Conference hydra::dejavu

    I would suggest you place your faith in conventional medicine on this
    one. I should be very interested in seeing any scientific evidence that
    our genetic make-up can be altered by the "power of thought". I doubt
    any such evidence exists. It's lovely to see how positive and realistic
    you are being about your daughter, and I'd hate to see you taken
    advantage of by a charlatan promising the impossible. Be very wary of
    anyone who offers to help you in return for money/time/goods.
    
    Please note, I'm not in any way knocking your strategy, which I
    admire, and which will make both your lives more complete. However, I
    would urge caution and restraint in your acceptance of theories or
    dreams espoused by others simply because they match *your* dreams and
    aspirations. Wanting to believe something is true won't make it true.
    
    Laurie.

	For those of you who remember Frederick Ward, I'd like to channel
	him for a minute:					      ;-)
	
>   ............. Wanting to believe something is true won't make it true.

	"Laurie, you can continue to believe whatever you wish, but I
	will have to disagree with this. I will continue to believe that
	miracles *do* happen."
	
	In reply to the basenote:
	
	I would remind you that you can only create or change *your*
	perceptual reality. 
	
	I think that what you are doing is very much what I would hope to
	do in your situation. You provide intent to assist her, you love
	her unconditionally, you visulaize her health and wholeness and
	you show a healthy attitude towards acceptance (though I agree it
	is difficult not to attach to a particular outcome).
	
	I say, continue to do what you are doing (including the medical
	and theraputic help as necessary) and I am sure things will work
	out exactly as they should.
	
	"God Bless the Child" - Billy Holiday  ;-)
	
	Jay

    Just for clarification... what on earth is "perceptual reality"?
    
    Laurie.

    Well Laurie it is one of those words they make up to impress each
    other. 

    Re .2

    >>Wanting to believe something is true won't make it true.

    >"Laurie, you can continue to believe whatever you wish, but I	
    >will have to disagree with this. I will continue to believe that	
    >miracles *do* happen."

    Wanting to believe miracles happen won't make them happen. 

    Jamie.

RE: .4

>    Well Laurie it is one of those words they make up to impress each
>    other. 

    Or just possibly it is an attempt to say something which, whether it is
    correct or not, means something within the philosophical viewpoint of
    the person saying it.

    Nah!  Why should Jamie waste time trying to understand what other
    people are trying to say?  What does he gain by that?  His
    understanding of the way the Universe is put together could not
    possibly be bettered by considering other viewpoints, while being
    cynical and putting down other people he can feel superior.

    (For any who might think that these statements are inappropriate, I
    invoke the Anderson Nonresponsibility Principle: One is allowed to be
    nasty, rude, stupid, arrogant, etc. as long as one reserves the option
    of identifying the statement as a joke after the fact if one is called
    to account.  Therefore, anyone who therefore takes offense or otherwise
    criticises such a statement has simply identified themselves as unable
    to take/understand a joke and as therefore inferior to the "jokester".
    I therefore explicitly do not say whether or not this is meant
    seriously or not.)

>    >>Wanting to believe something is true won't make it true.
>
>    >"Laurie, you can continue to believe whatever you wish, but I	
>    >will have to disagree with this. I will continue to believe that	
>    >miracles *do* happen."
>
>    Wanting to believe miracles happen won't make them happen.

    Wanting to believe that wanting to believe miracles happen won't make
    them happen won't make them not happen if they happen.

    Or to put it another way?  Is your lack of belief in an occasional
    miracle based on any evidence?  (Hard to understand what such evidence
    would consist of -- but I've had experience with Jamie's ideas of
    evidence before, he'll probably misinvoke Okham's Razor again.  Let's
    see, how does that go?  A statement to the effect of "Given two
    explanations fitting the observations, choose the simpler", where
    "simplicity" is measured by the degree of conformance to Jamie's
    beliefs.)  Or is it a matter of faith?  Or perhaps devine inspiration?

				    Topher

    >Or just possibly it is an attempt to say something which, whether it is
    >correct or not, means something within the philosophical viewpoint of
    >the person saying it.
    
    Or it could be one of the many buzz words used in here to confuse rather
    than enlighten. Could you prove it one way or the other Topher?

    >but I've had experience with Jamie's ideas of evidence before, he'll
    >probably misinvoke Okham's Razor again.

    First, I do not misuse it, second I do not misspell it either. 

    Jamie.

Ruth:

    I don't know of any medically documented case where someone's essential
    genetic makeup has been altered by any kind of "healing" system, formal
    or informal, self-directed or other-directed.

    Experiments have been done, with some real success, in effecting the
    mutation rates of single celled organisms -- but that is simply not the
    same thing as making a major change in the genetics of all the cells of
    the body.  The time when such an approach might have been successfull
    (but even taking the most optamistic of these studies as our basis,
    success would have been very unlikely) was in the first few hours after
    conception.

    There *have*, however, been clearly documented cases where the negative
    *effects* of genetic "diseases" have been offset or eliminated.  A
    positive, supporting environment is almost certainly going to be
    helpful in offsetting the mental consequences of the syndrome -- for
    you as well as for your daughter.  In the most extreme case I know of,
    hypnosis produced an apparent cure (i.e., eliminated the effects) of an
    uncommon, genetic disease called popularly "crocodile skin."  This
    is caused by the non-functioning of the glands in the skin which
    secrete the oil which keeps the skin soft, smooth and pliant.  The
    result is that the skin turns hard and bumpy -- very much like very bad
    warts covering every inch of the body (in fact, the doctor who did the
    hypnosis treatment thought that that was what he was treating, even
    though his colleages had already diagnosed the genetic condition).
    This took place under almost ideal observational conditions for such an
    event, and there is virtually no doubt that it took place.

    So I would say that you are doing the right thing.  Do not forget,
    though, that last step -- to release your attachment to a particular
    outcome.  If you do not, you will not see the what-is as better than
    the what-might-have-been, and will become discouraged or even
    despairing -- and you cannot then continue to give your daughter the
    help she needs.  (Which isn't to say, that it isn't OK and natural to
    be discouraged once in a while, as long as you don't permanantly give
    in to it.  Your daughter has a hard path in life to follow, and every
    parent would like their children's path to be strewn with roses).

    Good luck.

					Topher

RE: .6 (Jamie)

>    Or it could be one of the many buzz words used in here to confuse rather
>    than enlighten. Could you prove it one way or the other Topher?

    My point does not depend on my being able to prove it one way or the
    other.  I was pointing out that you were simply making assumptions --
    assumptions which explicitly interfere with attempting to understand
    other people's viewpoint.  If you simply assume that what people are
    saying is not only wrong but completely meaningless -- as you do
    repeatedly and aggressively -- then you will never be proven wrong, no
    ideas can penetrate that sense of certainty.  (Let's see, if Jamie
    follows his usual "logic", he will now state that since I said he
    shouldn't assume A that I must believe not-A and that unless I prove
    not-A to his satisfaction there is no reason for him to pay any
    attention to what I am saying.  I would then say something to the
    effect of "I did not claim that 'not-A' was true, Jamie, I only claimed
    that you had not justified your assumption that 'A' was true".  Jamie,
    then would repeat himself, and would then find a reason to invoke
    Ockham's Razor to prove that one could not assume 'not-A' and that
    therefore one had to assume 'A'.  I then would repeat myself,
    suggesting that he read what I had written previously, Jamie would
    then repeat himself, until I get tired of replying at which point
    Jamie would presumably believe that he had "won" the argument -- proof
    by repetition.)

>    >but I've had experience with Jamie's ideas of evidence before, he'll
>    >probably misinvoke Okham's Razor again.
>
>    First, I do not misuse it, second I do not misspell it either.

    First, I think that William of Ockham would disagree with you.  You
    misuse it frequently -- sometimes I comment on it, and sometimes I
    don't.  Your use of Ockham's Razor would allow us to prove virtually
    anything.

    Second, I never claimed that I can spell (in this case, of course, it
    was a simple typo).  How relevant is it that you mispunctuated the
    first statement of yours which I quoted above?

				    Topher

>    Wanting to believe miracles happen won't make them happen. 

	I didn't say I want to believe, I said I will continue to believe.
	And, I believe they happen in spite of what you want to believe.
	;-)
	
	But, thanks for the kind words. It's always a pleasure.  ;-)
	
	"I need a miracle everyday."
	
	Jay

	Well, Jay, since you are channeling  Fred....;').

	Lazaris says, "A miracle is anything that turns out better
	than you expected it to".

	I bet, you get  a miracle every day too...&-)

	Have a real happy New Year,

	Mikki

	Hi Mikki!
	
	Don't tell Fred I'm channelling him, he'll want royalties  ;-)
	
	
	Thank You!
	And a Miraculous New Year to you  :-)
	
	Jay

    Hi All,
    
    Thanks for the many replies.  I'd like to respond to a few items.
    
    
    1.  My use of the words "perceptual reality"
                                               
    
    Each person has a set of sensors that detect events in the physical 
    world.  Each person also has a set of personal beliefs that
    govern their interpretation of what they have perceived.  Perceptual
    Reality is what an individual experiences in response to events that
    they both sense and interpret.
    
    
    2.  I did not mention the word "miracles."  I was not referring to any
    phenomena outside of natural laws.  I believe that as a species we are
    only in the infant stages of science.  There is much room for new
    discovery.
    
    3.  There are no "charlatans" seeking my money and I am not a disciple
    of any other human.  One of the people who has encouraged me in this
    is a friend who is a doctor (general pract.) and he does have a bunch
    of papers and documents on this kind of thing.  He is 1200 miles away
    so I haven't gone through his literature. 
    
    4.  When I stated in my original note that I was "playing" with an
    idea, I chose that word to convey a particular approach.  It is with a
    sense of light-heartedness that I dance with these thoughts.  Trust me. 
    There are many avenues I could take in my situation that would emesh me
    and my little girl in a perceptual reality that is much less than
    peace.
    
    5.  And as far as whether her life will be "rosy" or not--well that's
    up to her to decide.  She is the one who will assign all meaning to
    events that she senses.  Most likely, her life will be a mixture of
    roses and thorns, as all of us experience.
    
    6.  I think that it is possible that we will eventually discover (and
    apply) mind energy (conscious intent, focussed thought...whatever we
    wish to call it).  We will study it and describe it using some sort of
    math, just as we do gravitational, electromagnetic, etc., forces.
    
    7.  I was into this stuff before Bridgitte was born, so it is not some
    desperate act of wishful thinking.  My belief system contains the idea
    that we all choose every event we sense as well as our interpretation
    of these events.  In my system, I believe that Bridgitte not only chose
    to set up her body as she did, but she also chose me as her Mom.  I do
    not seek to change her.  My desire is to give her the best possible
    environment to grow up in.  This includes the very best medical care as
    well as the very best mind energy environment.
    
    8.  I spoke with Dr. David Patterson at the Eleanor Roosevelt Research
    Center (genetics research) in Denver.  Dr. Patterson has been doing
    extensive work in mapping this particular chromosome.  His research has
    revealed the correlation between specific genes and the resulting
    physical conditions.  No one with the extra chromosome has *all* of the
    physical characteristics associated with that trisomy.  When I asked
    him why, he told me that not all of the genes were "turned on."   
    
    The phenomena of cancer patients using their imagination to bring about
    their healing is now accepted by many in the mainstream medical
    professions.  The frontiers of bodily control is constantly being
    expanded by biofeedback techniques.  Who's to say it can't be applied
    at the cellular level.  I'm giving my little girl permission and
    assistance to "turn off" genes that could cause her to have a body that
    is less than what she wants.
    
    Ruth

	Ruth,
	
	I agree with *much* of what you say. Thanks, it was well said.
	
	My dance with these same thoughts leads me to believe that we
	will re-discover the use of mind energy.  But not as a scientific
	discovery measured by instruments or model. It will be like an
	awakening, with a Knowing that transcends the need to study and
	describe.
	
	Maybe what we see today as miracles is only an indication of what
	is to take us beyond the bounderies of Natural Law. To me, to
	think that we were created with the ability to develop mind
	energy is miraculous. I don't believe there is a mathematical
	model to describe the source of that energy, or it's creator.
	
	Just some light-hearted, year-ending thoughts.  ;-)
	
	My best wishes for your daughter.
	Jay

    
    	RE: .14
    
    	Ruth,
    
    	      As long as you continue to do what your intuition
    	is telling you to do, you can't go wrong.   What's good
    	for you may not be good for others, so don't let anyone
    	discourage you.   I would like to read your story later
    	on when you succeed on achieving your goal, telling us
    	that you did what some said "it couldn't be done".
    
              Will Power, persistence and determination can 
    	conquer all obstacles.
		

Ruth,

It is a pleasure to read your notes, not just because I agree with 
much of what you say nor because I've tried to be there for my 
children in a similar way, but because you have a very powerful yet 
gentle way of sharing your views and communicating your thoughts.  The 
Light in you shines through.

Love to you,

Ro

    Dear Ruth:
    
    Many years ago someone very close to me was diagnosed with Multiple
    Sclerosis.  I resolved (against all evidence) to find means to "cure"
    this person of this malady.  I am quite aware that this is a "disease"
    that the person having it can "cause" to go into remission for years,
    and, in fact, after the initial diagnosis, may never experience the
    symptoms again.  Last month, I saw this person run "like Carl Lewis",
    something that would have been regarded as a "miracle" by anyone seeing
    her in 1973.  She and I have done a lot of work to help bring about
    that result.  I'll not quibble with anyone over whether or not this is
    considered a "miracle".
    
    So, you have my support to continue what you are doing with your
    daughter.  I can think of no better person to be that little girl's mom
    on the planet Earth than you.
    
    And thanks to Topher, and Jay, and Nikki (Hi Nikki!!!  :-) :-) and the
    others providing support to this incredibly intelligent and courageous
    woman, Ruth.
    
    Richard B

    Dear Ruth:
    
    I would strongly suggest that you read Argartha.  There is a chapter in 
    regards to creating your own reality and the power of thought.
    
    I have found this book very rewarding and insightful.  If you are
    interested and have trouble finding it please let me know and I will
    mail you my copy.
    
    Also just a note on my own personal experience. 
    
    A year ago November the doctors told me that I had cervical cancer. It
    was a real blow since I was only 26 years old.  The doctors told me
    that the cancer was very advanced and I would have to have surgery
    immediately.  I didn't even think about dying but I did think about how
    I would never be able to have children - that hurt more than anything!!
    
    I kept doing a lot visualization, praying and mediatation. I wouldn't
    accept what was happening and use every positive step to fight it.
    
    It paid off. In September the doctors stated that I was cancer
    free.  They still don't know if I will be able to have children but I
    really believe someday I will be able to.
    
    I truly believe that the power of thought, pray and mediatation HELP
    me.  The cancer had spread so much that doctors had really prepared me
    for the worst...but I guessed I fooled them all.
    
    I truly admire your love for your daughter and I hope you keep the
    faith.
    
    Melinda
    
                                             

    RE; .19
    
    Did you have the operation?
    
    Laurie.

    I just wanted to take a moment to add something to this
    'perceptual reality' concept, mainly to support Ruth's use of the term.
    
    There are a number of scientifically well accepted schools
    of thought derived from the Gestalt and Cognitive psych lines
    and overlapping social psych and more recently some branches of
    anthropology that use terms similar to Ruth's 'perceptual reality.'
    
    The tricky part, imo, is making the distinction when you use the term
    as to whether you mean to emphasize (of these overlapping ideas) :
    
    1.  The active role an individual takes in organizing their own
    	experience and manner of perception ;
    
    2.  The influence of intention and mental 'state' on the 
    	individual's physiological processes ;
    
    3.  The influence of intention on physical processes outside the
    	conventionally recognized mechanisms of control;
    
    (1) There are very few people who have been educated in the mid to late
    20th century in psychology who would completely disagree with the
    first idea, which in one of its simplest forms just says that individuals
    interpret things differently depending on their different past
    experiences and social or cultural framework.  It is not a statement about 
    'objective reality,' it is a statement about the dynamics of perception 
    and memory.
    
    (2) The second idea is slowly becoming more widely accepted in science, 
    which is that we can influence our own body processes (though probably 
    largely 'indirectly') through variations of intention and
    mental/emotional state.   This idea (in European and American 
    science) goes all the way back to the followers of Mesmer,
    whose work was pivotal in this field; launching a number of
    conceptual schools from the spiritual (Quimby, Eddy - Christian
    Science) to physiological theories of 'magnestism,' through
    a tremendous amount of outright charlatanism, leading to the
    numerous modern views of hypnotherapy and to the 
    various loosely related lines of research into biofeedback phenomena.
    
    There are still a few people who associate
    anything having to do with theories of 'mind-body interaction'
    with charlatanism and occultism, but a large amount of evidence,
    including that which led to the existence of a young field in medicine 
    that deals with the interactions of neurological, psychological, and 
    immunological processes tells us that it is also something that is foolish 
    to reject out of hand, or even to treat lightly.
    
    One of the most interesting studies seems to have shown that
    through biofeedback techniques certain single neurons can be
    selectively triggered to fire more frequently, for example.
    
    (3) The third idea is very broad, and overlaps with various
    paranormal theories, 'miracles,' and phenomena very difficult
    to replicate reliably.  Obviously, the acceptance of such
    ideas varies widely, whether in popular literature or scientific.
    
    					kind regards,
    
    					todd

    re: .0,
    
>    I have heard several teachers (that I respect much) say that we can
>    change our genetic structure through our conscious intent.  It goes
>    along with the school that holds we create our own perceptual reality.
    
>    throughout each day.  My daughter was diagnosed as having an extra
>    chromosome and from the very beginning I decided 2 things:
    
>    I call my strategy "creative denial."  I make sure she gets all of the
>    medical/theraputic help that she needs in the present.  But I resist
>    the temptation to predict her future based on the genetic analysis.  I
    
    Whether or not you can change genetic structure in this particular
    way (and it seems very unlikely to me), there is still the very
    very important matter that educability and function of an individual
    is NOT completely determined in a precisely known way for any
    genetic problem involving the brain and mind.  
    
    A number of 'organic' brain dysfunctions that were for many
    years given a dismal prognosis have been discovered much more
    responsive to the right kind of attention than previously 
    assumed.  Yes, it genetics seems to set certain limits on
    our abilities in certain areas, but it doesn't stop us from
    being able to compensate, both neurologically and with 
    special skills, for even some very serious problems.
    
    Victims of Down's syndrome, severe retardation, autism, and a number of 
    other clusters of problems previously thought relatively intractable have 
    made tremendous strides and become much more functional than
    older ideas supported when proper attention and education are provided.
    
    It's important to note, though, given the strategy of 'creative denial'
    that raising and educating someone with a problem like this takes
    an extraordinary amount of patience and selflessness.  I've seen 
    problems like this tear many families apart.  My fear would be that
    if the genetic reversal you attempt doesn't materialize, that
    it would cause you to give up on her.  
    
    Much love and support to you and your daughter.  It sounds like she's
    very lucky to have you.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    re: .0, Ruth,
    
    	I also just noticed a note with a number of references for
    	support and information services (mostly on Down's syndrome)
    	and a few of them seem like they might potentially be of some use 
    	to you.
    
    	Check out VMSZOO::MEDICAL, note 1047.3.  
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    RE; .22
    
    Nice note Todd, my thoughts on it too.
    
    Laurie.

    
    re:20
    
    Yes. I now have biopsy every three months to see if the deplasia cells
    have become cancerous.
    
    M
    

    
    The irony of ironies.....Jay channeling Frederick! ;^)
    
    Carole

I mentioned this string to Frederick the other day.  Reminds me of a quotation
from the late Roy Orbison:  "People ask me what I want to be remembered for.
I just want to be remembered."


Mac

    RE: 1779.26
    
    WHAT????
    
    COULD YOU LET US ON THIS. IS FREDERICK A SPIRIT GUIDE??
    
    

    RE 1779.27
    
    You should read Linda Goodman's Sun Signs. According to her we don't
    have to die.  There is a process of cell regeneration we can all do to
    stop the aging process.
    
    M........
    

RE:                     <<< Note 1779.29 by AIMHI::SEIFERT >>>
    
�    You should read Linda Goodman's Sun Signs. According to her we don't
�    have to die.  There is a process of cell regeneration we can all do to
�    stop the aging process.
    
    I hate to say this, but just because it's in a book doesn't make it
    true. There is no such process. We cannot "stop" the aging process, and
    we certainly will all die, sooner or later.
    
    Laurie.

    Bear in mind, Laurie, there are many people who are truly terrified at
    the thought of death and as such will grasp at any straw that appears
    to offer immortality. This makes them ideal material for those who wish
    to fleece them.

    All living organisms are designed to wear out and die, it is possible
    to put this off for a while, but eventually something will get you.

    As my p/n used to say, "Life is just a passing phase, you grow out of
    it."

    Mind you at the moment we think that we are seeing a population
    explosion, just think what would happen if death became optional.

    Jamie.
                                

>    explosion, just think what would happen if death became optional.
    
    	I think it really hits home for a lot of people when you 
    	phrase it as 'ok, but you have to stop reproducing.'
    
    	Then you have to come to grips with the battle between
    	both primal instincts, both types of survival (assuming you
    	don't also believe in survival of the spirit after death, which
    	complicates matters); and the issue of 'our' mortality really
    	stands out in relief.   
    
    						todd

    Interesting. What would immortality do to the concepts of the
    "after-life", and re-incarnation?
    
    Laurie.

    
    
    re: .33
    
              The Soul (Spirit,Essence,Life Force....) *is* immortal; that
    is the concept of "after-life", and re-incarnation.
    
                              Later,
                               Mark
    
    

Re: .28 aimhi::seifert

Frederick is Frederick Ward, a former and prolific member of this conference.
I talk to him by conventional means, but who knows, maybe if you read
enough of his notes from the past five years or so, you'll be able to
"channel" him just as well as the previous noter in this string.

Re: .29 aimhi::siefert

I fear this news is too late for Mr. Orbison


Re:  soul

I've never understood this concept.  But I was talking to my partner about
it the other day, and he said that if I wanted to know about soul, I should
ask James Brown.


Mac

    :-)
    
    Say hi to Frederick for me...

I miss Frederick.

Ro

    Frederick was an honest man... an emotional one but an honest one.

> Soul  --  I've never understood this concept.  
    
    Not that I've got much :-) ... but the traditional concept is
    that the soul is what connects human beings with nature 
    (and with divinity in whatever form you might conceive of it).
    
    The common term 'psyche' is used to refer to the soul, the spirit, and to 
    the mind, since the three concepts are intimately related, or even
    synonymous; all relate to the experience of some essence that
    is independent from or in some way transcends the physical body,
    either at a given time, or in some beliefs, survives the death of
    the physical body as well.  For those who believe in brain-mind identity, 
    I think the notion of an _immortal_ soul tends to be be hard to 
    understand, but there are even some theories and belief systems that accept
    brain-mind identity and yet still believe that 'something' survives
    bodily death, even if just 'information' in some form.
    
    My understanding of the 'survival question' as viewed in parapsychology
    is that many years of serious research in the area have failed to produce 
    any conclusive answer as to whether 'survival' can ever be either 
    convincingly either demonstrated or disproven, no matter how we break it 
    down.   Some of the case studies from the early days of psychic
    research are fascinating.  Some of the greatest minds of modern times
    became engrossed in the question at one time or another.
    
    							todd

Gee, people here are sure quick to explain things.  I hope nobody thought
I was seriously asking for an explanation about soul.

I looked in here because Frederick referred me here is response to a
question I asked him about Lazaris.  I am not really interested in
the topic of this conference, myself.

I met Frederick before I read any of his notes here.  I had quite a
different impression from meeting him in person than I got from his
notes.

I'll tell him people said hi.  I have his address and phone number if
anyone wants to get in touch with him personally.  I think it's also
posted in here somewhere.  He's not much good at returning personal
correspondence, though, in my experience.

Mac

    re: .40, (Mac),
    
>Gee, people here are sure quick to explain things.  
    >I hope nobody thought
    >I was seriously asking for an explanation about soul.
    
    	I guess I'm the people in this case, and yes, I did think think it was 
    	serious, and I'm sorry if I insulted you by trying to answer it.  
    	That wasn't my intention.   
    
    					kind regards,
    
    					todd

    LAURIE, I'm surprised that you even read this notes file because
    every reply I ever seen indictates that you don't believe in "New Age."
    
    You right just because it said it in one book doesn't mean it is true
    HOWEVER, I have read it in numerous books. Next time I will make sure
    to back up my comments with a list of resourses.
    
    Melinda
    

    Jamie, just for the record I'm not afraid to die and a lot of other
    people are not too.  
    
    M
    

    .42
    
    Can't have much of a conversation if you have to back up every comment
    with a list of resources though... makes for a very dull file.. don't
    you think, Melinda?

    re: (.29,.30,.42), .44, (Mary),
    
    Well, if someone voices an opinion that is exceptionally controversial,
    it does help to provide pointers to further information.   Not that
    every opinion neccessarily needs to be justified or anything like that,
    but to help others evaluate the claim.   In a case like this, I think
    it's a courtesy, not a requirement.  
    
    Reversal of some aspect of the aging 
    process is the kind of thing that is potentially verifiable, unlike
    survival of the soul.   Don't you think ?   As far as I know, aging leaves 
    physical evidence at both the cellular and systemic level.
    
    							todd

DWOVAX::STARK 
    
>    Well, if someone voices an opinion that is exceptionally controversial,
>    it does help to provide pointers to further information.   
    
     Not that it matters, but.. some of us use a much different yardstick 
     to classify opinions as  "exceptionally controversial" than others do 
     though.
     

>     Not that it matters, but.. some of us use a much different yardstick 
>     to classify opinions as  "exceptionally controversial" than others do 
>     though.
    
    Ok.  Fair enough.   

    Todd makes a valid point though, and in this case, I believe it's
    justified. Whilst Mary also makes a valid point, the fact is that
    people whose threshold of blind acceptance is unusually high are called
    "gullible".
    
    If it were possible to halt (note "slow down" wasn't mentioned) the
    aging process, don't you think it'd be in common "use" by now? Don't
    you think there would be a million and one specialists assisting people
    to remain alive for ever? If it were possible to become immortal, how
    do you explain the evolution of so many religions based on the
    here-after, or re-incarnation? How do you explain that the oldest
    person in the world is "only" about 130 and hardly in the peak of
    physical condition? If it is possible to stop the aging process why do
    stars like Tina Turner invest so much pain and money in plastic surgery
    and face-lifts when the alternative is a little painless meditation?
    
    As Todd says, this "phenomenon" is easily verifiable. Where's the
    evidence it works? Where and when have tests been done? How many people
    are "living proof"?�
    
    I repeat, the idea is bunk, it ain't possible.
    
    Laurie.
    
    � There isn't any; nowhere and none; none.

    Re .43
    
    >Jamie, just for the record I'm not afraid to die and a lot of other
    >people are not too.  
    
    I did not say everyone in the world was afraid to die, I said.
    
    >there are many people who are truly terrified at the thought of death
    
    Re .44
    
    >Can't have much of a conversation if you have to back up every comment
    >with a list of resources though... makes for a very dull file.. don't
    >you think, Melinda?
    
    True Mary but if we let every comment pass without challenge we will
    soon be unable to tell fact from fiction.
    
    Jamie.

>    True Mary but if we let every comment pass without challenge we will
>    soon be unable to tell fact from fiction.

	How do you define "we"? You and the mouse in your pocket?
	
	;-)  ;-)
	
	Jay, who decides truth for himself, without challenge.

    >How do you define "we"?

    Those who read and write in this conference.

    >You and the mouse in your pocket?

    Sir, my cats would never stand for it.

    Jamie.

    Well it sounds like a lot of you need evidence to believe. I only hope
    of open your third eye by suggesting reading materials.  
    
    However if your not willing to look at another picture there is no use.
    

    re: 45
    
    Thank you Todd.  I forget how to say it in Latin but " So many men, so
    many opinions."
    
    A little courtesy does go a long way.
    
    Melinda
    

    LAURIE, first of all how can know what type of spirituality Tina Turner
    has.  How do you know she know or doesn't know about this process. Also
    not many doctors are not willing to accept holistic medicine as valid
    because they would all lose money.
    
    Laurie I think you need to open up your third eye. Why don't you do
    some reading first so you can make an intelligent statement based on
    research and not on personal opinions.  

    True Jamie you didn't state "everyone in the world is afraid to die"
    however you stated that this idea of reversing the aging process is a
    way for people to deal the fear of dying.  WHICH IT IS NOT.
    
    

    Re .46

    >Also not many doctors are not willing to accept holistic medicine as
    >valid because they would all lose money.                                 

    I can agree with that. You practice holistic medicine and fail to cure
    patients you will lose money hand over fist in malpractice suits if you
    are a doctor.

    Rather than open their third eye, if some people used the perfectly
    good original pair that are already open they might just see through
    half the scams that abound today.

    Jamie.

    RE. 50
    
    I think it is a great idea to challenge peoples comments so you can
    tell what is fact or fiction.  I also thinks it enables people to be
    open to new ways of thinking.
    
    What I object to is people who don't believe in any of the New Age
    concepts and use this file only to tell the rest of us that we are
    wrong.  
    

    Re .57

    But what if you are wrong?

    Jamie.

    Well... so what?  Being wrong is what we humans do best.  How do you
    expect to learn anything if you won't allow yourself to take a chance
    and make a mistake once in awhile?

    
    	There's a movie just coming out in the US that poignantly
    	illustrates the potential value of heroic or fringe ideas in some cases.
    	
    	From what I hear (I haven't seen it yet) it's the true story of a 
    	couple that desperately searches for a new cure for a deadly 
    	progressive demyelinizing condition that their son is afflicted with.   
    
    	Medical research foundations refuse to help them and even attempt
    	to block their efforts, apparently.  In spite of this, they manage
    	to do enough research on their own to come up with a chemical
    	agent that stops the demyelinizing.  Unfortunately, it's too late
    	for their son, since it can't reverse the nerve damage.  But it
    	may potentially save many others.   
    
    	Presumably, most of the researchers were too close to the effort to
    	step back and reconsider the idea that the boy's parents had
    	rediscovered from their desperate research efforts.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    Everyone believes what they want to and we should respect that their
    ideas and thoughts.
    
    People look to channelers and mystics for answers when all they
    have to do is turn inward and ask their own higher self.  By opening
    your third eye you take control and responsibility for your path.
    
    Learning to do this isn't easy and it takes a lot of work.  A lot of
    people don't want to do the work and therefore, look to others for
    answers.  If they get ripped off its their own fault. 
    
    

    Jamie, I never claimed to be 100% on the money.  I'm just saying that
    don't tell anyone that their wrong without doing some investigation yourself
    first.  
    
    And it people are using this file just to dump on people then I don't
    need your negativity and I'll look for people who are more open to ideas.
    
    Melinda.
    
                                  

>    Everyone believes what they want to and we should respect that their
>    ideas and thoughts.
    
    I'll agree with this up to a point.  In any society, even the most
    free, there are also a set of common beliefs, or at least 'shoulds' that 
    every active member shares, particularly involving their responsibilities 
    to the community at large.   When we respect diversity beyond this
    point, (and we do at times) we do so at our peril.   In my opinion.
    
    							peace,
    
    							todd

    Todd, lets back up a bit. I'm not talking about the whole world I'm 
    talking about this notes file!
    
    What I am saying is that I think it is totally unfair to state that
    someones idea or statement is incorrect without investigating that
    concept first inorder to make a proper statement.
    
    For example if someone stated that they could channel I would ask them how
    they learned to and what was their method. I would also do a lot of reading
    and talking to others before I made any conclusions and above all I
    would trust my higher self.
    
    I believe you respect someones ideas and thoughts because even if don't
    agree with them every human being deserves that respect NO MATTER WHAT.
    
    
    
    People seem so quick to judge before they listen.
    

RE:                     <<< Note 1779.54 by AIMHI::SEIFERT >>>
    
�    Laurie I think you need to open up your third eye. Why don't you do
�    some reading first so you can make an intelligent statement based on
�    research and not on personal opinions.  

    You don't seem to be listening to me Melinda. I don't need any third
    eye to see the obvious, nor do I need to conduct any research. We have
    thousands of years' of experience of seeing people born, growing old
    and dying. It has been the norm, and I believe, will continue to be so.
    
    Now, you are asserting that this need not happen, that the aging
    process can be reversed. On the basis of the above, I am asserting that
    this reversal is impossible, and I'm asking you for the research that
    proves this claim of yours. I have also stated that this claim is
    easily verifiable, that it would be a simple thing to prove
    conclusively and scientifically that it is or is not possible to
    reverse the aging process. In other words, there is no reason for there
    not to be any scientific evidence. As you clearly believe this claim,
    perhaps you could share the evidence that convinced you?
    
    Unfortunately, so far your only response has been to decry
    "negativity", point me at a book devoid of said scientific evidence and
    to suggest I open my "third eye". I'm afraid I remain unconvinced.
    
    Laurie.

DWOVAX::STARK 
    
>    I'll agree with this up to a point.  In any society, even the most
>    free, there are also a set of common beliefs, or at least 'shoulds' that 
>    every active member shares, particularly involving their responsibilities 
>    to the community at large.   When we respect diversity beyond this
>    point, (and we do at times) we do so at our peril.   In my opinion.
    
     How can you say that?    I guess I don't understand.  What do you
     mean?

                                                                       
    There is a book out by Deepak Chopra, M.D., called "Perfect Health". 
    One of the chapters is entitled "Aging Is A Mistake".  Highly
    recommended.
    
    Dr.Chopra is the former chief-of-staff at a well-known allopathic medical 
    center in New England (sorry, name escapes me right now...), and is now 
    doing Ayurvedic medicine.  There's a topic on his work in this file
    somewhere.
    
    I had the pleasure of attending one of his lectures out at Kripalu
    Center in Lenox, Mass., last October, where he talked about the nature
    of consciousness.  Totally mind-blowing.  He spoke at a celebration to 
    commemorate Gurudev's 60th birthday at that time.  Also out there was a 
    108-year-old swami who is in great health, and can read without glasses. 
    Gurudev himself, at 60, can stand on his head in a full lotus pose.
    
    There are several references to yogis in "Autobiography Of A Yogi", by
    Yogananda, particularly one fellow who made it to age 300+. 
    
    Cindy

    RE. 65
    
    
    
    OK  Laurie your on....
    
    I'll get you all the information you want. Laurie may I remind that the
    whole concept of New Age is not scientific because you can not
    physically measure spirituality.
    
    
    Laurie I would like to ask you if there is are any concepts of
    New Age you believe in???
    
    
    
    
    

    re. 67
    
    Thank you!
    
    

    
    Re.68  (Seifert)
    
    On the New Age not being scientific...can't measure spirituality in the
    physical...(paraphrased)
    
    Actually, it is.  At least there are many people who are striving to
    make this so.  Those who come to mind immediately are former Astronaut
    Ed Mitchell, who founded the Institute of Noetic Sciences, and ex-Nasa
    physicist, Barbara Brennan, who founded a healing center (based on the
    energy body), and has published the book "Hands Of Light".           
    
    About the third eye, etc....Michael Crichton, in his book "Travels" 
    wrote about a tribe in Africa not believing that there were actually 
    people in the 'silver bird' flying overhead.  Nothing he could say or 
    do could make them believe it.  Had they chosen to go to an airport 
    and see it for themselves, no discussion would have been necessary.
    
    One has to be open to possibilities, otherwise talk is a waste of time.
    I'm sure, Melinda, that you have better things to do with your time. (;^)
    
    Cindy

	Re: 68
    
    >I'll get you all the information you want. Laurie may I remind that the
    >whole concept of New Age is not scientific because you can not
    >physically measure spirituality.
    
    	But what's being discussed here is not new age, but age. And that
    *can* be measured, in units of years. All I see Laurie requesting is
    more information regarding the source of such claims as "aging can be
    stopped". 
    
        I believe there are few areas of research more important than
    longevity.... Imagine what one could do with one's mind if one could
    expect to live 300 years... take 20 years off to do research in a
    "hobby" field, or join a monastery, or ....  What evolutionary 
    breakthroughs could possibly be accomplished by a mind with 200 years
    of wisdom? I don't know, but it would be fascinating to try to find
    out. I, for one, will welcome such breakthroughs, if and when they
    happen. But I hardly think that requesting more information qualifies
    as having a "closed third eye" (certainly sounds like a harsh
    condemnation  :^).
    
        To semi-quote someone I can't remember, "I believe in the beauty and 
    the mystery of life. And I hope to discover that magic is real. But I want
    to *see* the magic, or feel the magic, or live the magic, not to read 
    some one else's account, channeled or otherwise, which assure me that it 
    exists".
    
        I agree that if one is not open to experiences, then it's less
    likely that the experiences will occur (the power of belief). But
    declaring someone "unwilling to open their third eye" because they have
    requested a minimum baseline of backing for claims not commonly or
    scientifically understood to be true, seems less than productive. I,
    too, look forward to seeing the evidence of the claims made for 
    possible longevity. Until then, I'll have to assume that there are
    biological reasons why 130 years seems to be tops, and that an extreme
    excepton.
    
    					Peace,
    
    					chuck
             

Re: .60, Todd

The movie is called "Lorenzo's Oil" with Nick Nolte & Susan Sarandon and
is based on a true story.  20/20 had done a piece on this couple and their
little boy a few years ago.  I think it opens either this weekend or next,
and critics are expecting that Susan Sarandon may be up for an Oscar for
this movie...

Linda

    Ok, a few to answer.
    
    RE: .67, Cindy.
    
    I've checked a couple of books, Guinness Book of Records, Pear's
    Cyclopaedia, Ripley's "Believe it or not!", that sort of thing, and I
    cannot find any documented, recorded and/or verified entry for any
    person of 300+ years of age. I accept that you were told this, and I
    accept that you believe it. I, however, do not. Feel free to prove me
    wrong.
    
    RE: .68, ::SEIFFERT
    
    Once again, you're missing the point, and clouding the issue with
    irrelevant fluff. This has happened so consistently I can only conclude
    you are deliberately evading my simple, reasonable, direct and
    unambiguous questions. We are not discussing "New Age", we are
    discussing a claim made by you, a claim I dispute, a claim that the
    aging process is reversible. It is, as I have pointed out several
    times, easily verifiable. All I have asked for is some evidence:
    Scientific, documented and verified evidence, proving beyond doubt that
    this claim is true. Once again, I'll point out that this evidence is
    easily obtained using current technology.
    
    To help you avoid misunderstanding me again, here's some "points" for
    you to address:
    
    1) You claim and believe that the aging process is reversible.
    2) I say it's not and ask for proof.
    3) This proof is easily obtained, the claim is easily verified.
    4) You have now stated you will obtain said proof.
    5) I'm waiting.
    
    As to what I believe or don't believe, the term "New Age" is far too
    vague for me to consider even replying to the question. Most of it is
    unsubstantiated bunkum, and even more of it is easily shown to be the
    same. There is magic in the world, there are mysteries to be solved,
    and there is much to learn. I do not, however, automatically believe
    anything I'm told because a) I paid $50 to be told it, b) I *want* to
    believe it, c) it re-inforces my beliefs, or d) I read it in a book.
    Where scientific proof is difficult or impossible to obtain, then I
    have an open mind, and take a balanced view. I tend to not believe, but
    respect the rights of others to do so. Where such proof is easily
    obtained and hasn't been, or such proof is suspect and uncontrolled, or
    where such proof has been "manufactured", then I have no hesitation in
    disbelieving it completely.
    
    RE: .71, Chuck.
    
    Well said that man. That sums this whole thing up for me too. I'm
    having a nice life, I like learning and discovering. If there were the
    faintest chance I could extend my life by even 10% over the current
    norm (some 85 I suppose), I'd grab it. As you point out, the
    opportunites for self-fulfillment are mind-boggling. However, I believe
    it's not to be, the claim that the aging process can be reversed is not
    proven. 
    
    Laurie.

    Re -1 (Laurie)
    
    ..." have an open mind, and take a balanced view. I tend to not believe,
    but respect the rights of others to do so..."
    
    Pardon my ignorance, but where in all your notes, is the aobve
    reflected?
    
    You have consistently shown your disdain and condescension to all whose
    views are not the same as your own. Does this reflect respect in your
    eyes? 
    
    Not to say that my views are not often that of your own, and that your
    notes are not foten entertaining, but respect is not a word I would use
    to describe your feelings towards most in here.
    
    
    Marilyn

    
    	RE: .74
    
    	Marilyn,
    
    		do you realize what we have here ?.
    
    		This may be undesputable proof that Jamie is
    		a changed person and that miracles do happen.
    
    

    ... or it's a clone pretending to be Jamie... :-)

    Hello Everyone!

    I find it very interesting that this note has transmuted into a
    discussion of:

       *  new age ideas vs. scientific proof

       *  immortality of the human body


    I would like to offer some ideas on both of these topics.

    1.  Science vs. Religion

    We are complex beings.  We need space in our intellect for both wild,
    unbridled imaginative play as well as reproducible-by-experiment fact. 
    We are dull and boorish when either one side or the other dominates.

    Let us dream and imagine and play and dance and sing with our ideas! 
    Then let us analyze and formulate and substantiate and separate what
    works from what doesn't. 

    2.  Die-hard Bodies

    So, I don't know anyone over 100, much less anyone over 1000.  Does
    that mean it is impossible?  How long did the average person live
    30,000 years ago?  35 years?  How long will the average person live
    30,000 years from now?  If we only doubled our life expectancy every
    30,000 years, we'd be living well over 1000 years within a quarter of a
    million years (an eyeblink in geological time).

    Will we create "vat-grown" or cyborg bodies by then?  Will we
    understand what really constitutes "mind" and be able to keep it
    intact?  Is it science or mysticism?

    I hold that the two are inseparable forces, that push and tug on each
    other like the electrical and magnetic forces in a light energy wave.
    We will bootstrap our own evolution and create the technology to
    support any reality that we dare to imagine.

    Religion and Science give meaning to one another.

    My body?  Will it last hundreds of years?  I don't know, but I'm going
    to give it a chance to dance!  I'm in the process of cleaning out all
    of the physical and mental toxins that I put into my mind/body unit. 
    I'm eating more salads and thinking more loving thoughts.  And I'm
    letting go of the dis-ease thoughts like fear and anger.  So ask me if
    it works in a hundred years!

    Ruth

                                
    Re.73
    
    Laurie,
    
    Since you're checking out various books, I suggest you also check 
    out "Autobiography Of A Yogi", by Yogananda, and "Perfect Health", 
    by Deepak Chopra.  
    
    It's not a question of whether I believe anything - it's a question 
    of whether or not these things are true.  Just because the sources you 
    referenced do not list anyone as reaching 300+ years old, does not 
    mean that it isn't true.  
    
    A lot of people once upon a time proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
    that the world was flat, and it became recorded as such.  Until it
    became otherwise, of course.
    
    Cindy

    RE: .74
    
    I do respect the rights of others to think and feel as they wish. But
    that doesn't stop me pointing out the obvious to them. Where the
    obvious may well show their beliefs in a very bad light, it is not a
    reflection of my lack of respect for their right to think and believe
    as they wish. By "obvious", I mean that which is obvious to me...
    
    You will note, on reading back in this conference, that I never comment
    strongly on something nebulous or difficult to prove or disprove, such as
    channelling or ghosts. I do have an open mind on such things. I do
    comment on something that's easy to disprove with a little thought, or
    for which researched and documented proof would/should be easily
    obtainable. I also point out obvious alternatives to a phenomenon. When
    I say "never", I suppose I mean rarely, I have commented on crop
    circles and such-like, and stated my belief that they are man-made.
    
    RE: .77
    
    Life expectancy, as you have pointed out, increased dramatically since
    early times, and much more so in the last 100 years. The cause, I think
    you'll find, is partially societal, but mostly technological. I venture
    to say, sceptic that I am, that it has nothing whatsoever to do with
    New Age, or other mystic matters.
    
    Cindy, that book is not documented, independantly verified proof. I
    repeat, a person's age is EASILY verifiable in this day and age, and we
    have the technology to measure the aging process. Where such proof does
    not exist, the only conclusion can be that it cannot exist.
    
    Laurie.

    I was off yesterday so I have been catching up in here and it has been
    amusing me greatly. I am accused of having negative views because I
    decline to accept as truths things that, sound impossible, run contrary
    to the known facts, cannot be verified by experiment and generally tend
    to represent the world as we would like it to be rather than how it is.

    On the other side there is scientific research, working in the rather
    mundane real world, making very slow but accurate progress unraveling
    the secrets of the universe. Now several people have been extremely
    negative about them, but in the topsy-turvy land of this notefile that
    is seen as a positive attitude, kick the establishment. What are we,
    aging hippies?

    Speaking of aging, I will take a lot of convincing that anyone lived to
    an age of greater than 300. Yes I know that there is a "well
    documented" account of Moses reaching the age of 120 years old before
    he went to his reward, but I suspect that he was much younger as that
    particular source of information is particularly dodgey.

    A while back it was thought that certain mountain dwellers did live to
    fantastic ages. Some would claim to be well over a hundred years old.
    Alas some people decided to check on the accuracy of their claims and
    finger printed the lot of them. Unfortunately these people did not
    realise that finger prints are a very positive form of identification,
    so when the researchers returned 20 years later they discovered that
    people were claiming to a far greater age than they really were. Many
    were claiming to be their parents and in truth they lived to no great
    age.

    So Cindy, I'm afraid that a single reference to a man living over 300
    years does not make it true. The mass of evidence to the contrary tends
    to suggest that someone somewhere is lying.

    BTW could someone tell me what the point of immortality is? I enjoyed
    my childhood, but as I grew up I had no wish to return to it, as my life
    has progressed I have found that each stage has had its pleasures. I
    realise that one day it will end and so I can look forwards to what
    comes next. For me immortality would be the equivalent spending my
    entire life as a child.

    Jamie.
                 

  Re .80 (Jamie)

> I am accused of having negative views because I
> decline to accept as truths things that, sound impossible, run contrary
> to the known facts, cannot be verified by experiment and generally tend
> to represent the world as we would like it to be rather than how it is.

  IMHO, the reason you are accused of having negative views isn't that you
  decline to accept other opinions but because of the manner in which you
  do so.  You tend to give very little latitude to ideas which don't agree
  100% with those you have already accepted but, in addition, tend to voice
  your dissent in a very sharp, mocking manner.  I don't think anyone minds
  questions or even statements that "I can't bring myself to accept that"
  but some of the other comments that usually accompany your dismissal of
  the idea are often unnecessarily offensive.  From reading a fair few of
  your notes, I [usually] accept this as simply 'you being yourself' but
  please don't be surprised that some people find it as difficult to accept
  your attitude as you do theirs.

> On the other side there is scientific research, working in the rather
> mundane real world, making very slow but accurate progress unraveling
> the secrets of the universe.

  The world of "facts" that you so readily accept as "accurate" is nothing
  of the sort.  It is a series of approximations - models if you will - to
  a truth which is untenable in toto.  The facts uncovered by scientific
  research are frequently conflicting due to the isolationist approach which
  is adopted in their investigation.  The "secrets of the universe" that are
  unravelled are only [partially] explained in the 'ideal case' [which is
  fictitious by definition] and which do not mesh to form a coherent total
  explanation as a result of the very same fiddle factors & assumptions that
  allow the individual phenomena to be "explained".

  The approach that is generally termed "scientific research" is an excellent
  way to develop knowledge but one should be wary of allowing the questioning
  mind to be fooled into believing it is a panacea and thus cease to question
  further.  To do so is to fall into the same trap that you are concerned so
  many other members of this conference are falling into : you are walking into
  the pit of blind acceptance, albeit from the other side.

> Speaking of aging, I will take a lot of convincing that anyone lived to
> an age of greater than 300.

  Ditto but I don't mind if people want to try ... maybe they've learned
  something that I haven't heard of ... maybe they haven't but are happy
  living the same quota in their own way.

  FWIW, although I'm in no hurry to leave this life behind, I'm not convinced
  that immortality [ie., retaining the current physical body] is a benefit.
  I'm not sure quite how to phrase my feelings but it doesn't fit into my
  view of life, the universe & everything ... sounds silly but maybe I'll try
  explaining it a bit better in another reply sometime.

  Frank

    Well Frank the main difference that I can find between the scientific
    approach and the non scientific approach is the former tends to
    challenge all new information, the latter just accepts it without any
    form of critical judgment.

    Now as many people will tell you the scientific approach evolved to get
    rid of charlatans, snake oil salesmen and other quacks who had a
    tendency to tell people what they wanted top hear and sell them things
    that appeared to give them benefits that they wanted.

    Now in the span of my lifetime the scientific approach has advanced
    mankind's knowledge and abilities greatly, the non scientific side has
    wandered around in the gloom of half truths and unproven theories. I
    cannot think of any seriously useful thing that it has produced.

    Jamie.
   

> Well Frank the main difference that I can find between the scientific
> approach and the non scientific approach is the former tends to
> challenge all new information, the latter just accepts it without any
> form of critical judgment.

  I disagree.  A large part of the former approach relies on information
  being assumed to be true, simply because it has been "proved" to be so
  in the past - ie., it "just accepts it without any form of critical
  judgment" as an act of faith with the previous person.  Hence the size
  of the task in overturning any particular belief held by the scientific
  establishment when it is found to be incorrect.  Your statement is as
  inaccurate in suggesting the 'scientific' approach challenges all new data
  as it is in suggesting that the 'non-scientific' one never does.

  Sorry ... got to dash ... back later.

  Frank

    .77
    
    Nice note... our British brothers don't seem to understand the concept
    of play though ... at least not in the same way we do... it must be
    undignified or something to them.. 
    
    .81
    
    I agree with you, Frank... I'm not at all sure that I want to live
    forever.

    Well Frank most things in the scientific side are not considered proven
    until the experiment is repeated by another, independent researcher. I
    have run across dozens of papers that contradict claims of other
    researchers. On the occasions that I have assisted in research I have
    noticed that they are scrupulously careful to let no error creep in
    from bias on the part of the researchers, whether this be intentional
    or unintentional. Any attempt to make the facts fit the theory are
    looked out for at every stage. 
    
    All the work that I assisted in was read and checked by a disinterested
    party before it was sent for publication. I should add that getting a
    reputation for sloppy work is very very easy, getting rid of it again
    is much more difficult. The world of research is not a gentleman's
    club, it is a jungle.

    Now the opposite seems to be true in the non scientific research.
    Single sourcing of data seems to be the normal. Accepting as proved
    the results of experiments that have not been repeated also seems
    normal, if what I read in here is true. There is also a suspicious lack
    of controversy, no one seems to challenge anyone else's work. I wonder
    why?   

    Jamie.

HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
>    Now the opposite seems to be true in the non scientific research.
>    Single sourcing of data seems to be the normal. Accepting as proved
>    the results of experiments that have not been repeated also seems
>    normal, if what I read in here is true. There is also a suspicious lack
>    of controversy, no one seems to challenge anyone else's work. I wonder
>    why?   

     Maybe no one accepts anything as 'fact', Jamie.... maybe it's all just
     speculation to everyone involved.. maybe they don't consider it to be
     "work" at all.

    You miss my point Mary. Several times in here I have seen information
    taken from a single source and quoted as if it was a proven fact. No
    effort has been made to find another source and cross check its
    validity. When I look something up I usually try at least two sources
    as I can usually get some extra information that way. However I am
    often surprised at the diversity of opinion.

    Jamie.

    You miss my point as well, Jamie.
    
    I'm refering to the attitude of the reader.
    
    Some people (apparently... from what I've observed watching) just
    blithely assume that everything they read that's presented as fact
    is fact.... therefore they are extremely concerned that all information
    be accurate.
    
    Other's of us have become so jaded by the constant barrage of
    propaganda and manipulative information that we are assaulted with on a 
    daily basis and that is presented to us as 'fact' by the media and/or 
    the governments of the world... that we do not accept *anything* any
    more except that which we personally can verify for ourselves...
    therefore we acknowledge any and all information presented to us as
    interesting but accept none or little of it as 'fact'.  Maybe facts
    just aren't that important to us... one way or another... or maybe we
    know that today's fact is tomorrow's commedy routine... I don't know..

    re: 79
    
    HOW BIG IS YOUR EGO?????
    
    I really can't believe you? I read a lot of your replies to dejavu and I
    don't think you respect anyones beliefs or ideas. I think the only
    reason you reply to this file is to tell people how wrong you think
    they are and to "pick fights."  What gives you the right to tell anyone
    there are wrong.  
    
    
    Do you have any spirituality? 
    
     
                      
    
    

    
    Re .79 (Laurie)
    
    You may indeed think you respect others, but I think if you look
    through your notes, and put yourself in the shoes of those to whom you
    wrote that at the least they show lack of respect, and at the most
    (worst) you show (as I stated) your disdain and how contemptible those
    beliefs are. Tha fact that you stated that you refrain from commenting
    on those subjects "on which you have an open mind" itself gives you
    away, who set you up as the arbiter of what is right or wrong, fact of
    fallacy?
    
    Let up, Laurie, in keeping your present attitude you are not only
    annoying (almost) everyone here, but worse, getting awfully boring.....
    
    Marilyn
    
    
    Re .75 and .76
    
    Guttierrez and Mary S,
    
    That was Laurie, not Jamie....

RE:                     <<< Note 1779.89 by AIMHI::SEIFERT >>>
                                  -< RE: 79 >-
�    HOW BIG IS YOUR EGO?????
    
    You're avoiding my questions. I await the proof you promised.
    
    Laurie.

    Re .67
                                                                     
    >There is a book out by Deepak Chopra, M.D., called "Perfect Health". 
    >One of the chapters is entitled "Aging Is A Mistake".  Highly
    >recommended.
    
    >There are several references to yogis in "Autobiography Of A Yogi", by
    >Yogananda, particularly one fellow who made it to age 300+. 
    
    Cindy as the gentleman has an MD I would have thought that his unique
    work would be published in the medical press. However he appears to
    have published absolutely nothing on the above mentioned subjects.

    Now what could his reasons possibly be? Well as he has published
    privately so we can rule out modesty. Mind you if he did make these
    claims in a professional publication he would have to come up with
    plenty of evidence, I doubt if they would just take his word on it. Do
    you think this could be the reason for his reluctance?

    Re .78

    >A lot of people once upon a time proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt,
    >that the world was flat, and it became recorded as such.  Until it
    >became otherwise, of course.
    
    That is not exactly how it happened. It was assumed, not proved, that
    the world was flat. However when people began to think about it they
    realised that it must be a sphere. Proving it was, as Topher will tell
    you, a simple task.
                                                          
    Jamie.

    shhh... Cindy's sleeping... 

    
    Re.93
    
    Jamie,
    
    We can start with something else along the same lines.  Dr.Dean Ornish - 
    have you heard of him?  He surprised the medical profession by proving 
    that clogged arteries could be reversed without the use of surgery.  Up 
    to that time (a few years ago), the medical profession said that this was
    not possible - that bypass surgery was the only way to reverse this 
    condition.
    
    Are you familiar with this work?
    
    Cindy

Jamie will pounce on this, Cindy.

I didn't know that the name of the researcher was Ornish, but had
certainly heard of the findings, and the recognition that much cardiac
surgery was unnecessary. This came to be known through the perfectly
ordinary mechanism of publication and reproducible research. Dr Ornish,
and other proponents of his hypothesis, were able to turn the medical
establishment around through the accepted scientific process.

If Dr Chopra has a hypothesis of similar merit, he will have absolutely
no trouble accomplishing a similar turnaround. Why has he not attempted
to do this (i.e., by publishing the results of research which others
can try to duplicate)?

    Laurie I don't know what you do all day in England but here in the
    States we do WORK. I AM NOT AVOIDING YOUR QUESTIONS however being a
    sales representative I do have to spend some time generating revenue
    for this company.
    
    Once I am in the office again - I'll send it to you.
    
    And in regards to the question how big is your ego --- You just
    answered it. 
    

                      
    Re.97
    
    Mike,
    
    As time allows, I'll enter in some portions from the book, "Perfect
    Health".  Then you can all have at it, from a more informed perspective.
    
    As for Dr.Chopra's publishing in traditional medical journals, etc., I 
    cannot answer that.  I do not know if he has, or has not, published
    anything.  He may well have, and that it is not well known.
    
    My point about Dr.Ornish's work was to show that the medical profession 
    was wrong - that people could actually reverse the condition themselves
    without surgery.  It also shows the possibility that one can actually 
    reverse the aging process to some degree. 
    
    Cindy

> My point about Dr.Ornish's work was to show that the medical profession
> was wrong

But this is almost trivial. Whether the general public thinks so or
not, proving that something which was previously thought to be correct
is wrong happens every day, and is at the very heart of science.
Scientists accept that much of the body of currently accepted theory
will sooner or later be shown to be wrong, or at least inaccurate and
flawed. There's no profound point to be made to that effect.

    I think the term "medical science" is an oxymoron.

>>    I think the term "medical science" is an oxymoron.

        
        Could you explain this?  Are you saying that the Medical field is
        not science.  Your not making any sense.
        
        Steve

No, actually that statement is mostly correct, and most physicians and
medical researchers would agree.

Until relatively recently, the vast majority of medical "knowledge" was
purely empirical: we administer this therapy, and that disease abates.
This is not "science" in the sense of having any accurate and complete
understanding of what's going on. Medical research has made much
progress recently, but in doing so, has shown just how little we really
do know about how life works.

    Cindy, I'll check up tonight and get back to you tomorrow.
    
    Jamie.

    re: Medicine a science, an art, a dessert topping, or a floor wax ?
    
>No, actually that statement is mostly correct, and most physicians and
>medical researchers would agree.
    
    IMO, it's a very hairy semantic nit, requiring more discussion of the
    philosophy of science than I think would be of interest in this forum.
    
    The complexity of human organisms is so
    great that we are a long way from any detailed unified 'theory of
    everything alive' if any such thing is even possible.  That doesn't
    mean that medical research doesn't for the most part follow the same
    or similar canons of evidence and experimental methodologies as the
    'harder' sciences.  
    
    Saying it 'isn't science' is more a blatant lead in 
    to a social polemic than a statement carrying any useful information, in 
    my opinion.   The only really useful distinction I can see is to 
    recognize that medical science is less than perfect at describing
    the course of disease and especially at describing the nature 
    of healthy living processes.  Not being a perfect predictor is a far cry 
    from not being a scientific endeavor, as you pointed out yourself, Mike.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    re: several prior
    
    A few people have said they have no desire to live forever.  I thought
    that was interesting because of an article on aging & genetics that I
    read last week (which I'll post this weekend if I have time). 
    According to this article one of the reasons more research hasn't been
    done on prolonging life is because people don't want to live longer;
    they see it as prolonging old age.
    
    By the way, according to this article the oldest documented age is
    about 120 years.
    
    Ginny

>    A few people have said they have no desire to live forever.  I thought
    
    And of those that do want to live forever, many probably don't really
    want EVERYONE ELSE to live forever, too !  At least not until we
    solve the more pressing population, resource, and distribution problems on 
    this planet.   It seems like a self-defeating goal at the moment.
    
>    According to this article one of the reasons more research hasn't been
>    done on prolonging life is because people don't want to live longer;
>    they see it as prolonging old age.
    
    	I'm not one to deny the progress of knowledge, but I think
    	personal longevity is one of the less pressing challenges
    	facing us at the moment.
    
    	And prolonging old age (which would likely be the initial result of
    	improved knowledge from successful longevity research, barring
    	a radical fountain of youth) initially has potentially serious negative
    	social implications, not to mention psychological ones.
    
    	Seems like we have more significant problems and much more important 
    	things to research at this time in history than how to produce more 
    	lonely empoverished senior citizens with obscure degenerative
    	diseases resulting from our attempts to defeat aging not quite
    	being perfect.   
    
    	I'd rather see much more focus on quality of life and less on
    	length of life.	
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

 >>Could you explain this?  Are you saying that the Medical field is
 >>not science.  Your not making any sense.

I said that the term "medical science" is an oxymoron partly in humor and
partly because I believe it.

I have had much interaction with the established medical system.  

One of my neurologists and I had a long discussion as to whether medicine,
as it is practiced, is an art or a science.  His contention was that it was
more of an art.  He said he did a lot of just plain guessing.

Yes, there is a component of science in medicine.  But the application of
that science is a more intuitive, trial-and-error approach.

The human body is such a complex system.  There are so many variables and
unknown phenomena at work.

I do appreciate the existence of modern medicine.  But I also know that it
is very limited, lacks precision, and -- for chronic degenerative
conditions -- does more harm than good.

And let's not forget, here in the U.S., it is a very politically influenced
science.  Many legitimate, encouraging modalities are pooh-poohed because
they are politically incorrect.  

Our current "medical science" philosophy views the human body as a bunch of
parts that are connected.  They are learning to do more holistic
approaches, but it is a slow change.

In the meantime, I simply can't bring myself to trust a physician's
diagnosis quite as much as I trust Maxwell's equations.

        

    Re .99

    Ok Cindy I looked up Dr Ornish and read the abstracts of his articles.
    (He is proposing an intensive risk-modification regimen, low fat
    vegetarian diet to arrest or even reverse progression of
    atherosclerosis)

    >My point about Dr.Ornish's work was to show that the medical profession 
    >was wrong - that people could actually reverse the condition themselves
    >without surgery.

    Now you seem to have the idea that the medical profession never
    changes, this is not the case it is constantly changing as new
    techniques are discovered.

    It was not that long ago that if your arteries blocked up you died.
    Then along came the heart lung machine and open heart surgery became
    possibly. Valve replacement and bypass surgery could be done. 

    Now Dr Ornish has proved that some improvement can sometimes be made
    without resorting to surgery, good. He did scientific experiments,
    described them exactly and published the results. No doubt doctors will
    try to get their patients to change their ways. Unfortunately his
    treatment drastically alters the patient's lifestyle, many people would
    not be happy on a low fat vegetarian diet and getting people to give up
    smoking is usually rather difficult.

    But at least Dr Ornish took his discoveries the normal route, he
    published scientific papers and put his money where his mouth was. But
    to get back to the claims of Dr Chopra, here all publication of claims
    are in books not to be read by other scientist but rather the public.
    Here he can make grandiose claims and not worry about being challenged
    to prove his case.

    Now he may claim to be able to reverse the aging process, but that
    counts for nothing, he must prove it to his fellow scientists. If he
    cannot do that then I fear he may well be making false claims. 

    Jamie.

RE:    <<< Note 1779.109 by HOO78C::ANDERSON "Affranchir les deux chevaux!" >>>

�    Now he may claim to be able to reverse the aging process, but that
�    counts for nothing, he must prove it to his fellow scientists. If he
�    cannot do that then I fear he may well be making false claims. 

    Jamie, if he could prove it, he would have done by now. If *anyone*
    could, they'd've done it by now. There are more than enough people in
    the world either afraid enough of death, or egocentric enough to want
    to live for ever, to make such a person very rich indeed. Very, very
    rich. The fact that this hasn't taken place confirms my belief that
    it's impossible. It is a mystery to me why people would believe the
    claims of such a person.
    
    I submit that the only way such people can make money out of such a
    claim, is to surround the process with a lot of mumbo-jumbo and
    rituals with vague "targets", all of which require training and
    devotion to attain. There's a mint to be made en route.
    
    Mind you, there's proof a-coming, and I'm still a-waiting.
    
    Laurie.

    re:  .108,
    
    Yes, thank you for clarifying your comment.  
    That's all perfectly true.  In fact, one of the standard works
    in medical education in the U.S., _Cecil's_Textbook_of_Medicine_, makes many
    of the very same points in a series of introductory articles
    that discuss the art of medicine, the biological science of medicine,
    the public service of medicine, and the learned profession of medicine.
    
    Their conclusion is the same as yours, that the foundation of medicine
    lies in well established scientific method, but that the later
    education and the actual application of this knowledge for the public
    service is very much a matter of personal art.   And it is not all
    that common that a doctor can blend the art and the science of their
    profession in a graceful manner.  Most, in my opinion, are very awkward
    'scientific' artists.  
    
    It's a premier example of the sometimes indirect relationship between 
    scientific knowledge and practical beneficial human activities.
    
>Our current "medical science" philosophy views the human body as a bunch of
>parts that are connected.  They are learning to do more holistic
>approaches, but it is a slow change.
    
    I wouldn't argue with this, it is perfectly true as far as it goes,
    imo, but I think there's also a lot of nonsense associated with the
    term 'holistic.'  People interpret that term very differently.
    
    The human body IS without any doubt whatsoever, a bunch of parts that are 
    interconnected, in addition to operating as a systemic whole.  The fact
    that our knowledge of complex systemic properties is very crude
    in no way should deny the usefulness of the mechanistic view as well.
    The critical part is building knowledge on knowledge, and applying it
    well, rather than just finding (or rediscovering) any magic formula for 
    healing, imo.
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    re: .111

    >The fact that our knowledge of complex systemic properties is very
    >crude in no way should deny the usefulness of the mechanistic view as
    >well. The critical part is building knowledge on knowledge, and
    >applying it well, rather than just finding (or rediscovering) any magic
    >formula for healing, imo.

    Exactly.  If one of my spinal discs ruptures I'm really interested in a
    doctor who understands how to deal with a particular part (disc).  But,
    if I wanted to avoid rupturing the dang thing in the first place, I'd
    take the more holistic approach, meaning; proper exercise, good work
    habits, positive attitude, and a healthy diet.

    The problem with magic formulae is that they often work -- and no one
    know why until they are properly researched.  A lot of the alternate
    healing therapies fit this category.  As for myself, I like being
    healthy and feeling good and if something works, I'll use it whether
    anyone with a white lab coat has blessed it or not.

    
    Re.109
    
    Thanks Jamie.  
    
    I don't believe medical science never changes its mind.  It's more a
    case that they don't have very open minds, for the most part.  I know
    there are reasons for this, and very good ones.  Protecting the
    patient, etc.  And for the most part, I agree with the reasons. 
    
    Yet there is much out there that could help people that the traditional 
    medical profession will not use because they don't believe it.  It hasn't 
    been 'proved'.
    
    I think of my experience with Sahaja yoga.  When I explained what
    happened to my medical doctor, she looked at me with a blank stare and
    said, "Well, if it works..." and pretty much dismissed it.  My
    neurologist - whom I no longer see as a patient, but keep in contact
    with - a slightly more open to interesting things like this, kind
    of person, thought it was great.  But then, he's a Joseph Campbell fan
    and studied Sanskrit in college.
    
