Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: 29th March 2017, 07:05

Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supernatural Evidence?
RE: Supernatural Evidence?
No problem, take your time.
Reply
RE: Supernatural Evidence?
Finally been able to log on at an actual computer...
First time I've used the full site so apologies if the links/quotes look weird. All the quotes below are from Huggy (couldn't work out how to add the 'Huggy said' bits).

Quote:I thought that was the link you were referring to, don't you find it the least bit strange that this website is calling him a quack just after he dies and can't defend himself?

As other posters have said, the date on the site shows when the page was revised. The start of the article refers to Bowman as if he were alive, so I think it is reasonable to assume that the article in the main was published before his death, and later updated to reflect his death. Even if it wasn’t, and it was prompted by his death, I don’t really see your point, other than it being a bit of a shitty thing to do. I know very little about that website and don’t pretend to vouch for it, which is why I tried to corroborate what it said from other sources. The only reason I went with that one was it was pretty much the only result from Google about Bowman (in the first five or six pages – and I’m not invested in the discussion to look much further than that) that wasn’t naturalist food propaganda.

Quote:The newspaper article that you linked (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10ytr...edit?hl=en) states

"In a historical decision in Brooklyn Supreme Court Monday, a jury of six men and six women found Alfredo Bowman not guilty on two counts of practicing medicine without a license."

Why would someone being found not guilty of practicing medicine without a license be referred to as a " historical decision? Based on sources that I found corroborated by same Journalist from the aforementioned article, he was charged with one count of false advertisement and one count of practicing medicine without a license;

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e7xh...edit?hl=en

On February 10, 1987, Attorney General Robert Abrams called for the arrest of Wilfredo Bowman, popularly known as Dr. Sebi following claims he made in the AmNews and the Village Voice that he could cure AIDS.

Beating the count of false advertisement, would indeed make for an historic decision...

I’m not sure if you have another source or not, or if the second link you posted is what you are referring to as your corroborated material, but all that says is that the adverts claiming to cure aids is what prompted Abrams to call for his arrest, and not that he was actually charged with false advertising.

If he was, and found innocent (although this would not in itself mean that the cure was proven) then I would agree that would be most newsworthy, far more newsworthy than just being found innocent of dispensing/practicing medicine without a licence. Which is why it is strange that the report mentions the dispensing/practicing medicine verdict, but not the false advertisement one. I surmise that is because he was not actually charged with false advertisement.

As to why then the journalist found the decision ‘historical’, I don’t have a great knowledge of legal decisions in this are in the US. Perhaps there was something genuinely historical about being cleared of dispensing/practicing medicine, or perhaps it was just the journalists way of trying to make his article more interesting.

Quote:Furthermore the article states:

Harry Dickson, Roger Marshall, Naimah Fuller, Zadia Ife and Karen Selby, witnesses for the defense, unequivocally testified to their improved health as a result of USHA’s dietary program.
*emphasis mine*

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...nequivocal


unequivocal
adjective

     Leaving no doubt; unambiguous.

Dr. Sebi speaking of the case, stating he had to provide proof of healing in court.

The article says they testified to their improved health. Improved health =/= cured of cancer or aids. From looking at what is purported to be Bowmans diet plan, although I’m not a nutritionist it looks to be a broadly healthy diet, so I’m not really surprised that people could improve their health by following it.

Quote:Yes Sebi was sued in a CIVIL case (which I don't suppose I have to tell you requires far less evidence than a criminal case) and even then the suit was not successful as you claim.

From your other link: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/sebi/nyag_testimony.pdf (Which is a congressional hearing, not a court case) on page 108 it states:

A particularly glaring example of unsubstantiated therapeutic claims made for herbal supplements occurred a few years ago when the USHA Herbal Research Institute, run by a self-styled nutritionist calling himself "Dr. Sebi," advertised in the Village Voice and the Amsterdam News that "AIDS HAS BEEN CURED" by USHA and that they also specialize in cures for Leukemia, sickle cell anemia, herpes, lupus and other diseases. For an initial fee of $500 and $80 for each additional visit, patients were told they could be cured of AIDS and other diseases. The "cures" consisted of various herbal products, for each of which USHA made therapeutic claims. Eva Therapeutic Salve, for example, was referred to in USHA's brochure as . . .

"very effective on major skin problems, in prenatal use, against poor circulation, cancer, cysts, hemorrhoids and arthritis."

In fact, these claims were false. Our office filed suit against USHA and entered a consent agreement under which USHA can no longer make therapeutic claims for any of its products"

A consent agreement means there was a settlement with no admission of guilt or liability between the two parties. Sebi only had to pay out 900 dollars in court fees, so how do you figure the suit was a success?

Furthermore If the claims were false as Assistant Attorney General stated, why couldn't they get a ruling IN A CIVIL COURT, where the burden of proof is much more lenient?

You realise that works both ways, right. If Bowman had a proven cure, why did he consent?
From reading what little there is on the web, and I acknowledge that this is unsubstantiated, there seems to be a bit of doubt over whether Bowman was actually falsely advertising that his products provided a cure, or whether he was just using soundbites from satisfied patients. If that were to be the case I could understand if the authorities, having already shown to be overzealous in their criminal prosecution, opting to go for a consent agreement rather than proceed through the civil court. I can’t understand, had the ‘cure’ really been proven in criminal court as you claimed, why Bowman would have simply agreed to stop making the claims.

Quote:This is where you need to use those critical thinking skills you atheists claim you have...

Agreed, critical thinking skills come in very handy sometimes, you might like to try it!

BTW you didn’t answer this..

Perhaps you in turn can link to scientific/medical studies that demonstrate that his 'treatment' actually cured anything.
Reply
RE: Supernatural Evidence?
(10th November 2016, 12:34)ukatheist Wrote: Finally been able to log on at an actual computer...
First time I've used the full site so apologies if the links/quotes look weird. All the quotes below are from Huggy (couldn't work out how to add the 'Huggy said' bits).

Quote:I thought that was the link you were referring to, don't you find it the least bit strange that this website is calling him a quack just after he dies and can't defend himself?

As other posters have said, the date on the site shows when the page was revised. The start of the article refers to Bowman as if he were alive, so I think it is reasonable to assume that the article in the main was published before his death, and later updated to reflect his death. Even if it wasn’t, and it was prompted by his death, I don’t really see your point, other than it being a bit of a shitty thing to do. I know very little about that website and don’t pretend to vouch for it, which is why I tried to corroborate what it said from other sources. The only reason I went with that one was it was pretty much the only result from Google about Bowman (in the first five or six pages – and I’m not invested in the discussion to look much further than that) that wasn’t naturalist food propaganda.

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.

(10th November 2016, 12:34)ukatheist Wrote:
Quote:The newspaper article that you linked (https://docs.google.com/document/d/10ytr...edit?hl=en) states

"In a historical decision in Brooklyn Supreme Court Monday, a jury of six men and six women found Alfredo Bowman not guilty on two counts of practicing medicine without a license."

Why would someone being found not guilty of practicing medicine without a license be referred to as a " historical decision? Based on sources that I found corroborated by same Journalist from the aforementioned article, he was charged with one count of false advertisement and one count of practicing medicine without a license;

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e7xh...edit?hl=en

On February 10, 1987, Attorney General Robert Abrams called for the arrest of Wilfredo Bowman, popularly known as Dr. Sebi following claims he made in the AmNews and the Village Voice that he could cure AIDS.

Beating the count of false advertisement, would indeed make for an historic decision...

I’m not sure if you have another source or not, or if the second link you posted is what you are referring to as your corroborated material, but all that says is that the adverts claiming to cure aids is what prompted Abrams to call for his arrest, and not that he was actually charged with false advertising.

If he was, and found innocent (although this would not in itself mean that the cure was proven) then I would agree that would be most newsworthy, far more newsworthy than just being found innocent of dispensing/practicing medicine without a licence. Which is why it is strange that the report mentions the dispensing/practicing medicine verdict, but not the false advertisement one. I surmise that is because he was not actually charged with false advertisement.

As to why then the journalist found the decision ‘historical’, I don’t have a great knowledge of legal decisions in this are in the US. Perhaps there was something genuinely historical about being cleared of dispensing/practicing medicine, or perhaps it was just the journalists way of trying to make his article more interesting.

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/
Quote:In 1988 he was sued for false advertisement and practice without a license after he placed a number of ads in newspapers- including the New York Post.
He clearly claimed a cure for aids, therefor beating the charge of false advertisement would truly be "historic", no?

(10th November 2016, 12:34)ukatheist Wrote:
Quote:Furthermore the article states:

Harry Dickson, Roger Marshall, Naimah Fuller, Zadia Ife and Karen Selby, witnesses for the defense, unequivocally testified to their improved health as a result of USHA’s dietary program.
*emphasis mine*

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defini...nequivocal


unequivocal
adjective

     Leaving no doubt; unambiguous.

Dr. Sebi speaking of the case, stating he had to provide proof of healing in court.

The article says they testified to their improved health. Improved health =/= cured of cancer or aids. From looking at what is purported to be Bowmans diet plan, although I’m not a nutritionist it looks to be a broadly healthy diet, so I’m not really surprised that people could improve their health by following it.
*emphasis mine*

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 CBS news report states at 1:32



Quote: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.

(10th November 2016, 12:34)ukatheist Wrote:
Quote:Yes Sebi was sued in a CIVIL case (which I don't suppose I have to tell you requires far less evidence than a criminal case) and even then the suit was not successful as you claim.

