You guys ought to publish your theories!

[Siper2]

Okay, so this is somewhat off-topic, but ... I had an idea.

Three years ago I used to frequent these forums quite a lot. I had a 12-hour night shift job with Net access available, and usually had nothing else to do. (I miss those days. ;-)
I started reading all of the posts about cable overhype in retail and the media, and was somewhat taken aback, as I suppose most people are. Companies--and standards--like "Monster Cable" are so integrated into our purchasing history, that we frequently don't even think twice about purchasing. It's that last thing you grab on the way to the counter, and never forget to pick up. But of course, that's the success of their marketing, yet the failure at the same time, when it comes to informing the public.

I suppose it's somewhat like allopathic medicine. It's something you're bombarded with from birth--you're shot up with vaccines, given doses of "x" or "y" for every conceivable sniffle, but never taught about prevention. Never taught that, hey guess what, you weren't born with a medicine chest... so maybe you don't need it as much as you think. My wife is a doctor of chiropractic, and some chiros are doing a much better job at educating people about how you DON'T need most of the stuff you take, that it's baffling. Naturally, since it's a relatively young profession--and the medical guys hate it, mostly for reasons they'd never admit to--most people snub the notions. But it's changing: entire legions of parents are protesting vaccinations because of their chemical contents. People are starting to take exercise and preventative healthcare much more seriously. (In other words, we're finally learning from old countries like Japan, who've known all along.)

People are realizing that what we've been taught, has mostly been bogus.

Since that's one aspect of my life I inadvertently get involved with often, I thought I'd bring it up, just to show the similarities. There are some constants and exceptions. Pardon what may be a poor analogy: in healthcare, you'll always need foundations like emergency care. In soundsystems, you'll always need foundations like quality power units, proper gauge cable, and decent drivers.

So I'm reading through these forums, particularly this one for its heated nature, and thought.... "Some of these guys ought to get together and publish something." I haven't read a single review/editorial/whatever in a big-name bookstore magazine about any of these debunking theories. Why? Poor marketing, naturally. They'd never write that, they'd lose advertising.

It's the independent publications that would have to bring these theories to the public.
Slap me on the wrist if there's been a larger-scale effort already, and I simply don't know about it. I love to write... Mostly, I love to write about things that interest me. Audio. Cars. Photography. The ocean. Whatever. If enough people have the technical information, if enough people have the marketing talent, if enough people have the writing and editorial ability, and if a few people are willing to contribute to the finances, this would work.

Anybody game?

=Chris

[skeptic]

My theories about wire are already published.....
In every standard textbook of electrical engineering which deals with transmission lines. They are all the same. And the people who make wire for real, not for audiophiles read, use, and publish the same theories.

When alternate theories arise to challenge those that are widely accepted by engineers and scientists come up and can demonstrate that they show a greater truth than the existing theories, they will supplant them. But it is a very arduous process requiring sound mathematical modeling and objective testing to prove themselves worthy, not by audiophiles but by other engineers and scientists. They must prove both their technical value and their worth in real life use. Until they do, all of the hype and baloney may get them sales from tyro consumers but the people who count will continue to hold them up to derision and ridicule they so well deserve.

[Siper2]

I'm not so convinced that you'd need hardcore, arduous proof of anything if an audio publication were attempted. After all, the folks here say that there's no proof ever published in favor of expensive cabling, so why should it be required to the opposite?

Credibility? Certainly it would make the process easier, but it would at least put forth a challenge. I do know that of course all the electrical manuals and teaching books have all the info anyone would ever need.... but such is the case with most things. Those types of publications, however, are NOT what people use. Textbook research is not for the general public, when it comes to putting something together for people to see, for an objective viewpoint.

Anyone who looks at something widely accepted, and thinks on it from an objective or opposing angle, would hopefully think to look to the source material (i.e. textbooks) for fact. However, they'd first need to know exactly where to look. Which is why some kind of summation of facts might be great.

I don't know... I'm just throwing ideas out.