    It's the dismissing out of hand because it doesn't fit the paradigm, 
    that bothers me so much.  I guess if *I* were a doctor and I had a
    patient come in that this happened to...*I* would sit up and take
    notice...especially given the proportional amt. of medicine I no longer
    take, as compared to earlier amts., and think that there might be
    something to this after all.
    
    Anyway, I plan on going to the Ayurvedic clinic that Dr.Chopra has
    established.  The downside is that none of the cost will be covered by
    health insurance.  (;^(
    
    As time allows, I'll enter some of the text from the book.  Then you
    can read it for yourself and tear it apart/comment on it directly.
    Should be interesting.
    
    Cindy
                          

> I don't believe medical science never changes its mind.  It's more a
> case that they don't have very open minds, for the most part.

This is a statement not worthy of you, Cindy.

First of all, it's both true that there are "scientists" who are not
very open-minded, and there are those who are. I used quotes, because
those who are not open-minded cannot really be considered scientists,
even though they may practise the rituals of the trade.

Secondly, it's also true that there are "New Agers" who are not very
open-minded, and there are those who are.

Now being open-minded is a fundamental prerequisite for being a
scientist, so one might assume that most are. I was tempted to make
this claim in response to your statement. And being open-minded is what
has led many people to investigate spirituality and other
"non-scientific" domains, so one might equally assume that most "New
Agers" are also generally open-minded. But if one reflects for a
nano-second, and thinks about the people one knows, and the people one
observes, one concludes easily that being open-minded is pretty much
completely uncorrelated with one's apparent philosophy. There is a
certain very small percentage of the population which is genuinely
open-minded, and these people appear, to me, at least, to be
distributed evenly across all interests and domains.

It's true that there are not many short people who are pro basketball
players, and not many overweight people who are olympic gymnasts, but
open-mindedness (and most other human characteristics) doesn't honor
any boundaries. It appears equally (and equally rarely) in all
institutions and communities.

If anyone is tempted to respond with "but I think that New Agers tend
to be more open-minded than X; they have to be", I suggest you stop
right now, and think about this a bit, and whether it is really true.
Because if you think it is, then you're as far from the truth as a
person who has unshakable faith in science and scientists.

    In medical science there are limited funds for research, which must be
    spent as usefully as possible. There are neither the funds nor the time
    to do all the research possible. Alternative medicine thinks up "cures"
    at a prodigious rate, most of these are only theories and have had
    little or no experimentation to back them up. Were medical science to
    drop the work that it at present does and use the time and money to
    refute these claims, no progress would be made at all.

    Now alternative medicine can at any time it wishes properly conduct
    scientific experiments and publish the results. If these show any sign
    of progress they will be repeated by others getting the same results
    and fame and fortune will quickly come.

    Now those conducting alternative medicine are fully aware of this, but
    as they know that their theories might well not stand up to such
    rigorous scrutiny, they stand in the wings, publishing only in books
    where they are free to make any claims they wish, without ever having
    to bother to prove them.

    Basically if a theory cannot stand up to being tested it is a fraud.
    However knowing full well that medical science cannot take the time and
    money to prove that they are fakes the alternative medical types can
    safely hide behind the cry that medical science is afraid to take them
    seriously because it might make them look foolish. A good smoke screen
    to hide behind.

    So Cindy why is your good Doctor hiding his magnificent work on
    reversing aging? Five will get you ten he can't prove it works.

    Jamie.
                      

> In medical science there are limited funds for research, which must be
> spent as usefully as possible.

One would be wrong to assume that because there are limited funds, they
actually do get spent as usefully as possible. Politics plays an
important role in determining how funds are spent. Many absurd projects
get funded, and many important and promising ones are left to wither on
the vine. The only good thing one can say about how projects are
selected is that the process is probably no worse than any other we
could have come up with.

                                                        
    Re.114
    
    I see your point, Mike.  Perhaps it is not.  I'm looking at this from a
    different view than you are though...or at least I think this is the
    case.  To a large degree, I'm speaking from my own experiences.
    
    There seems to be an entire body of knowledge missing in western
    medicine - knowledge of workings of the energy, or quantum mechanical 
    body, that, if understood and used by many of the allopathic doctors 
    today, would benefit so many people.  Alternative therapies such as 
    chiropractic and acupuncture services are still not covered by many 
    health insurance policies today (mine included).  And so on.  Yet it
    has been proven time after time that these services are valid and do
    work...and have been working for thousands of years.
    
    Western medicine is very good at working on the separate parts of
    people and healing them.  But for the most part, they miss the holistic 
    picture.  
    
    Cindy

    
    You can read the book, Jamie.  It either is, or was, on the best seller 
    list here in the US, so it's not like he's doing anything covert here.  
    If you read it, then please do comment on it here.
    
    Cindy

Re .117, Cindy, I couldn't agree with you more. However the proponents
of alternative approaches to medicine lose credibility with the medical
establishment, and therefore a large number of "ordinary" people, by
failing to "play the game" by establishing the value of these therapies
through the powerful objective methods offered by "conventional" science.

I can see the point that doing rigorous research is expensive and
time-consuming, when the practitioner could be out there treating
patients and making people well. The problem is not that of the
practitioner, but of patients who are trying to find a therapy that
works. Without the protection of rigorous testing, the patient has very
little guarantee that a practitioner is not a quack, out to collect
money for no real benefit. This doesn't mean that all or even most
practitioners of alternative therapies are quacks, but some are, and
without the light of scientific proof shining on their claims, it's
buyer beware. And unfortunately, many buyers are in pain and distress,
and not always up to being aware of the games of con artists.

    
    RE: .119
    
    Nicely put Mike.
    
    Laurie.

... I got home yesterday to find the latest issue of Consumer Reports
in the mail (similar to Which? for UK folks and others who may not know
about this very useful consumer-oriented magazine). It had a large
article on "non-traditional" therapies, and the power of mind over
body. I haven't had a chance to read it, yet, but it promises to be
excellent, as are all of their articles. Incidentally, I should point
out that the article is very positive, and discusses a relatively
recent interest shown by "traditional" medical researchers into these
"non-traditional" approaches, including meditation, homeopathic drugs, etc.

I know I won't have the time to enter much from the article (and I have
no intention of copying verbatim, both for time and copyright reasons),
so I would be very grateful to anyone else who takes the time to enter
their impressions on the article.

           <<< Note 1779.122 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "question reality" >>>
                                   -< (;^) >-

Yes, quite. :-)

    
    Might even be worth sending a copy over the pond.  Two worthy 
    individuals come to mind.
    
    Will check our facility library...they used to subscribe.
    
    Cindy

    I think that I should clear up a point here. I am not against
    alternative medicine per se. I have no doubt that it can in some
    cases help. However what I am against are those who use it as a medium
    to defraud a gullible, public preying on their lack of knowledge.

    Now these scams have a pattern and if you remember it you can usually
    spot them a mile off. Here is a brief run down on how they work.

    First your cure must be pathetically simple, how else would the medical
    profession have missed it? After all they are far too interested in
    detail to see the wood for the trees. It should also be a bit of a
    panacea, absolute musts these days are AIDS and cancer, if it can't
    cure these two then it is not worth bothering about. You then hint that
    any other incurable disease can also be cleared up with your treatment.

    Next you quote some apparently related discovery made by some famous
    person, now safely dead, about 50 years ago. It is important that this
    discovery never came to anything, because now at last your cure is
    using it. Then you quote a few medical publications that on the surface
    seem to be related to your cure, few will bother to follow them up and
    you are far more likely to be taken at face value.

    Then you give a long list of well documented mistakes made by the
    medical profession. These need not be recent, in fact some of the ones
    from a hundred years ago are much better at removing any possible
    confidence in the profession, but be careful not to quote the dates or
    some might wake up and notice.

    About now is a good time to bring in the paranoia factor. Here you ask
    the question, "Why has this not been implemented?" Now you can trot out
    the perennials, loss of business to the drug industry and medical
    profession, but you must never point out that any cost savings would be
    of interest to the insurance companies. Then you say that the AMA
    and/or FDA are of course suppressing all research in this direction. A
    good ploy here is to have a famous figure quoted as endorsing your
    cure. If this person denies this long and loud in the press this is of
    course to your benefit, you just say that "they" forced him to make a
    public retraction of his beliefs.

    Finally you conclude darkly that while people all over the world are
    dying, those who are "in the know" are quietly being healed.

    Now as to the medical profession. So far they have just scraped the
    surface of the problem of how the human body works. Their ignorance far
    outweighs their knowledge. But they are making progress, painfully slow
    progress, double checking at every step to stop erroneous information
    creeping in. But slow as it might be in the last 50 years this progress
    has been significant. Many diseases that were killers when I was born
    are routinely cured. Other diseases are slowly being beaten, your
    chances of surviving a cancer today are substantially better than the
    were in the early 1940s.

    Has the alternative medical side made similar progress? I see no signs
    of it. The clinics offering alternative medicine do not have a cure
    rate that would encourage me to go to them even if I was diagnosed as
    incurable by normal means.

    If alternative medicine wants to be taken seriously it should get its
    act together and separate the serious healers form the charlatans.
    Then, and only then, will in make any real progress.

    Jamie.                                                        

>    If alternative medicine wants to be taken seriously it should get its
>    act together and separate the serious healers form the charlatans.
>    Then, and only then, will in make any real progress.

  I believe that we are beginning to see this, in the form of
  "traditional" researchers investigating the possible merits of
  "non-traditional" therapies. I would be very glad to forward this
  article to two our colleagues who may not be able to obtain it. I have
  great faith that it was carefully and conscientiously researched by
  the authors.

    
    Re.125
    
    Jamie,
    
    I'm not proposing that one choose between traditional and 'alternative'
    medicine practices.  What I would like to see are both of these sides
    *working together* to provide the patients with the best care possible.
          
    What seems to be the case more often though, is that both 'sides'
    tend to criticize the other, and nothing positive gets accomplished.
    
    In some cases, this is being done (sharing the same space).  Therapeutic 
    Touch is practiced in many hospitals that I know of.  This is energy 
    body work. 
    
    I have no problem with your comments on scams, and to a large degree, I
    agree with you.  However, I need not point out to you though, that 
    traditional medicine also has their share of ripping off the public with 
    useless operations, etc.  Neither side is exempt from these sorts of
    things. 
    
    One question - do you believe in the existence of the energy body?
    
    Cindy  

> One question - do you believe in the existence of the energy body?

This has to be rhetorical, right? :-) I mean, we already know what
Jamie's answer is going to be. But I'm curious: why do you ask? We know
that belief in the existence of an energy body is not necessary for a
researcher to determine that touch therapy has real benefit. Nor is it
necessary in order for a therapist to apply the therapy with correct
result. Right?

    I wouldn't disregard either traditional or alternative medicine
    personally.
    
    If I break my arm, then I'm heading for a traditional doctor.
    But for symptoms of the nervous system, I'd prefer an alternative
    approach, I think.

    
    Re.128
    
    Mike,
    
    >We already know what Jamie's answer is going to be.
    
    I don't know that for certain.  That's why I asked the question!  (;^)
    
    You are right in that one doesn't have to believe in the energy body for
    the touch therapy, etc., to work.  Same with acupuncture, etc. 
    However, those who have inquiring minds will inevitably come up with
    the questions of 'how' and 'why', and the current physical model cannot 
    answer these questions (or at least to my knowledge, they haven't yet
    done so.)  
    
    It's important that these questions be answered, because then it will 
    be a big step forward in having alternative therapies be accepted by 
    traditional medicine.  The energy body can provide answers to these 
    questions.
    
    But one has to accept the possibility that it exists, first.
    
    Cindy

    
    If you break your arm, Mary, be sure to use Rescue Remedy too!  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    I'm out and I can't remember where I got it.

> It's important that these questions be answered, because then it will
> be a big step forward in having alternative therapies be accepted by
> traditional medicine.

Absolutely.

> The energy body can provide answers to these
> questions.

It *can*, but I doubt it *will* for most traditionally-minded
researchers. I honestly believe that the non-traditional therapies will
be found to have traditional explanations which don't require adopting
concepts like the energy body. This is what the traditional researchers
are looking for, and this is what they will ultimately find, if the
technique can indeed be shown to have benefit.

> But one has to accept the possibility that it exists, first.

Only if it is to be part of the explanation.

I truly believe that there is always more than one completely valid way
to explain absolutely any phenomenon. There is always a "purely
physical" explanation which can be found if one does enough research,
and there is *simultaneously* a *valid* spiritual explanation. One
always has the option of which one to choose, and can even choose
different ones at different times (or, maybe if you're really talented,
both at the same time :-).

Jamie and Laurie will presumably always choose the physical
explanation. Some of us will tend to look for a different sort of
explanation almost all of the time. Some of us will choose different
approaches for different phenomena. Some of us will look for both kinds
of explanation to everything.

    
    Mike,
    
    It's a paradigm shift that has to happen.  Fortunately it is happening.
    
    There's nothing at all spiritual about the energy/quantum-mechanical body 
    model.  Matter and energy are interchangable at the level of quantum 
    physics.
    
    I do hope that the physical model-oriented people prove it sufficiently 
    from their aspect, for that will provide the link between traditional and 
    alternative medicine. 
    
    Cindy

> It's a paradigm shift that has to happen.

I don't understand why you believe this.

    re: .121, 
    
    >I got home yesterday to find the latest issue of Consumer Reports
>in the mail (similar to Which? for UK folks and others who may not know
>about this very useful consumer-oriented magazine). It had a large
>article on "non-traditional" therapies, and the power of mind over
    
    I just yesterday spotted what looked like a new book on the topic,
    called The_Healing_Mind, written by an M.D. I think, reviewing 
    trends in psychoneuroimmunulogy and so on, and what they mean for
    future of medicine.
    
    I didn't have time to read through it though.  Has anybody else seen
    it ?  From a quick browse, it looked like an interesting survey of
    'mind-body' type topics in medicine.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

                                          
    Re.135
    
    Mike,
    
    Because if it weren't for alternative medicine coming along in my 
    life when it did, I would be so incapacitated by pain that I 
    probably wouldn't be here having this conversation with you.  
    
    Now though, thanks to many of the alternative practices that
    I've been exposed to through this file and some other sources (and 
    not through my traditional doctors), and having incorporated some of 
    them into my life, I'm able to carry on a relatively pain-free 
    existance most of the time now, using both traditional and 
    alternative medicine together.
    
    Had I relied only on traditional medicine, I would not have anywhere
    near the quality of life I have today.
    
    Back in this file, I put a note in on Spiritual Experiences, note 1561. 
    I put this in because I've had many of my own.  In there you will 
    clearly see the approaches of the two different paradigms, along with 
    a few case histories that show what can happen if what is happening to 
    a person is not understood in the correct frame of reference.  They 
    speak for themselves.   
    
    The migraines I get...they do not originate in the physical body.  They
    are blocks in my 6th and 7th chakras, and when cleared, the pain goes
    away.  No traditional doctor is going to have a clue as to these kinds
    of things, unless the paradigm shifts to the energy body model.  The
    best they can do is recommend diet changes, exercise, and prescribe
    medicine.  All good things, but still there's something missing. Energy
    body work.
    
    How many countless thousands or millions of other people are suffering 
    for no reason other than this lack of knowledge and an incorrect 
    paradigm in traditional medicine?
    
    This is why it has to happen.
        
    Cindy

>    The migraines I get...they do not originate in the physical body.  They
>    are blocks in my 6th and 7th chakras, and when cleared, the pain goes
>    away.  No traditional doctor is going to have a clue as to these kinds
>    of things, 
    
    Yes, commonly, headaches from complex causes are very much more amenable to
    spiritual and psychlogical treatments than to physical medical
    interventions, in the long run.  That doesn't require a 'paradigm
    shift' to recognize, though.
    
    And what if the problem were, heaven forbid, a tumor that was still
    operable, but hadn't been found yet ?   In that case, your faith in the 
    energy body work would cause you to stop looking for an organic
    problem, and the results could be dire.  Sometimes it takes a lot of
    work to find a well hidden physical problem.  
    
    That's why I draw the line here at respecting beliefs in alternative 
    medicine.  When the claims start coming in that some guru or mystical 
    intuition provides all the answers, and that this information should 
    supercede any other kind of further diagnostic work, I become worried
    for people's welfare.   
    
    In most of the legitimate cases of psychologically aided healing in the
    medical literature, the diagnosis was made thoroughly and accurately
    in medical terms before using visualizations and unconventional
    methods for healing.  They didn't leave the problem with an unspecified
    pain, (and certainly not a Chakra blockage), as it would then be 
    impossible to know what spontaneous remission rate would be expected in 
    those kinds of cases, and you'd have no more useful information than
    you started with.  
    
    It would also then be impossible to establish
    which specific problems were most amenable to faith healing type
    effects, which could turn out to be an important statistic for some 
    people, to help them make an intelligent choice of treatment modality.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    Oh... i don't know..