From your other link: http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/sebi/nyag_testimony.pdf (Which is a congressional hearing, not a court case) on page 108 it states:

A particularly glaring example of unsubstantiated therapeutic claims made for herbal supplements occurred a few years ago when the USHA Herbal Research Institute, run by a self-styled nutritionist calling himself "Dr. Sebi," advertised in the Village Voice and the Amsterdam News that "AIDS HAS BEEN CURED" by USHA and that they also specialize in cures for Leukemia, sickle cell anemia, herpes, lupus and other diseases. For an initial fee of $500 and $80 for each additional visit, patients were told they could be cured of AIDS and other diseases. The "cures" consisted of various herbal products, for each of which USHA made therapeutic claims. Eva Therapeutic Salve, for example, was referred to in USHA's brochure as . . .

"very effective on major skin problems, in prenatal use, against poor circulation, cancer, cysts, hemorrhoids and arthritis."

In fact, these claims were false. Our office filed suit against USHA and entered a consent agreement under which USHA can no longer make therapeutic claims for any of its products"

A consent agreement means there was a settlement with no admission of guilt or liability between the two parties. Sebi only had to pay out 900 dollars in court fees, so how do you figure the suit was a success?

Furthermore If the claims were false as Assistant Attorney General stated, why couldn't they get a ruling IN A CIVIL COURT, where the burden of proof is much more lenient?

You realise that works both ways, right. If Bowman had a proven cure, why did he consent?
From reading what little there is on the web, and I acknowledge that this is unsubstantiated, there seems to be a bit of doubt over whether Bowman was actually falsely advertising that his products provided a cure, or whether he was just using soundbites from satisfied patients. If that were to be the case I could understand if the authorities, having already shown to be overzealous in their criminal prosecution, opting to go for a consent agreement rather than proceed through the civil court. I can’t understand, had the ‘cure’ really been proven in criminal court as you claimed, why Bowman would have simply agreed to stop making the claims.
*emphasis mine*

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.

(10th November 2016, 12:34)ukatheist Wrote:
Quote:This is where you need to use those critical thinking skills you atheists claim you have...

Agreed, critical thinking skills come in very handy sometimes, you might like to try it!

BTW you didn’t answer this..

Perhaps you in turn can link to scientific/medical studies that demonstrate that his 'treatment' actually cured anything.
*emphasis mine*
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.



Reply
RE: Supernatural Evidence?
(17th October 2016, 20:49)Soldat Du Christ Wrote: Alright self-proclaimed athiests, this is where your integrity is put into question. As some of you will so valiantly declair nuetrality, the default position being a lack of belief in god, rather than being closed off to the possibility.

Taking that stance will leave you inlcined to be open to the supernatural, as the very idea of God implies supernatural. This isn't a 'GOTCHA' question, i have a following proposition.

So, are you open to supernatural evidence?

How so?
Do unto others as they do unto you.

http://www.ChurchOfSatan.com
Reply
RE: Supernatural Evidence?
Quote: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.


Quote: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’?

Quote: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.

Quote:‘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.


Quote: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…

Quote: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.
Reply
RE: Supernatural Evidence?
(12th November 2016, 10:41)Huggy74 Wrote: 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.





You really don't know anything about science do you.

Tell me, how can you put in less energy to split water into oxygen and hydrogen than you will get burning the resulting hydrogen to form water again?

What you have described is a perpetual motion machine. It's like having an engine that runs on nothing else but charging up batteries and running them down again.

Oh and apparently the car doesn't need maintenance. Why? Because the laws of thermodynamics doesn't apply to it!
Not posting much. Currently having trouble typing due to onset of Multiple Sclerosis.
Ignore list: Neo-Scholastic
Reply
RE: Supernatural Evidence?
The patents on Myers fuel cell has expired. The plans are now public domain. No one is building the frauds water engines. I wonder why.
“God will endure for as long as the reasons that brought him into being;And so will those who deny him.” ― Michel Onfray





Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Evidence for the existence of God Yadayadayada 145 3554 21st January 2017, 09:03
Last Post: downbeatplumb
  What would you consider to be evidence for God? Psychonaut 591 67694 29th December 2016, 15:53
Last Post: Astreja
Question How Much Evidence Will It Take You To Believe In God??? Edward John 370 7653 16th November 2016, 04:03
Last Post: robvalue
  Religion doesn't need evidence purplepurpose 105 2628 26th October 2016, 19:17
Last Post: Arkilogue
  Not All Demand Evidence chimp3 28 1210 22nd September 2016, 21:03
Last Post: Jehanne
  What would evidence of a God even look like? Excited Penguin 153 5676 12th September 2016, 09:05
Last Post: Alasdair Ham
  Evidence for atheist claims Wryetui 629 31206 10th June 2016, 12:22
Last Post: madog
  Can't prove the supernatural God maestroanth 235 8086 4th June 2016, 11:38
Last Post: SilverFrog
  Why the bible ISN'T evidence. Socratic Meth Head 34 3400 11th April 2016, 00:57
Last Post: an0nemus
  Theist "You are Evidence" argument. Socratic Meth Head 35 3256 19th March 2016, 10:35
Last Post: Esquilax



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)