[skeptic]

"Those types of publications, however, are NOT what people use. Textbook research is not for the general public,"

It depends on what "people" you are refering to. It's what engineers and scientists use. In the case of technology, the trickle down theory applies. When new knowledge is acquired through genuine research by competent people, it is published in scientific and engineering professional journals. Papers are presented at symposiums and conventons. Other professionals review it, critique it, try to duplicate the results, and generaly tear it apart. If it stands up to such scrutiny and survives as genuine new knowledge, it finds its way into subsequent texts and becomes the new prevailing theory of how the universe works. If it finds its way into consumer publications, it is invariably watered down and simplified so that people not trained in that technical discipline can understand it.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates what is deemed fair advertising by insisting that claims for product performance be backed up by scientific knowledge in advance of any advertising. There are no exceptions or alternatives. The fact that manufacturers of some kinds of products have successfully gotten around the FTC rules by implying or leading prospective customers to believe that they are getting something that isn't explicitly promised or that the FTC hasn't stepped into one or another particular industry because its priorities are set elsewhere is not important to the truth but the existance of these products on the market as a trap for unsuspecting consumers is a fact of life. Furthermore, consumer magazines whose advertising revenues come in part from the advertisers of such products do not welcome articles which challenge the validity of their merit. Stereo Review Magazine published such and article about 20 or 30 years ago demonstrating that there was no significant difference between Monster Cable of the time and ordinary 16 gage lamp cord for loudspeakers. The advertising department saw to it that they never made that mistake again.

[Siper2]

I know how the system works when it comes to research material.

"General public" meaning non-engineers.


Would your average person rip through 4,000 pages of medical journals to find information on proper care for a skin condition? No. They want easy-to-find, consolidated material.


I just don't think any exists, for this information you guys have. And it's good stuff. Think of the money it would save people.

[skeptic]

"Would your average person rip through 4,000 pages of medical journals to find information on proper care for a skin condition? No. They want easy-to-find, consolidated material."

They'd be much smarter to go to a doctor who can make an accurate diagnosis and prescribe the most effective treatment as a result of an informed judgement made after years of professional training rather than play doctor by diagnosing and prescribing for themselves. Luckily for most people, most illnesses are not serious and are self limiting which means they will get better with or without medical intervention. When it is serious, failure to get the right help at the earliest time could spell the difference between life and death.

Unfortunately, you are right about the majority of publications in audio for consumers today being somewhat off the wall and misleading. It's as though the herbologists and homeopaths had a monopoly on all of the medical publications while the mainstream medical doctors and pharmacologists which solve the overwhelming majority of our medical problems were nowhere to be heard.

BTW, after a car accident 14 years ago, I had extensive chiropractic treatment myself and I know that for some conditions at least, it works very well.

[pctower]

BTW, after a car accident 14 years ago, I had extensive chiropractic treatment myself and I know that for some conditions at least, it works very well.

Apparently mental health is not one of those conditions they are good at healing.

[Siper2]

Apparently mental health is not one of those conditions they are good at healing.

????


skeptic,
Chiropractic is much, MUCH more than a symptom-based healthcare system, which people are finally learning. However being as I was only using that as an analogy...

I definitely agree that a person should go to a doctor for feedback about an illness. However, doctors are biased, and that goes for any kind of doctor. (Especially those of the medical persuasion, who are given free meals and vacations "sponsored" by drug companies, as everyone knows that pharmaceutical giants run the world, these days. Five years ago you never saw nearly as many ridiculous drug commercials as you do now, on TV. MDs are always trying new products. Non-allopathic doctors and/or practitioners don't have, nor want generally, this system available to them. So there's lesser outside influence to sway an answer.) Hard facts are often biased as well, but they are less influenced by opinion, at least regularly. Fundamentals would never be argued among doctors of any kind of merit, however my point being that you can go to a doctor for info...

...but which one? What kind? What do I ask this doc? So, in our interesting comparison here, while the "general public" may know deep down that asking an electrical engineer for info on wiring would be wisest (just as you ask a plumber to fix your sink), many won't do it. Or, some people are DIYers, at least in an armchair fashion. So for intellectual purposes if nothing else, while it's nice and necessary to have the engineers, it's convenient to have more readily-available information by way of media.

Which is why media exists. To bring information to people. So, that's what I'm suggesting. A compilation of several facts, in a broad fashion. Some comparisons, some ideas, some facts, some demonstrations. Blind sound tests, if nothing else.
Sonic equipment tests... I don't know.


This really is a very simple proposition, which doesn't ask for much. I think we're making much more of it than need be.

[Beckman]

I think the yeasayers should(try to) publish their theories in electrical engineering journals.

[mtrycraft]

My wife is a doctor of chiropractic,


Sorry to hear that.

and some chiros are doing a much better job at educating people about how you DON'T need most of the stuff you take, that it's baffling.

Yes, it would baffle me too to hear such nonsense if I walked into such an office which will not happen in my lifetime.

