Supernatural Evidence?

[ukatheist]

Here's the problem with your website... It clearly not being objective, It's called quackwatch (showing a clear bias), and has provided nothing more than "insinuations" which were shown to be false.

Yeah, nice strawman, only I specifically said I did not vouch for that site, and corroborated the points in my argument from other sources.

You know for a fact that there was a criminal false advertisement charge, simply based on the fact he was sued (by the government) for the same thing in the civil case...

I don't know what country you're from, but in the US you cannot be tried more than once for the same crime, which is why you'd take the case to a civil court

Also there are many sites that state the false advertisement charge.

http://www.unilad.co.uk/science/man-foun...proves-it/

So you are saying in the US you cannot start civil proceedings unless a criminal case has already happened? Not sure that’s true.

I’m in the UK and there is no real ‘double jeopardy’ (e.g you can be retried if significant further evidence is found). But that is beside the point, my view is that there is no evidence that he was tried criminally for false advertisement.

You criticized me and claimed that I used quackwatch as a source and you’re using unilad? That site, and the countless others that claim the criminal charge of false advertisement, almost unanimously date from the same period in 2015, are virtually copypasta of each other and quote each other as sources (but strangely not either of the newspaper articles we’ve both referred to previously). At least quackwatch quoted external sources. Have you ever heard the term ‘advertorial’?

Again more insinuations...

Being cured of aids or cancer is the very definition of "improved health". You make it seem as if Sebi's patients were suffering from a cold or flu. Where is your evidence to show that there were no testimonies showing improvement of aids or cancer?

The point I’m trying to make Huggy is that ‘improved health’ is an incredibly loose term which could indeed cover anything from getting over a cold to being cured of a disease, so the article we were talking about, where you used the fact that people that unequivocally testified to their ‘improved health’, as proof that they were cured of cancer/aids, was not evidence that they were in fact cured of cancer/aids.

‘and according to a medical affidavit provided by dr Sebi it's working, it shows a patient diagnosed with HIV in November of 1993 was cured two months later’

An affidavit is used for evidence in court, which proves that there was at least testimony of a person being cured of HIV.

If it is your position that the above isn't true, then it is up to you to provide more than just insinuations.

My position is that Bowman cannot demonstrate that his ‘cure’ actually cured the diseases he claims, and that there is no evidence to demonstrate that the courts proved his claims true.  Were there testimony of people saying they had been cured of these diseases? Could be (although the affidavit above was clearly not used in the court case, since according to your quote above the patient wasn’t diagnosed until 1993). It doesn’t prove they were cured though.

The thing is, a single patient (or even a few) even with genuine medical affidavits is not proof of anything. There are a number of possibilities that would give these results, including misdiagnosis.  That’s the point of conducting proper research, with a reasonable number of test subjects, so you can actually have the evidence to back up your claims.

O.J. was found not guilty criminally but he lost the civil case brought against him, as I have stated, the burden of proof is far less in a civil court.

There are many reasons to take that sort of deal, especially after going through the criminal courts, I imagine you'd just want to be done with it.

Besides when you have a client list like: Lisa Lopes of the R&B group TLC, Steven Seagal, John Travolta, Eddie Murphy and Michael Jackson, that's all the advertising you need.

Really? The man claimed he could cure virtually all diseases, yet agreed to a consent agreement because he just wanted to be done with it? Despite having affidavits that it worked, despite having the court ‘rule’ that it worked, he just meekly (and having watched some of the videos of him on the web, ‘meek’ is not a word I’d use to describe him) agreed to stop claiming it because it wasn’t worth the hassle? You think that is more likely than him agreeing because he could not actually support his claims?

Yeah, it’s a wonder that none of his client list opted to fund research to help him out…

Speaking of critical thinking skills...

Why would the scientific/medical communities do that? what would be in it for them to prove diseases and such can be cured naturally? Don't you know that many doctors are on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sid...as-payroll


Quote:Earlier this week, investigative journalists at ProPublica released a devastating report on the number of American doctors with spotty records who are shilling for drug companies. The report makes for depressing—yet eye-popping—reading.

Compiling its database from disclosures made by seven major drug companies companies, including Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and Johnson & Johnson, the investigative agency found that these and other companies had spent "$257.8 million in payouts since 2009 for [doctors'] speaking, consulting and other duties."

Yet many of the hired shills had been disciplined by state boards for serious professional misconduct. In some cases, the doctors' licenses had even been revoked. Regardless, they were still being paid tens of thousands of dollars aggressively to push drugs such as the painkiller Bextra and the diabetes drug Avandia that the FDA has since yanked because of their alarming side effects.

What you are asking is akin to "why doesn't the oil industry demonstrate that a car can run using water as fuel?". Because that will simply put them out of business.

On another note, a car HAS been developed that can run on water, the inventors patents were bought by the government and the guy also mysteriously died.

I would just like to point out that the US is not the world, many countries do not operate the same ‘for profit’ model as the US and so would actually benefit from a cheap ‘cure’ (the UK being one of them). Plus there are countless charities and non profit research organisations that I have no doubt would have ploughed money into this research had it had even a shred of merit.
I’ve had a quick look at the water as fuel thing, and I’m not going to get into a debate over it, you seem to have a conspiracy theory for everything, but I’d suggest you do a bit more research if you want to retain any shred of credibility.