                                                
    Re.138
    
    Todd,
    
    And that is precisely why traditional and alternative medical
    professionals should work *together*.  Side by side.  In partnership.
    
    The migraines are only a part of the picture.  For about a month, I was
    experiencing pain in the middle/lower left back.  After having the 
    standard medical tests done to determine if it was a problem with 
    the kidney, etc. (blood work, etc., with results all showing negative), 
    I went back to my Sahaja yoga group.  They cleared the chakra out, and 
    I haven't felt the pain since.  And so on.
    
    Cindy

    Re .127

    My problem with scams stems mainly from watching friends who are
    terminally ill being cleaned out by these people, and no the
    traditional medical types do not do useless and unnecessary operations
    here, the insurance companies would have their hides if they tried it.
    Most doctors here work for a salary just like everyone else, their pay
    does not go up if they treat more patients, so there is no incentive
    for this sort of thing.

    >One question - do you believe in the existence of the energy body?

    Your terminology to me is rather vague, is this the same as the "soul"?

    Jamie.

>    Your terminology to me is rather vague, is this the same as the "soul"?

You're kidding, right Jamie :-)? I mean, like if Cindy said "yes", you'd say
"sure I believe it"?

Re Cindy, I feel I understand your reply, and yet don't necessarily agree with
your conclusion. In any case, I appreciate the sincerity and courage with which
you wrote it. Thanks for taking the time.

    Actually I am not kidding. Terms used in this conference are often
    vague and seldom defined. This means we regularly have two people using
    identical terminology for two different things, for example the third
    eye and the pineal gland.

    So if I could have a definition I can tell you my opinion on it.

    Jamie.

    I don't know what the hell an "energy body" is, but here's how I
    understand this business:
    
    The power of the mind to repair, heal, influence or even damage the
    physical body is not fully understood, under-used, and undoubtedly
    there. 
    
    After all, if you think about it, the brain controls the body, and the
    body has all the abilities to fight infections and other problems. What
    happens is that sometimes the scale of the attack is more than the body
    can cope with. I think it's possible that in some areas, the mind/brain
    may be able to overcome "attacks", assuming the right training or
    focus. That said, there will always be "attacks" such as component
    failure and disease that no amount of "mind over matter" will fix, and
    for this reason, I do not believe that it can control the aging process.
    
    Some examples off the top of my head: Bob Champion a famous UK jockey
    who overcame testicular cancer, with medical help, against all the
    odds, because he was *determined* he would. People who keel over and
    die soon after retirement or the death of a long-term spouse,
    contractors such as myself who are almost never ill, and who when they
    are, aren't ill for anywhere near as long as is the average.
    
    Now, where all this yoga and chakra stuff comes in, is it's a means
    for people to focus their mind on the problem in hand. Simple as that.
    It's a simple case of whatever "floats your boat".
    
    Laurie.

    re: .140, Cindy,
    
    I agree, it's a good example of medical and alternative medical
    treatment being used together for a greater end benefit.
    
    					thanks,
    
    					todd

> Terms used in this conference are often
> vague and seldom defined.

Yes, but that's what I mean: if Cindy had said yes, by "energy body"
she meant "soul", how on earth would that clear anything up? "Soul",
like "consciousness", "love", "god" and a few others, is one of those
words whose meaning is so variable, that it hardly helps at all to use
it in a definition. If you've got some idea which is clear to you about
what "soul" means, I'd really love to hear it!!! Please elaborate!

    Re .146

    I fully agree but, the word soul has a definition in the dictionary and
    we could be terribly old fashioned and use that one. We might not be
    talking about the right thing but we would at least be talking about
    the same thing. Using this as a basis we might progress until we were
    both using similar terminology. It would help.

    Jamie.

    re: .146,.147, common definitions, etc.
    
    If you identify a given tradition, you can more specifically
    discuss their own conception of 'soul,' imo.  There are commonalities 
    between the use in different traditions, but sometimes also 
    significant differences.  The Platonic or Neo-Platonic _soul_,
    the Gnostic _soul_, the Christian _soul_, the World Soul found in 
    some traditions, the Indian traditional concepts that overlap
    _soul_, etc..  
    
    One problem I have with some of what people call 'New Age' mentality
    is that for the sake of focusing on commonalities, it frequently
    provides an unintelligible hodgepodge of many rich and individually worthy 
    traditions, any one of which could be a lifelong work to understand, and 
    does so generally without illuminating what is special about any of them.  
    "Oh, but it's all the same thing, right ?"  No, I don't agree with that
    at all.  Some gems like Mircea Eliade's _Shamanism_,
    Evelyn Underhill's _Mysticism_, and William James'
    _Varieties_of_Religious_Experience have illustrated numerous
    similarities, but the terms are still being used differently in
    different traditions in specific cases.
    
    It's not likely that most dictionaries would be of much help in
    differentiating these various concepts, although there are some
    encylopediae of religious and mystical terms that can be very
    useful for this purpose, because they better identify the context
    in which _soul_ and other terms are being used.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

In addition to what Todd said, I wonder if dictionary definitions of
"soul" are all that similar. Now you've gotten my curiosity up: how
does your dictionary define "soul"? Here's what my "Digital issue"
(American Heritage, Office Edition) says:

1. The animating and vital principle in a person often conceived as an
immaterial entity that survives death.

2. A spirit; ghost.

3. A human being.

4. The central or vital part of something.

And so on, to less relevant definitions.

Now I submit to you that, even without spending the next few days
running in recursive loops through dictionaries, we have made little
progress by consulting a dictionary. The use of words such as
"animating", "vital", "priciple", "entity", "spirit", "ghost", etc.,
does little to clarify its meaning. I can certainly imagine using these
to describe "energy body", and it wouldn't help much.

So what does your dictionary say? Anything less vague?

    I still feel that finding common ground in terminology is vital to
    the accurate communication of ideas. However as I have said in this
    conference people tend to act like Humpty Dumpty talking to Alice,
    words mean what they choose them to mean at that particular moment.
    This is a good method of spreading confusion and impressing those who
    are to overwhelmed by it to question it, but alas it does nothing in
    the way of spreading knowledge.

    Now I agree that each specialist group usually has its own language,
    but they can usually give an accurate definition of the terms and even
    tell you why it is important that they use them. For example 1K of
    memory is not necessarily the same as 1K of contiguous memory in
    computer terms. Now I can explain the concept of 1K of contiguous
    memory and its importance to even a layman. So I feel sure that using
    terms that we both understand Cindy can explain the question to me and
    I can then answer.

    Jamie.

    From the New Penguin English Dictionary.

    1 the immaterial essence or animating principle of an individual life.

    2 the spiritual principle embodied in human beings.

    3 all that constitutes a person's self.

    Other minor definitions have been ignored.

    Now I can see a similarity between these definitions, out of personal
    preference I would choose the first as the best but would go along with
    the others. If someone was talking about the soul, and meaning any of
    the above we would be able to understand each other.

    Jamie.

    re: .150,
    	Yeah, but it can be a *painstaking* process.  :-)
    
    						todd

    RE: 144
    
    Laurie here again we see an example that you do not believe in New Age.
    
    So once again I will ask what is you purpose in reading this note file. I
    asked you once if it was just to be argumentive and you didn't reply.
    
    Also I was going to enter in the information listed in Linda Goodman's
    book however it is 100 pages long and I'm not going to enter all that.
    
    I thought of sending it to you but I know you don't have an open mind
    so it would be wasted.  If you ever want to investigate it read Sun
    Signs by Linda Goodman - it is the last chapter.
    
    Melinda
                

    
    Re.142
    
    Mike,
    
    Anytime.  (;^)  Actually, it has nothing to do with courage...it's just
    a reporting of the facts.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.144
    
    Laurie,
    
    You're so close.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.148
    
    Todd,
    
    Good heavens!  No, I'm not referring to the soul when I say 'energy
    body', or 'quantum mechanical body' (same thing).  Let's not go off on
    some philosophical discussion here (it'll make my head hurt).  That's
    why I don't venture over into the Philosophy conference.
    
    The energy body is quite real, and not some theological intellectual
    concept.
    
    Cindy

    
    Jamie,
    
    Great - thanks.  I'm encouraged about your statement on medicine over
    there in Europe.  Having just checked our library for the Consumer
    Reports issue that Mike mentioned, I found that it is a 3-part series. 
    The first issue had on the cover that an estimated 200 billion US
    dollars are spent on unnecessary traditional medical procedures per
    year.  The one Mike mentioned is the 3rd issue...and was not there.
                                       
    As for common definitions, I quite agree.  The energy body is not some
    mysterious entity, but something that is quite real.  I'll create a new 
    topic and enter some definitions from Dr.Chopra's book(s) and a few
    other books, including "Hands Of Light", by ex-NASA physicist Barbara
    Brennan.  That way, we'll all have a common basis for discussion.
    
    However, time is tight right now with deadlines and all, so it may be
    next week before I get to it.
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. As I was standing in the lunch line today, a woman in front of me
        (someone I know) turned around and mentioned that she was listening
        to a tv news report that said that about 1/3rd of people with 
        chronic illnesses seek alternative medical treatment, and a large
        number of those people do not tell their traditional medical
        doctors (didn't say why though).  I couldn't think of any reason
        why she would tell me that, so I asked her if she read DEJAVU,
        and she said she didn't.  (;^)

    re: .156, Cindy,
    
>    Good heavens!  No, I'm not referring to the soul when I say 'energy
>    body', or 'quantum mechanical body' (same thing).  Let's not go off on
    
    The implication being that you're talking about an identifiable field 
    phenomena of some kind amenable to experimental verification ?
    
    Let's hear the evidence ...
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd
    

                                      
    Re.158
    
    Correct, Todd.
    
    Our natural state is that we can sense our own energy field.  However,
    because it's so clogged up with blocks due to our various lifestyles, 
    and we are not brought up in a society that even acknowledges its 
    existence, most people can't feel it at all.         
    
    That's why those who can feel it (like me), can work with it, and for 
    us, no intellectual proof of its existence is necessary.   I must say 
    though, that it's only been within the last 3 years that I've been able 
    to sense my own.  That's why I'm hoping to be able to bridge this gap, 
    because to a large degree, I know where you and others are coming from.
    If I couldn't sense my own field, then I'd be skeptical too, and want
    proof just like you and others do.
    
    More later. 
    
    Cindy

    re: .159,
    	Thanks, Cindy, I appreciate whatever you can provide.
    
    	Understand, I'm not asking for 'proof' in the sense of
    	not accepting that it is a valid model unless there is
    	a tangible energy body, the way someone might ask for 
        evidence that the ego or superego or 'third eye' is a physical
    	structure in the brain, I'm just trying to establish what
    	the basis is for considering this energy body 'real' and
    	relating it to quantum mechanics and such, which implies
    	a great deal more.
    
    						later,
    
    						todd

    
    USA Today for January 28 has a cover story entitled "Alternative
    medicine going mainstream" from which I take the following excerpts,
    without official permission:
    
    "'Alternative' treatments such as chiropractic and herbal medicine are
    used for health problems by 1 in 3 people in the USA, a new study says.
    Annual bill: $13.7 billion, $10.3 billion of which was paid out of
    pocket. By comparison, $12.8 billion was spent out of pocket on all
    hospitalizations.
     "'The scope is far larger than we anticipated,' says David Eisenberg,
    Beth Israel Hospital and Harvard Medical School. Eisenberg says that
    more use such therapies - relaxation techniques, massage, spiritual
    healing - than see all primary care doctors combined."
    
    The article goes on to say that in 1990, US patients visited
    alternative care givers 425 million times, compared with 388 million
    visits to family doctors an internists. The study, which appears in the
    New England Journal of Medicine and is based on a random national phone
    survey of 1,539 adults, found that most people using alternatives were
    well-educated Caucasians, aged 25-49, with incomes over $35,000, living
    in the West. 72% did not tell doctors.
    
    An accompanying article interviews Dr. Joe Jacobs, a Native American
    physician who is currently director of the National Institute for
    Health's Office of Alternative Medicine.  His task is to coordinate
    research activities to determine which therapies help patients - and
    which don't. 
    
    Time makes it impossible to include the remainder of the article, but 
    its thrust is that Jacobs, who is not an expert in alternative health, 
    although he recalls herbal treatments given to him by his mother when 
    he was a child, is prepared to approach alternative medicine with an 
    open mind, and to work to support research that evaluates alternative 
    therapies scientifically.
    
    gloria      

RE:                     <<< Note 1779.153 by AIMHI::SEIFERT >>>

�    RE: 144
�    
�    Laurie here again we see an example that you do not believe in New Age.
    
    Perhaps you'd care to explain why you believe that. I thought that note
    was pretty explicit about what I do believe in, I wasn't aware it was
    so explicit about what I don't believe in. Kindly explain to me what
    "New Age" means, I'm afraid it's rather too vague for me.
    
�    So once again I will ask what is you purpose in reading this note file. I
�    asked you once if it was just to be argumentive and you didn't reply.
    
    I am not here just to be argumentative, I should have thought that was
    obvious. I like this conference, I must or I wouldn't be here. There
    are those here that believe I contribute to this conference rather than
    detract from it.
    
�    Also I was going to enter in the information listed in Linda Goodman's
�    book however it is 100 pages long and I'm not going to enter all that.
�    
�    I thought of sending it to you but I know you don't have an open mind
�    so it would be wasted.  If you ever want to investigate it read Sun
�    Signs by Linda Goodman - it is the last chapter.
    
    100 pages is a very long chapter. Anyway, that isn't what I asked for.
    I asked for documented proof that the aging process can be stopped, and
    that it's possible to become immortal. A chapter from a book, however
    long it might be, is most certainly not that. Surely you have read
    about this miracle so many would like to enjoy, in more than one place.
    Where else is it documented? I'll point out again that it is easily
    verifiable, there *must* be some scientific proof. I still await your
    source for the proof that convinced you. Or are you saying that your
    beleif in this age-reversal is based on one chapter from one book, and
    that you do not require proof, you simply "believe"?
    
    Laurie.

  Re .153/.162

  Hmm ?  I thought Laurie's comments in .144 showed no less a degree of
  open-mindedness than the majority of writers in this conference exhibit :

> The power of the mind to repair, heal, influence or even damage the
> physical body is not fully understood, under-used, and undoubtedly there. 

  The fact that he queries various suggested explanations for this power
  doesn't mean [to me] that he's saying it's all garbage or even that the
  only good results come from modern drugs (or other allopathic treatment).
  It just means that he's not convinced by those particular explanations.
  Fair enough.

  I've got my own views on modern vs traditional medicine but, although I
  probably lean a lot more towards a 'energy body' type of explanation, I'm
  still not content to accept it as such just yet ... same as I'm certainly
  not content to accept the "Well, it's been published here, here & here"
  argument as proof that "medical science" is as wonderful as some other
  people believe.

  Frank

    re: .163, Frank,
    
>  not content to accept the "Well, it's been published here, here & here"
>  argument as proof that "medical science" is as wonderful as some other
>  people believe.
    
    And then sometimes through contrast the positions get polarized beyond 
    their original intention.
    
    For example, from my own experience and learning, I'm a very enthusiastic 
    supporter of the progress of medical science as a factor in the 
    improvement of the quality of human life, and I have very strong doubts 
    that any collection of mystical and positive thinking philosophies
    *alone* will ever replace the need to understand the mechanisms of
    pathology, healthy functioning, and extraordinary functioning, in greater 
    detail, which I believe are within the province of this field (or 
    collection of fields as it is).
    
    Yet I don't think medical science is particularly 'wonderful,' as a
    religion or a philosophy of life, or anything to be compared with the 
    exquisite grand scope of some of the topics described in this
    conference; like spirituality, boundaries of human capability,
    classic literature, and so on.  The comparison is nearly ridiculous.
    In fact biological medical knowledge is even still downright barbaric in 
    some areas.  It does progress, however, albeit slowly.
    
    I think if you ask most 4th year medical students about how 'wonderful' they
    think medical science is, I suspect that many or most would tell you
    something like "Gee, I never knew that medicine had so much guesswork
    in it, I always thought it was more precise.  I never realized how
    little we know."   That after having spent 25 hours a day immersed in
    the 35 letter named organic compounds, latin body parts, diseases and
    organisms named for the sisters in law of 13th century alchemists, and the 
    rest of the arcane secrets of medicine.  That doesn't mean that
    what little we know isn't a useful foundation.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

  True, Todd.  A lot of my dislike is due to the manner in which the medical
  establishment slag of traditional cures (thinking here mainly about herbal
  methods) and go off to patent their "own" medicines.  Every now and then
  someone on the fringe of the establishment looks a little bit deeper into
  a "witch-doctor's recipe" to try to work out why it seems to help.  If they
  manage to find a biochemical reason for one component of the cure then, all
  too often, the pharmaceutical industry swings into place, refines the one
  particular component that was written up in the above paper, finds that by
  doing so, the component is now at far too high a potency (and is often
  damaging at such strength) so before they can make an honest buck by selling
  this hyperconcentrated cure, they have to dilute it all over again, usually
  with some artificial "inert" substance.  It is then acclaimed as a wonder
  cure until the side-effects of the filler (or the still too high potency)
  become known and it can only be sold to the ignorant (whether by nature or
  by dint of "marketing").  The whole charade of wasted effort, money & pain
  (not to mention greed) could have been avoided by simply accepting that the
  original "witch-doctor's recipe" WORKED - no argument, just accept the simple
  truth without all the pretense of "understanding how" [they don't] or "making
  it better" [they don't] or making it available to everyone [they don't - just
  the opposite in fact].

  The sooner that the group that like to be labelled "scientists" learn that
  there is a time to simply accept that a peg is square rather than insisting
  it has to fit into their round hole, the sooner they will find the true
  meaning of "understand".

  Frank

    Re Cindy. I shall be interested to read your definition and proof of
    existence of the "energy body", I trust you have more than one source.

    Laurie I fear that you may grow a lot older waiting on the proof that
    the aging process can be reversed, I suspect that someone is now
    desperately trying to dodge the issue.

    Re. 165

    Frank, you obviously have no idea how the pharmacy works. You produce a
    drug in its pure form and dilute it with fillers so that you may
    provide a very accurate dosage. If you provided it in its pure form it
    would not necessarily be harmful, it would just be very small, in
    some cases impossibly small.

    Jamie.

    Well do you believe in God and if so where is your proof that he 
    exists???
    
    And I'm sorry but I BELIEVE that your whole purpose in reading this 
    file is argumentive.
    
    
    
    
                                                            

    Could one of you please define what you mean by the word "God", please?

Sure: when I say "God", I mean "good". Just replace "God" with "good"
in everything I've written, and the meaning will be unchanged.

    
    non-local consciousness

    Ok Mike... what do you mean by 'good'? :-)

    What does Jamie mean by 'God'?  He seems to be using a different
    definition.

TNPUBS::PAINTER 
    
>    non-local consciousness
    
    So Cindy... you're not refering to a 'first cause' when you use 
    the term, right?

         
    I don't think so, Mary.  It's outside of time.
    
    Cindy

    >What does Jamie mean by 'God'?

    The mythical superior being that serves as a crutch to allow some
    people to limp through this life.

    Jamie.

    
>    The mythical superior being that serves as a crutch to allow some
>    people to limp through this life.
         
As opposed to _another_ life, perhaps?

    I was asked what was my definition of god was. As I have never had any
    direct evidence of god's existence I can only report my observations of
    others with respect to god. Comes from these observations. 
    
    However another life would imply existence and I have, as I said, no
    evidence of this has come my way, so your definition would not be mine.

    Jamie.

HOO78C::ANDERSON 
    
>    I was asked what was my definition of god was. As I have never had any
>    direct evidence of god's existence I can only report my observations of
>    others with respect to god. Comes from these observations. 
    
     What about you yourself?  Aren't you direct evidence of god's
     existence?  

    What about what is?  ... the Earth and the sky and the animals and
    trees... 

Mary, you're being sarcastic, right?

    No... no.. did I come off that way?  
    
    There is life all around and that life just continues on and on... it's
    here, it exists... how do you know it isn't god?

It only seemed sarcastic as a question to Jamie. I mean, how could you
ask him such a question and expect him to say "oh yes, I believe that
God is responsible for all that".

Note 1779.182                 
ENABLE::glantz 
    
>It only seemed sarcastic as a question to Jamie. I mean, how could you
>ask him such a question and expect him to say "oh yes, I believe that
>God is responsible for all that".
    
    You jump to so many conclusions and make so many assumptions.  How do
    you know what I expected?  I don't understand, Jamie... I'm trying to
    figure out what he's looking for when he speaks of god.  You all mean
    different things by the word.
    
    You all put god outside of yourselves... beyond your time.. beyond your
    world... beyond your ability.
    
    I don't understand you... but.. 

> You jump to so many conclusions and make so many assumptions.  How do
> you know what I expected?

Please don't go playing dumb and innocent on us, like you have no idea
what Jamie would say. Jamie has already answered such questions
(innumerable times) along the lines of "God is a fictitious notion
...", and you, as much as anyone here, know this perfectly well. I
don't have a clue what you expected, which is why I'm curious why you
would ask such a question.

> You all put god outside of yourselves... beyond your time.. beyond your
> world... beyond your ability.

> I don't understand you... but..

Oh yes, and please don't patronize us with this condescending stuff.
Like *you* don't put god outside of yourself ... beyond your ability,
but *we* do, and you just can't understand this ... give us a break,
Mary, you're as far from God as the rest of us ... and as near.

If there's one thing which rankles, it's the "airhead" tactic ... "Oh
poor little me, I just don't know, I'm so confused, boo hoo". Please
spare us the melodrama, ok?

    Oh... I'm so glad I found some sure fire way to "rankle" you...
    now I'll be sure to do it ALL the time... oh ummm ... at least
    maybe I think I might if I can just remember... duh...

    And as far as drama goes... you guys are so uptight and full of
    yourselves, you wouldn't recognize drama if it hit you below the
    belt.

    ... but you do take the cake when it comes to ....
    
    	s e l f  i m p o r t a n c e 

Re last several, hey, now that's not bad!

    re: previous,
    
    Must be the unidentified object that hit the South earlier.
    Aliens forcing us to reveal our true feelings about each other.
    
    Likely to be the end of humanity. :-}
    
    						todd

    ..."it's the end of the world as we know it... and I feel fine"

Well, we *are* approaching the full moon. The kids have been real
feisty last couple of days. Anyway, sometimes it's better to say what
you feel than tiptoe around with all that phony "rational discussion
and logical debate".

    Do you have a reference for that? :-)

Heh heh :-). Why don't you have a sandwich and tea, and I'll go look it up :-).

    re: reference for that ...
    
    Glantz, Mike, 
    Sincerity_in_Human_Communications_When_Discussing_Psychic_Phenomena,
    DEJAVU conference, note 1779.193, Feb. 3, 1993, Littleton, Mass..
    
    Mike explains the influence of lunar cycles on human behavior, 
    relates a personal example about his children, and reinforces
    the importance of sharing feelings.  In this honest, straightforward
    note, Mike demonstrates his insight into human psychology and shows a 
    clear distaste for rationalization used to hide personal hostilities,
    and applies this to a pertinent concrete example.
    
    Destined to become a classic.
    
    For further abstracts, refer to Dr. I. M. Soselfimportant II,
    The_Journal_of_Pursuit_of_Aquatic_Water_Fowl, Vol. 10, Full Moon Press.

    Yes ... but can you *prove* it? :-)

Re .196, as with Ulysses, I find the critical commentary to be better
than the book ...

>Re .196, as with Ulysses, I find the critical commentary to be better
>than the book ...
    
    I blush at the cruel comparison, my friend.  :*)

Hey Todd, don't bother me with tough questions during lunch! I may be
self-important, but at least I'm always right ...

> I may be self-important, but at least I'm always right ...
    
    Indeed.   I know exactly how you feel.
    
    It's like I always say, if you've got to be saddled with
    human failings, there are worse ones to have than perfection.
    
    Anyone left who hasn't tossed up their lunch from this
    conversation yet ?  
    
    						todd

DWOVAX::STARK 
    
    Ah... but you wouldn't be a perfect human if you didn't have
    failings.. :-) 
    

    What did you all have for lunch??????  I want some!!!!!!
    
    Getting back to the Medical bs and different factions, I have been
    there first hand as an MT and have seen, first hand, some major boo
    boos...sometimes the patient got lucky and it was fixed and sometimes
    not and I'd find it on 'the' table.
    
    I have worked with both M.D.s and D.O.s and frankly, the D.O.s
    understand the art of manipulation (physical) and do, in fact, have a
    very different view regarding medicine and treatment.  They also seem
    to listen better and try to utilize the 'conventional' methods of
    treatment as a last resort...
    
    Briefly scanning the different papers (news), Journals, News programs
    (I just don't have time anymore and Cartoons and Nickelodeon are locked
    in permanently)...the Medical Associations ARE (finally) accepting
    alternative medicine especially before you see them.  They now even ask
    what home remedies have been used prior and how they worked...it's a
    step...

    re: .203,
    	Thanks for entering that.  My wife does pathology work also,
    	and I hear that kind of medical horror stories you're talking about
    	on a daily basis.  Most of them are so preventable, people not
    	following basic procedures, or not bothering to check what they're
    	doing to make sure it makes common sense.  I guess there's a big
    	overload factor when you see a hundred patients a day
    	and you're expected to know everything about all of them.
    	And if you come to believe the hype, there's a complacency factor
    	to boot.
    
    >	They now even ask what home remedies have been used prior and how 
    >   they worked...it's a step...
    
    That's true.  One of the reasons they are asking more is that home
    remedies are not as harmless or without consequences as commonly believed.  
    The ones that actually do something can often interfere with, or interact 
    with other medical treatment.  Since so many people use 'alternative'
    treatment and so many don't tell their doctor for whatever reason,
    they often make it even more difficult for the doctor to give them
    proper care.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd	

There have been many, many mistakes that have been and continue to be made. 
Mass General Hospital's own studies show that fully one third of all patients 
that are in the hospital at one time at there due to a doctor created problem 
(mistake, reaction to drugs). People continue to hold onto the view that only 
the AMA knows best and everything else is crazy. Meanwhile, another new study 
shows that one of out every three patients in the US are seeking alternative 
therapy and that's hardly an accurate number because the study admits that 
many people don't admit it to their doctors because of a fear of their 
reaction.
	Nashua's "other" hospital recently sent out their crap-filled 
newsletter for their Women's Center with a little tidbit about people dying 
from herbal tea and how people should avoid them! Please! When are they going 
to write articles about the thousands every year dying from prescription 
drugs? About all the hospital admissions caused by prescription drugs? All 
the new diseases like AIDS that our Government labs gave us? 
	People need to start coming from the heart and not the head and look 
for literal, scientific proof in every single thing. Science is good but it 
has replaced common sense and faith as the ultimate religion. There are just 
some things that simply work and they have yet to be explained by science.

Sam

>	When are they going to write articles about the thousands every 
    >	year dying from prescription drugs? About all the hospital admissions 
    >	caused by prescription drugs? 

    Never, Sam.. they're protecting their market share.
    
    Remember how deaths dropped in NY during the doctor's strike?

    Sam, you should know that accurate up-to-date drug information is readily 
    available.
    
    That's one of the things that you need to know to use your
    medical resources more effectively.   If you are ill, help your
    doctor do a better job, don't argue with them about how incompetent
    they are.
    
    Tirades against the evil coldhearted mad scientists in their
    secret government labs won't replace knowledge in your hands, 
    just as knowledge won't replace love.
    
    					in my self-important opinion, :-)
    
    					todd

>    Never, Sam.. they're protecting their market share.
    
    Ok, so more details may be called for.
    
    As I said, drug references, available to the public, have detailed 
    descriptions of negative side effects for every pharmaceutical
    prescribed, unless maybe you're on something experimental, which 
    obviously has different risk factors that should be explained to you.
    
    It is possible, but very rare to find a serious effect that doesn't make 
    it into the literature relatively quickly.  Most of the cases I've seen
    where a problem with a drug didn't quickly become available in the
    drug literature were cases where an organization ideologically 
    opposed to pharmaceuticals in general had severely exaggerated the 
    risks, and the publishers simply refused to give into the pressure
    before further study had been done.   To the benefit of the patients
    who were helped by the drugs.  I've known a number of people in that 
    category who were greatly helped by 'controversial' drugs.
    
    If you don't have the facts on your medical treatment, you can blame a 
    conspiracy, or you can inform yourself.   The latter is more difficult
    but more highly recommended.
    
    							todd

    Re .205

    >newsletter for their Women's Center with a little tidbit about people
    >dying  from herbal tea and how people should avoid them!

    You would prefer that they kept this information secret and permitted
    people to die? What an inhumane attitude.

    >All the new diseases like AIDS that our Government labs gave us?

    Well since you are talking about crap filled articles I should like to
    take the time out to point out that the above is an urban myth. There
    are blood samples that test HIV+ from people who mysteriously died of
    wasting disease from the 1960s. Now it is debatable whether your
    exalted Government labs could make an AIDS virus even with today's
    technology but one thing is for sure, they couldn't way back then.

    Now I am not sure of the laws in the USA but in most countries Doctors
    may prescribe drugs and recommend treatment, with the exception of
    mental illness, but you and you alone, have the last say as to whether
    these drugs are used or the treatment accepted. None of it is forced on
    you. All drugs supplied to me come with a data sheet telling me
    everything that I need to know, is this not done in the USA?

    The BBC TV had a nice program on alternative medicine killing people
    last week. People with perfectly treatable cancer being told it was
    really an attitude problem while they took two years to die a rather
    painful and needless death.

    Jamie.

Jamie.

<<    you. All drugs supplied to me come with a data sheet telling me
<<    everything that I need to know, is this not done in the USA?

No, Jamie, not that I know of.  I've never received a 'data sheet' for 
any prescription I've been given.  They might put some short blurbs on 
the containers (such as drink lots of fluids with this medicine or 
this medication may cause drowsiness)..that's about it.

Ro

re: .209

>    Well since you are talking about crap filled articles I should like to
>    take the time out to point out that the above is an urban myth. There
>    are blood samples that test HIV+ from people who mysteriously died of
>    wasting disease from the 1960s. Now it is debatable whether your
>    exalted Government labs could make an AIDS virus even with today's
>    technology but one thing is for sure, they couldn't way back then.

Ah, you know so much about our government labs!  Tell us more!!

If it wasn't developed, then it must have just sprung up of its own free will
via spontaneous generation, right?

Where was it for the eons that preceded its debut?

    I'm really amazed! I got the impression when I was in the USA that
    everything that I bought that was edible and had in any way been
    processed had labeling information at least down to molecular level.

    Here even generic drugs, in my cast a steroid, comes with a detailed
    data sheet telling me of all possible side effects, contraindications
    (the computer at the pharmacy actually picks these out and issues a
    warning to the pharmacist as the drug is dispensed), warnings on
    over-dosage and everything else that I could want to know.

    I did not realise that the USA was so far behind us.

    Jamie.
                  

    Re .211 

    >If it wasn't developed, then it must have just sprung up of its own
    >free will via spontaneous generation, right?

    No you forgot about mutation and evolution. It has probably been around
    in another form that could not infect mankind and altered.

    As I said I doubt if it is within the government labs abilities, even
    today, to make the virus, and it most certainly was not possible when
    it first appeared. Care to explain that one?

    Jamie.

You get a data sheet with that information with over-the-counter drugs,
not with prescription drugs.

    re: Drug info in the U.S. 
    
    In the U.S., unless you're given a sample pack with the
    data sheet enclosed, you usually have to make the extra effort to
    look up the drug info yourself, and in any case, your best
    resource is probably your pharmacist.  Discuss any drug you are
    taking with your pharmacist, they can tell you all about the
    risks, interactions, special precautions, etc..  If you don't trust
    them or want to be sure, you can always go to any of a dozen or so
    published drug handbooks from different publishers and compare notes.
    This is extremely likely to be much more effort than your physician
    has gone to in your behalf, it's a good idea I think to take this
    active role.
    
    There's much more information available to you for prescription
    medications than there is for herbal teas.
    
    re: AIDS and government labs ...
    
    I've seen the arguments for and against this theory, and while I don't
    have the genetics background to properly evaluate it personally, the 
    overwhelming preponderance of evidence seems to be that it would have been 
    nearly impossible for the current HIV to have been engineered deliberately 
    and *extremely* unlikely to have been a genetic engineering accident.
    
    Claiming it is still possible ... maybe ?
    
    Claiming it to be the _most_likely_ alternative I think is ridiculous.
    
    							kind regards,
    
    							todd

    In that case nip down to your reference library and look it up in the
    Physician's Desk Reference. Now I will take no drug that I haven't read
    up on first.

    Jamie.

> No you forgot about mutation and evolution. It has probably been around
> in another form that could not infect mankind and altered.

Or maybe CWATSON doesn't believe in evolution, and is therefore forced
to conclude that either the virus was invented in a laboratory, or that
it's an act of God's revenge against homos. There are people who
believe this, you know.

    re: .216,
    Just to expand on that a bit ...
    The PDR has probably about the best technical information available, but 
    might be difficult for some people to read.  There are also some more easily
    read (less medical jargon) resources as well, from Consumers Reports
    and other independent organizations.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    Maybe he knows better than to underestimate government.
    
    Maybe he realizes that most people have neither the time nor the
    desire to "nip down to the library" and look up the side effects
    of drugs.  
    