Naturally, since it's a relatively young profession--and the medical guys hate it,

No, what they hate is cleaning up after them or any alternative practices when a patient is in extremis and these bogus delivery systems have failed them so miserably.

mostly for reasons they'd never admit to--most people snub the notions.

Yep, count me in.

But it's changing: entire legions of parents are protesting vaccinations because of their chemical contents.

Chemical contet? Wake up. Everything has CHEMICAL CONTENT.

Oh, you know what happens when they rebuff and give out such stupid advice against vaccination? How would they know? They don't read the consequences of polio making a comeback, or any desease that was almost wiped out. What a moronic advice. They should be sued to an inch of their lives for malpractice.

People are starting to take exercise and preventative healthcare much more seriously.

Because the chiros are convincing them? Doctors have not? LOL.

(In other words, we're finally learning from old countries like Japan, who've known all along.)

Know what? I suppose you want to include Chinese medicines? I suppose they are crazy to fall head over heal for western medicines?

People are realizing that what we've been taught, has mostly been bogus.

No, it is people like this profession who are the bogus practitioners of well being.

Since that's one aspect of my life I inadvertently get involved with often, I thought I'd bring it up, just to show the similarities.


Yes, very similar indeed. A little knowledge is so dangerous indeed. Prey on the gullible public. I love it.

in healthcare, you'll always need foundations like emergency care.

Why would that be the case with this belief system? Don't chiros have emergency treatment hours? Why not? Or, when the rubber meets the road, back to the old reliable medical care. You just got to love this nonsense.

[skeptic]

"skeptic,
Chiropractic is much, MUCH more than a symptom-based healthcare system, which people are finally learning. However being as I was only using that as an analogy.."

If you have a backache that doesn't disappear within a couple of days, a visit to a chiropractor can be very valuable but if it is repeated again and again, the only remedy for a ruptured disc is an operation. Constantly going back to a chiropractor for treatment of this kind of injury or degenerative disease of the spine IS symptomatic treatment. In my case, being in an accident and having insurance made me a walking cash register. Kaching, kaching, kaching, when I walked into a medical office and they found out, they would fight over who would treat me the most. I told the orthopedists clinic who wanted me to stop seeing a chiropractor that having seen my x-rays, I knew that while the muscles would eventually heal themselves, my spine would not go back to its normal shape and stay that way unless someone kept putting it there and that if one of them had to go, it would be the orthapedist's clinic. A year and a half and about 150 chiropractic treatments later, I avoided what cold have been a lifelong case of arthritis in my back and neck for which nothing could have been done. BTW, my car was hit sideways in the rain in the rear left quarterpanel, went into a long slow spin, was hydroplaning, and crashed headlong into the concrete center barrier of an interstate at about 50 miles per hour. Four doctors said I was lucky to even be alive. The seat belt and shoulder harness saved my life. Even so, I had a concussion without hitting my head and I've been nuts ever since. PC what's your excuse.

Do I believe that pressure as a result of misalignment on some of the afferant nerves where they leave the spinal column can cause illness and disease? It's a possibility that should be investigated. It makes a lot more sense than treating disease by putting pressure on certain areas of the bottom of your feet. Do I think it can cure cancer, heart disease, diabetes, or any disease caused by a pathogen? Hell no! Do I believe in herbal medicine? While the allopathic and pharmaceutical companies perform research on folk remedies and exotic plants to determine scientifically if any of them have valid theraputic value as demonstrated in the same kind of double blind tests all medical procedures and drugs undergo, I would not dream of trying herbal medicines. Many of them are useless, some of them are potentially dangerous, even deadly. Those guys are quacks. The alternative medicine guys straddle the hazy line between incompetent and criminal. Just like the audiophile cable guys. They even use similar lines on their victims.

[mtrycraft]

However, doctors are biased, and that goes for any kind of doctor.

They are biased to what works or has been shown to work? Interesting.

You think they should try any hair brained idea? Are you game as a ginnie pig to try all these? Or, you'd rather have something that has been shown to work?

(Especially those of the medical persuasion, who are given free meals and vacations "sponsored" by drug companies,

Boy, they are bought rather cheaply then. Of course you know that those meals cause them to be biased more to one company's medicines than another? How do you know this? Made a case study?


[b]as everyone knows that pharmaceutical giants run the world, these days./b]

Of course they do. See what would happen when they shut their doors. Survival of the fittest for one.

Five years ago you never saw nearly as many ridiculous drug commercials as you do now, on TV.


Oh, those companies should be run like charities then? Why does the public buy into all those ads? Why do audiophiles buy into all the audio ads? Same thing, human gullibility and centruries of marketing.


MDs are always trying new products.

Why not? Healing the human body is a little more complex than hearing differences in cables

Non-allopathic doctors and/or practitioners don't have, nor want generally, this system available to them. So there's lesser outside influence to sway an answer.)

But their answers are unproven in the first place. What is there to sway?

[Siper2]

Honestly, yes I can defend my statements, but this is a cable forum. If you guys want to take this argument elsewhere, we may, but I have no interest in arguing an analogy to anything further than just that.

Please, stay focused. If nobody is interested in my proposal, I will ask for the moderators for deletion of this thread. There are plenty of places to discuss the ins and outs of healthcare; this is not the place.

=S2=

[skeptic]

This very open forum sometimes takes all kinds of unexpected twists and turns. The moderators have been very tolerant of that and so long as the discussion remains civil, this message board has had a history of allowing people to take dialogue wherever the participants take it even if someone including the thread starter is a little embarrassed or regrets having started something he didn't anticipate. Threads are rarely if ever deleted, sometimes locked but that is a big step here. Frankly, that's what attracts so many people to it IMO.

As far as who contols what in society, I've heard all kinds of baloney in my life. Here are some of the ones I've heard at one time over and over again; The Catholic church, Jews, Insurance Companies, Oil companies, the Mafia, the NRA, big business, the 500 wealthiest families, the conservative right, the liberal left, women, children, white middle class men, feminazis and on and on.

There was a long running conspiracy theory that I haven't heard in a long time that said that Detroit had developed a carburator (predecessor to fuel injectors for those of you who are too young to remember) that would get 100 miles per gallon but the oil companies had paid big bucks for it to keep it off the market. Of course that was in the days when gas way 20 cents a gallon and the government couldn't care less about gas mileage. Same hoax as the alternative medicine and the same as the audiophile cables. I just got a call from someone who wanted me to help a charity out by joining a chain letter pyramid scheme which BTW is illegal. That scam is probably 70 years old. Nothing changes. Buyer beware.

[pctower]

However, doctors are biased, and that goes for any kind of doctor.

They are biased to what works or has been shown to work? Interesting.

You think they should try any hair brained idea? Are you game as a ginnie pig to try all these? Or, you'd rather have something that has been shown to work?

(Especially those of the medical persuasion, who are given free meals and vacations "sponsored" by drug companies,

Boy, they are bought rather cheaply then. Of course you know that those meals cause them to be biased more to one company's medicines than another? How do you know this? Made a case study?


[b]as everyone knows that pharmaceutical giants run the world, these days./b]

Of course they do. See what would happen when they shut their doors. Survival of the fittest for one.

Five years ago you never saw nearly as many ridiculous drug commercials as you do now, on TV.


Oh, those companies should be run like charities then? Why does the public buy into all those ads? Why do audiophiles buy into all the audio ads? Same thing, human gullibility and centruries of marketing.


MDs are always trying new products.

Why not? Healing the human body is a little more complex than hearing differences in cables

Non-allopathic doctors and/or practitioners don't have, nor want generally, this system available to them. So there's lesser outside influence to sway an answer.)

But their answers are unproven in the first place. What is there to sway?

Boy, they are bought rather cheaply then.

Sadly they are. There is massive litigation underway (both civil and criminal and at both the state and federal level) based in significant part on the fact that they often can be bought cheaply.

Your defense of the mainstream medical profession shows just how high your ivory tower really is.

[skeptic]

"Boy, they are bought rather cheaply then.

Sadly they are."

It depends. For the defense, a doctor as an expert witness costs what Phil, a few hundred an hour? You say that's awfully cheap? Say a five to ten thousand a day? Hire Herr Doktor Zigmund von Freudenshtien and he will convince the jury that Jacques zee Rippear vuz kookoo frum ze time he vuz zee leetle child because iz mama unt papa didn't treeet im right, zo he need to go to zee hospeetal for zee treatmint, not zee preezon.

Then for the prosecutor, they hire a professor from the local state college campus Dr. Smith who gets paid $132 a day and a $20 meal allowance for lunch and he will tell you the defendant is a depraved maniac who knew exactly what he was doing and should get the needle but certainly should never be allowed out on the street again.

What will the jury do?

[pctower]

"Boy, they are bought rather cheaply then.

Sadly they are."

It depends. For the defense, a doctor as an expert witness costs what Phil, a few hundred an hour? You say that's awfully cheap? Say a five to ten thousand a day? Hire Herr Doktor Zigmund von Freudenshtien and he will convince the jury that Jacques zee Rippear vuz kookoo frum ze time he vuz zee leetle child because iz mama unt papa didn't treeet im right, zo he need to go to zee hospeetal for zee treatmint, not zee preezon.

Then for the prosecutor, they hire a professor from the local state college campus Dr. Smith who gets paid $132 a day and a $20 meal allowance for lunch and he will tell you the defendant is a depraved maniac who knew exactly what he was doing and should get the needle but certainly should never be allowed out on the street again.

What will the jury do?

Most juries do what they are suppose to do. Follow the judge's instructions and decide the case based on facts presented to them. They often do not buy the opinions of so called "experts" hook, line and sinker. They have a pretty good nose generally for smelling a prostitute.

Apparently, I have a much greater trust than you do in the jury system that goes back centuries. The flaws in the systems today are like all human institutions, they are the flaws that plague all institutions of today. The flaws may change over time just as the flaws predominating human affairs change over time. So what do we do, turn the whole thing over to machines invented by irrational people such as you?

Unfortunately, the hypothetical you posed is generally skewed in the opposite direction. The vast majority of criminal defendants can't possibly match the resources of the state. We are seeing many examples right now where people who have served years in prison are finally being exonerated through use of DNA. Also, have you explored the numerous facts that Alan Dershowitz is currently uncovering about the kangaroo court that convicted Mike Tyson of rape?

Your crocodile tears for the prosecurtors are sadly misplaced in most instances.

The real problem, in my not so humble opinion, with the criminal justice system today is that enforcement of drug offenses (users) through incarceration has overwhelmed the capacity of the system to handle the number of cases.

In addition, the vast majority of criminals come from highly abusive and dysfunctional families (or lack thereof). This is a fact regardless of how much you want to make parody of it. Just keep laughing in your pompous, self-rightous way and simply live with much higher odds of being a victim of crime because our political system is unwilling to tackle the root causes of crime.

If we really wanted to do something about crime, we would (1) focus our efforts on crimes against people and property, and (2) deal more directly with the conditions that breed criminals generation after generation. We can never eliminate crime, but I believe that our political system could do a much more effect job of shaping the judicial system to deal more effectively with true crime and to find ways beyond the scope of the judicial system to deal more effectively with the causes of crime.

[Siper2]

People can call chiropractic a hoax all they like. Honestly, I could care less.
Those who "disbelieve" in its effectiveness, or some of the things that they or other "alternative" (I always get a kick out of that) practices simply aren't interested in learning a new approach. I grew up on a medicine cabinet. I wanted something better, and found it. What people believe is irrelevant: this isn't theology. It's fact.
Before anyone says "where's the proof?" they really should do their own research.
Talking to people or groups who don't like anything but their own practices doesn't qualify, and that's what most people do for "research."

Hippocrates was one of the first recorded people to recognize examination of the spine as a window to health. So it really baffles me when a lot of "traditional" healthcare practitioners scoff at it, since they wrap much of their theory around his teachings.
That whole "Hippocratic Oath" thing. My point simply being that arbitrary, malicious slander will get you nowhere--if you want to learn, you have to investigate every angle.

Which is why I brought the analogy in, in the first place. Why spend eleventy billion dollars on cable, when you don't have to? When something very pure and basic will do the same thing? (Okay, so it wasn't a perfect analogy, but like you said, pctower, this place is a great open forum. That's why I used to hang out here so much. Always good for entertainment!)


I welcome an open discussion as much as the next guy, but honestly I really want to know what people think about the chance to bring a new idea forward to stereo/theater consumers.

It's not impossible or irrational, it's just not been done.

=S2=

[skeptic]

"Apparently, I have a much greater trust than you do in the jury system "

I never said or implied anything about my trust in the jury system. All I said was that if you pay enough, you can find a certified expert who will testify to just about anything.

"The vast majority of criminal defendants can't possibly match the resources of the state."

Most cases in real life unlike those on television are open and shut. The guilt of the perp is not in doubt.

"The real problem, in my not so humble opinion, with the criminal justice system today is that enforcement of drug offenses (users) through incarceration has overwhelmed the capacity of the system to handle the number of cases."

Then the solution is to institute more courts and build more prisons, not let drug dealers and repeat offenders off the hook. Even the Europeans in countries like Holland are starting to take a hard look at their drug problems and re-examine their permissive attitude. BBC just broadcast a program about how much more dangerous cannabis is than was previously thought and how the reclassification of it from a class B to a class C drug has had unexpected consequences in some parts of Britain. Cannabis users increase their chances of becoming schizophrenics by 600%. Illegal drug use has unnecessarily destroyed more lives directly and indirectly in the United States than any other single cause. The call to decriminalize the use of dangerous drugs by some attornies is very misguided and would only encourage more teens to experiment with it.

"In addition, the vast majority of criminals come from highly abusive and dysfunctional families..."

Most poor people and children from broken homes can and do grow up without becoming criminals. Blaming society for the individual repeat offender criminal implies that we should turn lose tens of thousands of dangerous people on the streets. Putting them in jail where they belong and making it clear that there is real and definite punishment not only serves as a deterrant to crime but it gives society a respite from them. Perhaps the state should intervene much more aggressively and remove children from abusive parents while putting them in jail where they belong. I like three times and you're out. For some crimes like murder and kidnapping it should be one time and you're out. That's how it used to be. Ever hear of a judge in New York City called turn-'em-loose Bruce White? He subscribed to your socially liberal philosophy which contributed to the crime waves that nearly destroyed the city in the seventies. It took prosecutors and later mayors like Giulliani to clean it up and make the city liveable again. I have a much lower chance of being a victim of violent crime than most people. My condo in the suburbs where I used to live is in a gated community with a full time guard and a high wall around it. My home in a rural area is in a place where crime is practically non existant. My town isn't even on most maps. I won't go near high crime areas until the consequences of lawmaker lawyers with your views who got themselves elected by the "there but for the grace of god go I" bleeding hearts are cleaned up.

"If we really wanted to do something about crime, we would (1) focus our efforts on crimes against people and property, and (2) deal more directly with the conditions that breed criminals generation after generation."

Tolerance for illegal drugs are crimes against people and lead to crimes against property when drug addicts commit burglaries and murder to steal money for their insatiable obsession. The condition which breeds criminals is tolerance for it starting in childhood. Bring back truant officers and reform schools. Let the little monsters know as teenagers a taste of what life on the inside will be like if they don't change. Take sentencing out of the hands of judges who are so ready to let criminals off. Televise executions if necessary so that the ordinary criminal who laughs at the sysem can see the full horror of the consequences if he continues to commit worse crimes. Your ideas have been tried and not only failed but have done a lot of damage to society. Reversion to much tougher laws and sentencing is only beginning to repair the damage done decades ago.

BTW, Joel Steinberg, the crazed cocaine addicted killer who murdered his 6 year old daughter Lisa by beating her to death while high as a kite and repeatedly beating his live in girlfriend Hedda Nussbaum is being released this week after serving only two thirds of his 24 year sentence. By your thinking, I suppose he got too much. By mine he should have received the death penalty.

[skeptic]

How timely. It was only recently that the BBC broadcast its program Horizon in which they took up "The Amazing Randi's" offer of one million dollars to anyone who could prove that homeopathy works. James Randi is not a scientist but a magician going all over the world debunking garbage claims like ESP and other supernatural and non scientific claims. The tests were of course double blind with rigorous measures taken to assure their fairness.

"Horizon takes up the challenge

Although many researchers now offered proof that the effects of homeopathy can be measured, none have yet applied for James Randi's million dollar prize. For the first time in the programme's history, Horizon decided to conduct their own scientific experiment.

The programme gathered a team of scientists from among the most respected institutes in the country. The Vice-President of the Royal Society, Professor John Enderby oversaw the experiment, and James Randi flew in from the United States to watch.

As with Benveniste's original experiment, Randi insisted that strict precautions be taken to ensure that none of the experimenters knew whether they were dealing with homeopathic solutions, or with pure water Two independent scientists performed tests to see whether their samples produced a biological effect. Only when the experiment was over was it revealed which samples were real.

To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure chance would have been."

You can read the whole transcript of the program at;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon...thytrans.shtml

There are also weblinks to more of this summary, Q&A, and a BBC interview with James Randi.

This is one alternative medical procedure that can surely be called a hoax and a fraud. Not my opinion, but a now established fact based on scientific proof. Want to disagree? If you can prove your point, contact James Randi. It will be worth one million dollars to you.

[996turbo]

"Boy, they are bought rather cheaply then.

Sadly they are."

It depends. For the defense, a doctor as an expert witness costs what Phil, a few hundred an hour? You say that's awfully cheap? Say a five to ten thousand a day? Hire Herr Doktor Zigmund von Freudenshtien and he will convince the jury that Jacques zee Rippear vuz kookoo frum ze time he vuz zee leetle child because iz mama unt papa didn't treeet im right, zo he need to go to zee hospeetal for zee treatmint, not zee preezon.

Then for the prosecutor, they hire a professor from the local state college campus Dr. Smith who gets paid $132 a day and a $20 meal allowance for lunch and he will tell you the defendant is a depraved maniac who knew exactly what he was doing and should get the needle but certainly should never be allowed out on the street again.

What will the jury do?

This no more qualifies me to have an opinion herethan the others but at least I can talk to one whenever I want about whatever topic.

First of all My father hates to be an expert witness but due to his qualifications and tenure in his field hi is sough after. He charges about $500 an hour to consult. He continually charges more but they continue to come.

I just asked him about the drug companies and he told me that by law the Drug companies were not allowed to directly endorse their product any further than just funding the night. Wives are invited because as he said "why would I want to go eat dinner with a bunch of guys". He also said that it is just an evening out that happens to be paid by the drug companies. He uses what works and only changes after there is good evidence to change.

On Chiropracters Orthopods in general refer patients to them as Chiropracters refer patients to Orthopods. They are necesary and useful profesionals according to my father.

I think the analogy is not really working. What does make sense is that I find it interesting that some of the people here like to act like they know everything and make conjectures about things they know nothing about just because they read it somewhere. none of you can make comments about being a ddoctor unless you are one and none of you can make comments about equipment unless you have tried it. Reading does not count only experience. Reading will give you a foundation but at the same time the psychoacoustics will come into play even more.

[mtrycraft]

[
Your defense of the mainstream medical profession shows just how high your ivory tower really is.

And your falling for alternative medicines, unproven as that is why it is alternative, is no surprise either. But we are free, so far, to go to either one. I will stick to the proven ones.

[mtrycraft]

People can call chiropractic a hoax all they like. =S2=

When you present them as being opposed to vaccination because it has 'chemicals'
nothing further needs to be said. They are out to lunch.
When Phil Donahue comes on the scene and denounces it as well and the gullible public follow him causing the resurgence of everything that we have eliminated, nothing left to say.

Pertussis was well controlled and almost eliminated until another idiot Justus Strum in Sweden comes on scence and and the rest is history, how pertussis is regaining a foothold in many countries.


Those who "disbelieve" in its effectiveness,

Oh, so one needs to believe? Sounds like a religion to me, one needs to believe.

or some of the things that they or other "alternative" (I always get a kick out of that) practices simply aren't interested in learning a new approach.


On the contraty, medicine looks at new approaches and discards the ones that don't work while believers never do, regardless of the evidence.

I grew up on a medicine cabinet. I wanted something better, and found it.

Good for you. Is that like picking a religion that you like better?

What people believe is irrelevant:

That is not what you are saying though.

this isn't theology.

You could have fooled me.

It's fact.

Facts are based on evidence, hard ones, credible ones, onse that can be replicated. So far, alternative medicine has not been able. That is why they are alternative, "unproven"

Before anyone says "where's the proof?" they really should do their own research.

No, you need to supply the proof. But I know you don't have it.


Talking to people or groups who don't like anything but their own practices doesn't qualify, and that's what most people do for "research."

No, of course that will not do. We need to talk to the believers and just accept their word? Sorry, that doesn't fly.

[skeptic]

"When you present them as being opposed to vaccination because it has 'chemicals'
nothing further needs to be said. They are out to lunch.
When Phil Donahue comes on the scene and denounces it as well and the gullible public follow him causing the resurgence of everything that we have eliminated, nothing left to say.

Pertussis was well controlled and almost eliminated until another idiot Justus Strum in Sweden comes on scence and and the rest is history, how pertussis is regaining a foothold in many countries.


Those who "disbelieve" in its effectiveness,

Oh, so one needs to believe? Sounds like a religion to me, one needs to believe."

Thanks to the idiocy of some Moslem clerics in Africa, people are being frightened to the point where they are refusing to have their children vaccinated and polio which was on the verge of being wiped out is now making a strong resurgence there. One more unnecessary tragedy to befall the people of Africa who suffer so much already.

[pctower]

"Apparently, I have a much greater trust than you do in the jury system "

I never said or implied anything about my trust in the jury system. All I said was that if you pay enough, you can find a certified expert who will testify to just about anything.

"The vast majority of criminal defendants can't possibly match the resources of the state."

Most cases in real life unlike those on television are open and shut. The guilt of the perp is not in doubt.

"The real problem, in my not so humble opinion, with the criminal justice system today is that enforcement of drug offenses (users) through incarceration has overwhelmed the capacity of the system to handle the number of cases."

Then the solution is to institute more courts and build more prisons, not let drug dealers and repeat offenders off the hook. Even the Europeans in countries like Holland are starting to take a hard look at their drug problems and re-examine their permissive attitude. BBC just broadcast a program about how much more dangerous cannabis is than was previously thought and how the reclassification of it from a class B to a class C drug has had unexpected consequences in some parts of Britain. Cannabis users increase their chances of becoming schizophrenics by 600%. Illegal drug use has unnecessarily destroyed more lives directly and indirectly in the United States than any other single cause. The call to decriminalize the use of dangerous drugs by some attornies is very misguided and would only encourage more teens to experiment with it.

"In addition, the vast majority of criminals come from highly abusive and dysfunctional families..."

Most poor people and children from broken homes can and do grow up without becoming criminals. Blaming society for the individual repeat offender criminal implies that we should turn lose tens of thousands of dangerous people on the streets. Putting them in jail where they belong and making it clear that there is real and definite punishment not only serves as a deterrant to crime but it gives society a respite from them. Perhaps the state should intervene much more aggressively and remove children from abusive parents while putting them in jail where they belong. I like three times and you're out. For some crimes like murder and kidnapping it should be one time and you're out. That's how it used to be. Ever hear of a judge in New York City called turn-'em-loose Bruce White? He subscribed to your socially liberal philosophy which contributed to the crime waves that nearly destroyed the city in the seventies. It took prosecutors and later mayors like Giulliani to clean it up and make the city liveable again. I have a much lower chance of being a victim of violent crime than most people. My condo in the suburbs where I used to live is in a gated community with a full time guard and a high wall around it. My home in a rural area is in a place where crime is practically non existant. My town isn't even on most maps. I won't go near high crime areas until the consequences of lawmaker lawyers with your views who got themselves elected by the "there but for the grace of god go I" bleeding hearts are cleaned up.

"If we really wanted to do something about crime, we would (1) focus our efforts on crimes against people and property, and (2) deal more directly with the conditions that breed criminals generation after generation."

Tolerance for illegal drugs are crimes against people and lead to crimes against property when drug addicts commit burglaries and murder to steal money for their insatiable obsession. The condition which breeds criminals is tolerance for it starting in childhood. Bring back truant officers and reform schools. Let the little monsters know as teenagers a taste of what life on the inside will be like if they don't change. Take sentencing out of the hands of judges who are so ready to let criminals off. Televise executions if necessary so that the ordinary criminal who laughs at the sysem can see the full horror of the consequences if he continues to commit worse crimes. Your ideas have been tried and not only failed but have done a lot of damage to society. Reversion to much tougher laws and sentencing is only beginning to repair the damage done decades ago.

BTW, Joel Steinberg, the crazed cocaine addicted killer who murdered his 6 year old daughter Lisa by beating her to death while high as a kite and repeatedly beating his live in girlfriend Hedda Nussbaum is being released this week after serving only two thirds of his 24 year sentence. By your thinking, I suppose he got too much. By mine he should have received the death penalty.

Then the solution is to institute more courts and build more prisons, not let drug dealers and repeat offenders off the hook.

We're already taxed to the point of stangalation. The continuing cost of this approach will bring this nation to its knees.

Most poor people and children from broken homes can and do grow up without becoming criminals.

I said nothing about poor people or broken homes. Interesting that you seem to assume that just being poor or having divorced parents means you come from a dysfunctional upbringing.

With a lot of criminals we're not talking about less than perfect parents. We're talking about severe and persistent abuse that most of us cannot even imagine. I believe that most children who suffer that kind of abuse either become criminals, die early or lead worthless and painful lives that creates nothing buy a burden for the rest of society.

The condition which breeds criminals is tolerance for it starting in childhood. Bring back truant officers and reform schools. Let the little monsters know as teenagers a taste of what life on the inside will be like if they don't change. Take sentencing out of the hands of judges who are so ready to let criminals off. Televise executions if necessary so that the ordinary criminal who laughs at the sysem can see the full horror of the consequences if he continues to commit worse crimes. Your ideas have been tried and not only failed but have done a lot of damage to society. Reversion to much tougher laws and sentencing is only beginning to repair the damage done decades ago.

You are mad (as in crazy) and frightenly out of touch. Above all, virtually all of what you recommend runs counter to the vast body of research conducted in accordance with the scientific method that you constatly defend in the area of electronics. Moreover, your willingness to employ antecdotal evidence in support of your own mean-spirited biases is quite amusing.