Like many, I am given to a certain amount of curmudgeonry. I suppose this post is reflective of that in that it [is] basically just a rant.
Recently, there was a post from a user who was basically complaining about, what has been called a directed energy weapon (DEW). The moderator responded appropriately and there were a few posts and the thread was removed. I have seen these kinds of posts from time to time. I am not sure that I have ever responded to one, but if I did, I hope it would be along the lines of see a doctor, lawyer, and police. That is how I might have responded if I did, but it was not everything I was thinking…some of that was usually expressed by others.
A few days ago, I came across this story. If you don’t like or trust simple mass media news reports, his story has been well documented and he even gives TED talks on what happened. The story is a great read! Essentially (and summary does not do it justice), he has a very atypical adrenal condition. A portion of his adrenal glands were acting as though they were tumors, except he had no tumors. It was an atypical expression of a very atypical condition.
Medical science was stumped and he went through “everything” with them. News flash: MDs do not know everything and they have a limited arsenal and that should always be kept in mind (and in other news, water is wet). At a point, seeking a Psychiatrist was recommended, and it was not a dismissive, presumptive or arrogant referral. To me, it was an, “I am out of ideas” maybe this approach will help.
He persisted to extraordinarily lengths and, well, you can read the story (not cured by any stretch regardless of the article title). His quality of life was severely compromised and he did something about it and those who helped him did so while adhering to a high standard of proof throughout. He is doing better and we have advanced.
Go back to the DEWs issue. I read some more about it at the time of the post and was absolutely amazed by the lack of a standard of proof. When I say “a standard of proof”, I don’t mean a mathematical proof, I mean evidence as accepted by reason and logic and science.
For example, look at this page [link added] and a reference to “proof” of the many who are suffering from, what they say, are DEWs . You can watch the “proof” yourself from session 10 (see the video linked on this page) [edited: you need to enable javascrit or some such crap that I didn't have to do the first time I watched it - there is also a transcript of the session on that same site]- this is a legitimate conference and that section was for public comments and that “proof” is in the form of anecdotal reports.
This is my point. I can believe somebody is suffering and not know why. I can’t however simply believe that the suffering is caused by a micro implant device that cannot be detected by any means, or an electromagnetic wave that also can’t be detected by any means. Yet, the victims are certain of what is causing the problem and their certainty is not based upon evidence that lends itself to scientific investigation.
The risk of that approach is that you open yourself up to all manner of exploitation to help you for a price. In my opinion, such exploitation can be found everywhere, including mainstream marketing like this advertisement . Now, if you bought this device and you used it and it cured you – good deal! I am happy that your suffering ended, but do not think that such an occurrence alone means that you were targeted by EMF that was causing the problem and the device protected you. To draw such a conclusion requires demonstrable evidence and I have not seen that in such cases, but if you have such evidence, please let everybody know..
As a life-long scientist I am well aware that things that we take for granted today (e.g., viruses and bacteria) were unknown and nothing more than fantastic ideas just a few hundred years ago. True also is that ideas that were, at least somewhat, accepted years ago, are routinely viewed as having no demonstrable evidence for their existence. I am fine with that. I would like to believe that I am open-minded, but I can’t believe in an anti-science approach with such matters and I will not apologize for that.
Rant over.
Recently, there was a post from a user who was basically complaining about, what has been called a directed energy weapon (DEW). The moderator responded appropriately and there were a few posts and the thread was removed. I have seen these kinds of posts from time to time. I am not sure that I have ever responded to one, but if I did, I hope it would be along the lines of see a doctor, lawyer, and police. That is how I might have responded if I did, but it was not everything I was thinking…some of that was usually expressed by others.
A few days ago, I came across this story. If you don’t like or trust simple mass media news reports, his story has been well documented and he even gives TED talks on what happened. The story is a great read! Essentially (and summary does not do it justice), he has a very atypical adrenal condition. A portion of his adrenal glands were acting as though they were tumors, except he had no tumors. It was an atypical expression of a very atypical condition.
Medical science was stumped and he went through “everything” with them. News flash: MDs do not know everything and they have a limited arsenal and that should always be kept in mind (and in other news, water is wet). At a point, seeking a Psychiatrist was recommended, and it was not a dismissive, presumptive or arrogant referral. To me, it was an, “I am out of ideas” maybe this approach will help.
He persisted to extraordinarily lengths and, well, you can read the story (not cured by any stretch regardless of the article title). His quality of life was severely compromised and he did something about it and those who helped him did so while adhering to a high standard of proof throughout. He is doing better and we have advanced.
Go back to the DEWs issue. I read some more about it at the time of the post and was absolutely amazed by the lack of a standard of proof. When I say “a standard of proof”, I don’t mean a mathematical proof, I mean evidence as accepted by reason and logic and science.
For example, look at this page [link added] and a reference to “proof” of the many who are suffering from, what they say, are DEWs . You can watch the “proof” yourself from session 10 (see the video linked on this page) [edited: you need to enable javascrit or some such crap that I didn't have to do the first time I watched it - there is also a transcript of the session on that same site]- this is a legitimate conference and that section was for public comments and that “proof” is in the form of anecdotal reports.
This is my point. I can believe somebody is suffering and not know why. I can’t however simply believe that the suffering is caused by a micro implant device that cannot be detected by any means, or an electromagnetic wave that also can’t be detected by any means. Yet, the victims are certain of what is causing the problem and their certainty is not based upon evidence that lends itself to scientific investigation.
The risk of that approach is that you open yourself up to all manner of exploitation to help you for a price. In my opinion, such exploitation can be found everywhere, including mainstream marketing like this advertisement . Now, if you bought this device and you used it and it cured you – good deal! I am happy that your suffering ended, but do not think that such an occurrence alone means that you were targeted by EMF that was causing the problem and the device protected you. To draw such a conclusion requires demonstrable evidence and I have not seen that in such cases, but if you have such evidence, please let everybody know..
As a life-long scientist I am well aware that things that we take for granted today (e.g., viruses and bacteria) were unknown and nothing more than fantastic ideas just a few hundred years ago. True also is that ideas that were, at least somewhat, accepted years ago, are routinely viewed as having no demonstrable evidence for their existence. I am fine with that. I would like to believe that I am open-minded, but I can’t believe in an anti-science approach with such matters and I will not apologize for that.
Rant over.
Last edited:
