okay then NASA have done experiments into dragons it is in an obscure part of nasa called the Carl Sagan Dragon In My Garage institute. If you dont believe me contact NASA.
    Why not publish ? Some have been published (including names/qualifications), and guess what happened.... no-one seemed to be actually 'really' interested after all. E.g.

    Since you claim it please care to supply the names as published?
    mr. H. E. (pg.61) - "Dear Jomanda,... I am a heart patient, who had to be in the academic hospital in Maastricht on Wednesday at 9 o'clock on an empty stomach

    this is just a story in a book by Jomanda. It is not a medical record verified by a doctor. Self published books are notoriously bad sources of scientific empirically verifiable evidnnce. What is the name of the patient and the doctor whho handled her?
    Ms T.S. (p. 51)[/b] - " Dear Jomanda, in St.Lucas Andreas hospital in Amsterdam,...
    mr. E.W.B. (pg. 24) -"diabetic patient....

    Ditto. Where is the earlier medical records of these patients? Plenty of fakes have done the same thing ( published records which were untrue). where is hte evidence which actually shows these patients medical records?


    #(4)# If someone goes to a doctor, and being refered to a hospital, where a heartattack is being ascertained, and a appointment is made for a second research later, and a person goes to a healing of Jomanda in the place of that sick-person (note - also for Sylvia Millecam people went to healings), and the sick-person after that goes to the second appointment in another hospital, and there after research it shows that 'nothing can be seen anymore of a heartattack', conclusion ?

    What is the name of the patient and wher are the actual medical records. what are the names of the doctors. since the patient is cured she cant be worried about paying higher insurance or anything about that and having been cured she should be prepared to release the records. so where are they?
    If you cant produce them it is only a heardsay storyand not verifiable evidence.
    #(5)# Provide me the evidence of what you claim, otherwise I do not believe you, what did I claim to be true in reference to PEAR as you make this claim as an answer to my PEAR quote ? You should be able to support this! If you cant you should admit it and withdraw the claim!

    LOL! sorry that wont work either! I made a COUNTER CLAIM i.e. YOU made the claim and in the absence of evidence the counter claim is assumed true!

    it is clear that you seem not to have actually read any PEAR research. If you had you would be familiar with it. All you have posted is titles and pressreleases and you havent shown any understanding of the detail of the research since you havent quoted from it! the support for my counter claim come from the fact that you listed several PEAR papers but you supplied no quotes form any of them which showed anything to back up any argument.

    You seem to be confused a bit. I quote PEAR.

    No you dont! you cite titles of PEAR. Where did you supply a quyote from any of you citations which show that it supports the argument you are making and that you understand the actual research?
    I quess I could quote them a hundred times if necessary. PEAR claimed that they have "amassed an immense body of empirical evidence that indicates that effects such as those described are empirically demonstrable under controlled laboratory conditions. PEAR speaks of collective scientific evidence supporting phenomena such as those demonstrated by Jomanda, even so much evidence that the term "paranormal" should be inappropriate" and "normal" is more upto reality.
    Even this above quote attributed to PEAR is questionable. Where does PEAR state the above i.e. that PEAR state that " <quotation>".

    Clkkearly you have misquoted PEAR and not quoted from any research by them but by cut and pasted third hand sources.

    Where does PEAR support phenomena such as (or even anything like that ) demonstrated by Jomanda ?
    To maybe make it more understandable, PEAR speaks of that phenomena such as those demonstrated by Jomanda are "normal", in their expert opinion.

    WHERE does PEAR state that?
    That does not mean PEAR have researched Jomanda. But I guess you could have figured that out by yourself.

    So what? what powers does Jomanda claim to have demonstrated and where did this demonstration happen? Where do PEAR confiorm similar powers demonstrated by ANYONE anywhere?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    FE30033
    Closed Accounts Posts: 36 ✭FE30033


    6th wrote:
    FE, can you prove this chick performs miracles?

    Can you prove she can not ?

    I do not feel like keep repeating earlier mentioned matters due to others lack of reading, ignorance, unwillingness or not knowing how to deal with these matters else than shifting, drifting or headstrong keeping repeating questions which have been answered earlier.

    I write. I am no researcher. I do not have to proof anything: a desperate straw to try to shoot the messenger so that the own imagination or believe-conviction can be kept up as a pink elephant that the message might be worthless or justifies ignoring the message, the content. I presented the 'Sylvia Millecam-The True Story' as a matter of discussion in which claims are made and out of which many things could be concluded in and out of readers (not mine) own judgement, belief and responsibility. Readers can do with the story as they like. I think I have make myself/this story very clear, supported the case enough and answered enough questions. At least an attempt, tried to. Beter 'something' than 'nothing'. And if that is 'not good enough'. So what. Fine. Not my problem. Life is a bitch, goes on and then we die.

    If this (question) bothers you the most, you made yourself and your priorities (in life) very clear. I just think and belief different.

    JOMANDA: PARALYSED & WALKING AGAIN
    ( source - Tv-programme 'Hier en Nu', bco NCRV, 28 dec 1992)
    [ Voice over ] -"About two years ago M.C. got paralysed to both legs, doktors could not help him because it would be mental, that's how he came to Jomanda with his father, he was treated on stage, and what exactly happened he does not remember" -[ M.C ] - "the first time at Jomanda, then is still getting used to it, you see several things happening, people falls in trance, some people sit laughing, you experience all kind of things, the first time it is getting used to it" ....... "after treatment....then after some time I got out of the 'spiritual narcosis', Jomanda helped with that, and then Jomanda grabbed me by my feet, and at first I thought 'would do I feel now?', and then I realised, I had feeling back in my legs, what you can not believe in that moment.." - [ Father M.C.] - "Yes, I did not know what I was seeing, just like my son is saying, the crazy things you see at Jomanda, I repeat again, this you can just not tell to the outsid world, I must believe in it, while rahter you can not, I have for 1,5 years in the kitchen, I have caried him everywhere and then suddenly he can just walk again, I tell you, a miracle has just taken place, yes, honestly"

    CHILD MIRACLE HEALING BY JOMANDA
    (source- dutch Tv-programme 'RondomTien', bco NCRV, 15 febr 1994, Violet Falkenburg)
    [VF] - " Hello Mrs Schierboom, when your son Peter was born, he seemed very sick. What was wrong ? -[MS]- "He had the disease of recklinghouse? and in a severe bad way. Thereby he has several diseases and disorders" -[VF]-"How long did they say he would life ?" -[MS]-"That was not really to predict, with recklinghouse, but the forsights were very sad" -[VF]-"But an indication has been given, with a few years you should have been very happy and gratefull. How old is Peter now ? -[MS]- "Yes, and he is 4,5 years old" -[VF]- "What has happened ?' -[MS]-"We met medium Jomanda 3 years ago and that has done great deeds for us but especially for him" -[VF]-"What is exactly been healed with Peter, if you can call it that ?" -[MS]-"He had 2 brain-tumors and the one which was the most threathening danger has disappeared, they can not find anymore" -[VF]-"On the photograph's that were taken ?" -[MS]- "Yes" - [VF]-"First Peter had 2 braintumors and now only 1 ? " -[MS] - "Yes" -[VF]-"And there was also a warning for epilepsy-attacks ?" -[MS]-"Yes, those Peter should have had years ago already and he still does not have them" -[VF]-"And did you go with Peter to Jomanda in Tiel or did it occur in another way ?" -[MS]-"We went every time to Jomanda in Tiel, every week in the beginning and lateron every two weeks" -[VF]-"And I have understood that Jomanda telephoned you sometimes ?" -[MS]-"Yes, one and a half year ago, when it suddenly went worse with Peter, which Jomanda could not have know because I did not have personal contact with Jomanda then, and then Jomanda suddenly telephoned me 'Se had gotten the message from the Divine World that is was going worse with Peter', and Jomanda asked me if she was right, and she was right. We just had had that morning the information that Peter's sickness was spreading, and was also now starting in his back, and Jomanda said 'I have got the message that I must help him personally', and that she has done for weeks, every day, she treated Peter trhough the telephone" -[VF to Peter]-"Peter, when Jomanda called you, what did she do ?' -[Peter]-"throw away the 'aaaaauuuw'" -[VF]-"Did that happen, Peter ? and how old are you ?" -[Peter]-"nnnjaa, and next moth I will nicely become this" (Peter sticks up 5 fingers).


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement