SCEPCOP Forum

You will probably be labeled a conspiracy theorist and the word will be used in the wrong context. I always wondered why there has to be a group of "skeptics" instead of being skeptical to begin with. Why does there need to be a movement? Why not take the path down the middle? being agnostic about everything, questioning everything? People are weird from both the believers and skeptics side....lets make some progress on this website and stop bickering like we are arguing about two different sport teams

I haven't really heard of him before, is there conclusive proof that this stuff works? I mean cure cancer is the Shangri-La of cures?

RarelyImpressed wrote:You will probably be labeled a conspiracy theorist and the word will be used in the wrong context. I always wondered why there has to be a group of "skeptics" instead of being skeptical to begin with. Why does there need to be a movement? Why not take the path down the middle? being agnostic about everything, questioning everything? People are weird from both the believers and skeptics side....lets make some progress on this website and stop bickering like we are arguing about two different sport teams

Being skeptical already means to question everything, doesn't it?

accidentsinspace wrote:[b] Of course, he was silenced by BIG PHARMA and all his work buried.

Care to provide a source for this statement AIP?

This was just another in a long list of tried and unsuccessful techniques. He wasn't silenced. That is poppycock.

Nostradamus wrote:This was just another in a long list of tried and unsuccessful techniques. He wasn't silenced. That is poppycock.

That's right. His tests were never able to be duplicated and people today trying to replicate his machines have gone to jail for murder. But, those kinds of facts are usually left out from someone trying to ensight a conspiracy.
In any event, I'm all for Big Pharma. Without them, things like this would not be possible:
http://health.msn.com/medications/artic ... &GT1=31053

Big Pharma is the reason leprosy is in decline. Big Pharma is the source of drugs for AIDS.

What is even more interesting is the future that Big Pharma is taking. Many drugs are not used because they are effective for only some people, or are toxic to some people. Being able to connect people to available drugs using a genetic profile for an individual can vastly improve the drugs available.

This is why I appreciate Skeptics being on this forum. To help filter out spurious stuff like this.

I've researched what I could about this guy, from all sources I could find, and I found frequent mention of the following important points ...

* His research was never successfully replicated, his claims were never independently verified, and certain aspects of his theories (that all forms of cancer are caused by viruses) have been disproven (only 15% of cancers are caused by viruses).

* The machines that exist and are sold today as "Rife Machines" are not even his original design.

* Many cancer patients have died using these devices and not seeking real medical treatment.

* Conspiratorial claims regarding "silencing" this man, etc, are stated without any backing evidence whatsoever.

And what were your sources? This is a blank bullshit shill JREF sister site. Dirty scum.

accidentsinspace wrote:And what were your sources? This is a blank bullshit shill JREF sister site. Dirty scum.

Sorry, but rather than gullibly and idiotically blindly accepting everything I see on YouTube without question (the doe-eyed true believer syndrome where everything that sounds good is automatically true), I try to logically research and investigate all sides of the argument, going back and forth, back and forth, checking the arguments and counter-arguments of both sides, actually trying to check and verify stuff rather than just seeing a video on YouTube and going, "Oh my god, oh my god, it said it on YouTube, therefore it's automatically true, and you're dirty JREF scum if you have a brain and don't accept it at face value!"

With the true woos, if you don't gullibly lap up everything without thinking, you are "JREF Dirty Scum" apparently, that is, you possess an IQ above the single digits.

The JREF Debunkers I generally find to be the opposite yet equal brother in stupidity of this, what Stanton Friedman calls "Rather than investigating the unexplained, they attempt to explain the uninvestigated". Where they will only read and trust and consider skeptic articles and skeptic sources (just like the true believers do with their materials), already believe it's all BS from the get go (just like how the true believer already believes it's true from the get go), so any convincing sounding skeptical article is auto-accepted without comparing it's claims with the actual data and opposing sources (just like true believers do with their sources). Automatically dismissing everything classified as paranormal or anomalous without seriously researching it (the "greater skeptics than I have looked at it and said it's hogwash, therefore it is, therefore there is no need for me to press further" argument), and using clever doubt throwing / conspiracy weaving tactics to dumb down anything veridical that might be there worth considering.

I'm part of the excluded middle ground, I'm not a woo, and I'm not a debunker. I examine data, and if it's convincing, I go, "I feel this is worth further investigation" or "this highly suggests this may be a real phenomenon and begs further research", rather than, "good gosh golly guys, a youtube video says this guy cured cancer! Let's blindly accept it because it feels good too, so it must be true! Dirty JREF scum bags are those who disagree with my hasty conclusions!"

If you have any evidence this guy's research was replicated by others, and his claims were verified, and evidence he was "silenced", and counter-arguments to the skeptics' arguments concerning him, let's hear them. Name calling just shows you've got nothing of substance.

Eteponge and that is why a skeptic like me like you as moderator here. Majority people here are Skeptical about things just what we choose not to be skeptical in seems to create the variety.

I was that way when I had my awakening experience a few years ago. I would take a lot of good information and would in my mind make it gospel, this was going on for a few months. Slowly I began to reserach critically the topics/subjects that interested me and listened to both sides of the argument. Works really well that way...makes your mind sharper and less dogmatic, atleast for me anyway.

I must say that I am impressed with everyone who has contributed commentary on this video posted by AIS. It was a pleasure to read everyone's insight put forth in such an intelligent manner.

ETEPONGE - Thank you so much for putting this out there.

ETEPONGE wrote:Sorry, but rather than gullibly and idiotically blindly accepting everything I see on YouTube without question (the doe-eyed true believer syndrome where everything that sounds good is automatically true), I try to logically research and investigate all sides of the argument, going back and forth, back and forth, checking the arguments and counter-arguments of both sides, actually trying to check and verify stuff rather than just seeing a video on YouTube and going, "Oh my god, oh my god, it said it on YouTube, therefore it's automatically true, and you're dirty JREF scum if you have a brain and don't accept it at face value!"

With the true woos, if you don't gullibly lap up everything without thinking, you are "JREF Dirty Scum" apparently, that is, you possess an IQ above the single digits.

The JREF Debunkers I generally find to be the opposite yet equal brother in stupidity of this, what Stanton Friedman calls "Rather than investigating the unexplained, they attempt to explain the uninvestigated". Where they will only read and trust and consider skeptic articles and skeptic sources (just like the true believers do with their materials), already believe it's all BS from the get go (just like how the true believer already believes it's true from the get go), so any convincing sounding skeptical article is auto-accepted without comparing it's claims with the actual data and opposing sources (just like true believers do with their sources). Automatically dismissing everything classified as paranormal or anomalous without seriously researching it (the "greater skeptics than I have looked at it and said it's hogwash, therefore it is, therefore there is no need for me to press further" argument), and using clever doubt throwing / conspiracy weaving tactics to dumb down anything veridical that might be there worth considering.

I'm part of the excluded middle ground, I'm not a woo, and I'm not a debunker. I examine data, and if it's convincing, I go, "I feel this is worth further investigation" or "this highly suggests this may be a real phenomenon and begs further research", rather than, "good gosh golly guys, a youtube video says this guy cured cancer! Let's blindly accept it because it feels good too, so it must be true! Dirty JREF scum bags are those who disagree with my hasty conclusions!"

If you have any evidence this guy's research was replicated by others, and his claims were verified, and evidence he was "silenced", and counter-arguments to the skeptics' arguments concerning him, let's hear them. Name calling just shows you've got nothing of substance.

This is the best thing that I have ever read. You nailed it!

Ninjapuppy wrote:

This is the best thing that I have ever read. You nailed it!

I would'int say its the best thing I have ever read. However, I would say it is one of the more balanced and enlightened posts
I have so far seen on this forum.