    Maybe he knows that the price of prescription drugs has increased 4
    times the rate of inflation and feels that the industry is just
    in it for the money and doesn't appear to care about the individual or 
    how they are effected.

    Re .218

    >The PDR has probably about the best technical information available,
    >but might be difficult for some people to read.

    It is difficult to read, the print is very small. It does however
    contain all the information, including percentage figures, about the
    side effects, interactions, contraindications, and a colour photograph
    of each product, as well as telling you how the drug works. I was so
    impressed that I not only bought a copy, I also lugged it home to
    Europe with me.
    
    Jamie.

    We all know about the escalating cost of healthcare in the U.S. !
    It's hardly either a surprise or an argument against being better
    informed or active in your own health care.
    
>    Maybe he realizes that most people have neither the time nor the
>    desire to "nip down to the library" and look up the side effects
>    of drugs.  
    
    Consider that if you take this attitude, you are supporting the very 
    problems that many 'holistic' or behavioral medicine proponents are trying
    to fight, the overdependence of the individual on the arcane knowledge
    and privileged status of doctors, rather than emphasis on the more active 
    role we can take in our own health.  In a slightly more indirect way, I 
    think refusal to take part in our own care also makes 'alternative' 
    medicine less feasible, because it means we won't have considered
    all the alternatives and weighed the relative risks intelligently.
    
    The AMA is in fact right now involved in a controversy with the
    ASCP (Clinical Pathologists) because the AMA wants to have a special
    category of lab test created where doctors could perform certain
    tests themselves, completely without lab quality control or standards 
    being imposed.   This is a symptom, imo, of the same problem,
    our allowing the myth to be perpetuated that doctors automatically have 
    some special infallibility in all medical matters.  They don't, they
    are at best the most knowledgeable experts available in their
    particular specialties and obviously should be subject to quality
    standards like every other aspect of health care.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

    Ok, so more details may be called for.
    
    As I said, drug references, available to the public, have detailed 
    descriptions of negative side effects for every pharmaceutical
    prescribed, unless maybe you're on something experimental, which 
    obviously has different risk factors that should be explained to you.
    
Yes, the side affects are in the PDR, all of them. That's not the point. I'm 
talking about the industry spending lots of time writing about the dangers of 
herbal tea and finding some odd-ball example and scaring the public while 
spending no time talking about the dangers of prescription drugs. I am not 
the wizard with words as you seem to be but I hope you can understand the 
point I am trying to make. It's the force that they apply to putting 
alternative therapies out of business and all the things that interfere with 
their monopoly. Yes, the side affects are there in the PDR but not the 
general articles on all the problems like they try to do to alternative 
therapies.
	They are trying to stop the use of herbs like Golden Seal and 
Echinecea, herbs that have been used by Native Americans for over 10,000 
years, things that many of us rely on every winter for our health from colds 
and infections. They work. I have gone from 14 sinus infections a winter to 
1, if any. But these things are on the FDA's list to be outlawed this spring, 
except for by Prescription. Meanwhile, they allow the sale of Sudafed, and 
hundreds of other substances, over the counter, that are far more dangerous. 
I don't see any restrictions on any of these things.
	In terms of the AIDS thing, there is plenty of documentation that 
this came from Fort Merrill, a government lab, and there is a paper trail 
describing the experiments in Population Control, funded by the U.N. It was 
first tried in Africa on blacks there and then applied to Gays in NYC thru 
the Public Health program. I am going on vacation today for a week but I can 
try to bring in all the documentation that I have when I get back.
	No, I am not one of those flag-waving people that believes our 
so-called democracy never lies to our people and does everyting right.

    If you relinquish all of your medical care to the medical profession
    and never bother to double check anything then you are taking a risk.

    On at least two occasions when I was in hospital I was not given the
    correct drugs. Once they mixed up mine and those for the guy that
    shared the room with me. We both noticed and made a big stink about it.
    The junior nurse involved got a right dressing down. The second time a
    nurse consulted the label on the bottle when refilling my IV drip
    instead of looking at my drug book, the dosage had been changed, she
    got this pointed out to her.

    As I said I double check everything, and ask questions when I am not
    satisfied. So far I have had no problem getting answers. In fact the
    doctors seem quite happy that I take an interest in what they are
    doing.

    Jamie.

    re: .222, by IAMOK::BOBDOG::GENTILE 
    
    Yes, I do appreciate your point.  I don't understand what the FDA
    is doing with supplements and vitamins and such, either.  Some of it
    seems excessive to me as well.  As someone (Jamie in fact, I think)
    pointed out in another conference recently, the FDA is a mixed
    blessing.  
    
    Thank you very much for taking the time to explain further.   
    
    	re: AIDS,
    
    	I don't doubt that someone might have considered such a plan,
    	my question is whether they actually succeeded or not, and
    	whether HIV was the result.   That's the part that seems
    	questionable to me so far.
    
    						thanks,
    
    						todd

    
    >I don't understand what the FDA is doing with supplements and vitamins 
    >and such, either.  
    
    If they FDA is going to act as just another arm of the medical
    establishment...protecting their market share, then what good are they?
    
>    	I don't doubt that someone might have considered such a plan,
>    	my question is whether they actually succeeded or not, and
>    	whether HIV was the result.   That's the part that seems
>    	questionable to me so far.
    
    I think it should be investigated ... thoroughly.. it's mass murder your
    talking about.
    

Thank you Todd for acknowledging my point. I am trying to be clearer in what 
I say. In the past, I have had problems expressing what I was trying to say 
in the right way. Thanks.

I don't understand why the FDA is doing this either unless it's the money 
because it doesn't happen in Europe. From my understanding you can get herbs 
at pharmacies in Germany and there is quite a bit of Homoepothy (I can't 
spell this one) and herbology.

Sam

    re: .226,
    	Have a great vacation, Sam.   
    
    	There's a lot of popular things sold as supplements or vitamins whose 
    	effect at best would barely them qualify as worthwhile placebos.  :-)
    
    	On the other hand, there are some herbs and 
    	other things that have great promise, if we can be reasonably sure 
    	ensure that the active ingredient is sufficiently present after 
    	manufacture and so on.
    
    	Quality control is an issue, because if the way the thing works
    	isn't understood, then the manufacturer can't be sure of selling
    	you what you think you're buying.  A lot can happen between
    	pulling up a plant and opening the jar of capsules.
    	So is the prohibitive cost of doing the research to put together data 
    	sheets on all of the various products.
    
    	In evaluating folk medicine, though, sometimes people forget
    	case like that of Jenner, and the discovery of vaccination.  If he
    	hadn't believed the local folk legends about milkmaids not getting
    	smallpox, we would not have had that crucial technology.
    
    						kind regards,
    
    						todd

Re .222

    >Yes, the side affects are in the PDR, all of them. That's not the
    >point. I'm  talking about the industry spending lots of time writing
    >about the dangers of  herbal tea and finding some odd-ball example and
    >scaring the public while  spending no time talking about the dangers of
    >prescription drugs. 

    So the PDR is fully available to anyone who wishes to look it up. Tell
    me Sam, is there a similar volume that I can look up any side effects of
    Herbal medicines? Or must I rely on reports from the medical industry and
    the like?

    >herbs that have been used by Native Americans for over 10,000 years, 

    As far as I remember tobacco was a herb that the we picked up from
    Native Americans, along with the concept of smoking. Neither of these
    have been very beneficial to mankind. Just because the Native Americans
    have used it does not mean that it is safe.

    In the UK we have an Asian immigrant population, they are up in arms
    about the government banning the sale of an eye makeup that they use on
    their children, it makes the pupil dilate and makes their eyes appear
    bigger. It also contains lead and poisons the children, not to the
    point of killing them it just reduces their mental abilities. They have
    of course used this stuff for centuries and did not realise its
    dangers.

    >In terms of the AIDS thing, there is plenty of documentation that  this
    >came from Fort Merrill, a government lab, and there is a paper trail 
    >describing the experiments in Population Control, funded by the U.N. It
    >was  first tried in Africa on blacks there and then applied to Gays in
    >NYC thru  the Public Health program. I am going on vacation today for a
    >week but I can  try to bring in all the documentation that I have when
    >I get back.
    
    Oh that old one is still doing the rounds, I thought that it had been
    debunked so often that no one gave it any credence anymore. But not to
    worry I don't mind doing it again.

    Points to consider. 

    1 Why did they bother making a new disease? There are plenty of
      existing diseases that already exist which would do the job far more
      efficiently than HIV.

    2 Before you release any biological weapon into the open you have
      something that protects your side from its effects. But no such
      protection exists for AIDS and despite massive multinational efforts
      none has been found.

    3 Several anachronisms exist in the accounts, blood samples exist that
      contain the HIV which were taken from people before the HIV was
      supposedly made.

    4 Why infect the NY gays? Anyone who made this disease would be
      perfectly aware that A) gay males do not by and large increase the
      population; B) as this disease will be transmitted through, blood,
      blood products the disease will inevitably get into the general
      population. 

      BTW if the idea was to wipe out gays then you fail on two points, first
      it will not work, as anyone who knows about plagues will tell you, some
      will always escape, and second even if every gay male died on the spot
      this instant there would be another generation along to take their
      place.

    5 At the time of the first AIDS cases the technology did not exist to
      create a new disease.

    As I said the claim that it is produced in a lab it a complete
    fabrication.

    Just as a comparison lets look at Legionella. Now it too appeared to
    turn up out of the blue. Actually it didn't, it was there all the time.
    It is an opportunistic infection, it hits the weak and elderly. Now
    there are several other types of pneumonia that do exactly the same and
    as Legionella is rather rare it was never noticed, one elderly patient
    in a hundred failed to respond to antibiotics and died.

    Now as this bug loves warm and wet places the advent of air
    conditioning gave it an ideal place to grow. A convention of elderly men
    were exposed to a high concentration of the bug and suddenly we had an
    apparent plague.

    While we are on the subject of false stories there is of course the one
    going round the gay community that Legionella was quickly cured, be
    cause it affected ex-soldiers, while AIDS was allowed to run rampant
    because it only affects gays. This conveniently ignores the small but
    vital fact that Legionella is a bacterial infection and AIDS is a viral
    one. We have an arsenal of antibiotics but no effective anti viral
    drugs.

    Paranoia is an interesting phenomenon to observe. 

    Jamie.

    Viruses mutate very freely, which is why we have a new strain of
    influenza every winter.  The HIV virus mutates even faster than most,
    which is one thing that makes it hard to defend against, since the
    target keeps moving, as it were.
    
    Last I heard, the best guess of its origin was that HIV is a mutation
    from SIV (Simian Immunodeficiency Virus), an AIDS-like disease among
    African monkeys.  The monkeys that suffer from SIV AIDS are in a part
    of Africa where people hunt and eat monkeys.  It's very likely that HIV
    was introduced to the human population when someone butchered an SIV-
    infected monkey or ate an underdone one.
    
    Earl Wajenberg

    >of Africa where people hunt and eat monkeys.  It's very likely that HIV
    >was introduced to the human population when someone butchered an SIV-
    >infected monkey or ate an underdone one.
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    	Another point in favor of Vegetarianism.

    Course, they've been doing that for centuries without getting aids.
    

    From my personal experience with monkeys a bite from one would be the
    most likely route of infection.

    If you ever wish to have a truly memorable experience get in a car with
    a monkey, not in a cage, just sitting on your shoulder, then take the
    car into a drive through car wash.

    Jamie.

On the subject of monkeys, I've just read a fasinating book entitled 
Ishmael by Daniel Quinn (published by Bantam Books).  I'd been 
wondering what topic to mention it in and synchronistically this one 
rat-holed to monkeys.

It begins with the main character reading an ad about a teacher 
seeking a student and that the student must have a real desire to help 
save the earth.  The teacher turns out to be a gorilla...don't let 
this premise turn you off as it is an intellectually (and perhaps 
heart) stimulating read.

Ro

    
    You lead a most interesting life, Jamie.  Did you write a trip report
    on that one?  (;^)  I'd love to read it.
    
    Anyway, about prescription drugs and the lack of information here in
    the US - 'tis true.  On occasion, if I'm getting a prescription filled
    and it comes in the original container (the prescription number matches
    the original bottle - 100 tabs, for instance), sometimes the entire data 
    sheet is left in the package, but if the medicine is counted out and put 
    in the druggist bottles, then next to no information is given, beyond a
    brief label saying "Don't take with alcohol.", "Causes drowsiness." or 
    something similar.
    
    I seem to recall once hearing that the reasons the information isn't 
    given is that people might tend to become scared and not take the
    medicine after seeing all the bad things that could happen, or end up 
    with hypochondriac symptoms similar to the ones that are listed on the
    information sheet.
    
    In essense, the words 'faith healing' often apply to our traditional
    medical system here in the US.  We have to have 'faith' in the doctor
    and what is prescribed, as opposed to getting directly involved in our 
    own health care.  
    
    Fortunately not all doctors are like this, however I've personally come 
    across my share in this lifetime, and in several cases have ended up 
    getting sicker from medication (pre-PDR days) than actually being helped 
    by it.
    
    Cindy

    Well Cindy I know that doctors will not tell patients all of the side
    effects of drugs for the reasons that you mentioned. However they will
    tell them the major ones. Despite the data sheet being with the drugs I
    doubt if 1% of them get read.

    However the same type of sheet is not supplied with any herbal
    remedies. Am I to assume that all herbal remedies are 100% safe, have
    no adverse side effects and never interact with any other substance?

    Jamie.

    Re.235
    
    Jamie,
    
    I'm not debating the herbal remedies topic, so I'm not going to
    respond to your second paragraph in .235.  Someone else can do so if
    they so choose.
    
    In this topic, I was just trying to shed some light onto what happens 
    over here re: prescription drugs and the medical profession, vs. what 
    you find over in Europe, since there seemed to be a discrepancy. That's 
    all.
    
    Cindy

    RE 1779.197
    
    It really amazes me that all of you request so much *proof*.  Don't any
    of you trust your inner selves to find the truth?
    
    
    
    

    *My* inner self would settle for the first idea involving chocolate.
    
    						Ann B.

    	
    
	If a person only ventures outside his house at night, and
    	If he keeps all the doors and windows closed in the daytime, 
    	he will never get to see the light from the sun, so as far as 
    	the person is concerned there is no sun.  
    
    	If a person doesn't believe there is an inner self and he keeps
    	all the channels of communication closed, he will never receive 
    	any messages from his inner self, so as far as the person is 
    	concerned, there is no inner self.
    
                                                 

>    *My* inner self would settle for the first idea involving chocolate.
    
    	This seems to be a popular theme.
    
    	Is there a Cocoa Yoga that unifies your consciousness with the
    	bliss of Godiva, without the caloric side-effects ?
    
    						todd

> ... the bliss of Godiva, ...

  Doesn't this involve riding a horse whilst naked or something ?

  Frank

    Godiva chocolates are famous in my area for their smooth, sweet, creamy
    quality.  Almost synonymous with chocolate addiction.  :-)
    
    							todd

    Give me a break...what does chocolate have to do with spirituality?
    
    Mindy
    
    
    

    
    Chocolate is the Ultimate Reality.
    
    Cindy

    :-)

    Or maybe the metabolites of chocolate create the perception
    of ultimate reality ?
    
    							todd

    Or perhaps chocolate is god in his inert form spying on us to make
    sure our digestive tracks are working properly... if he existed, of
    course... which he doesn't... except when he manifests as chocolate.

    Don't they have Godiva brand chocolates where you are, 
    Cindy ?  I thought it was a national brand.  
    My usual parochialism, sorry.
    
    						todd

                                                          
    Todd,
    
    I know Godiva chocolates, and also know it was an unintentional pun 
    on your part.  
    
    Back to what I said earlier...Chocolate is the Ultimate Reality.  
    You were tuned in subconsciously, and you didn't even know it! 
    
    Cindy

    As far as I remember tobacco was a herb that the we picked up from
    Native Americans, along with the concept of smoking. Neither of these
    have been very beneficial to mankind. Just because the Native Americans
    have used it does not mean that it is safe.

I know you won't hear this but tobacco is one of the 4 sacred herbs and has 
been used for thousands of years in healing ceremonies and for prayer. The 
way it is used in this country is not the way the Native Americans have used 
it. Used in this fashion (our society), it is not beneficial at all. It must 
be used in the proper way and with balance. Used in a abusive manner, it 
causes sickness rather than helping to cure it.

Sam

    Strange to say there was a report on the BBC TV this morning from about
    a report in the BMJ pointing out that a lot of people who had used a
    Chinese herb sliming cure were now turning up with failing kidneys.

    Re tobacco. The only beneficial use for nicotine that I have ever heard
    of is the one that nature intended it for, an insecticide. From what I
    remember of my history lessons we got the concept of smoking from the
    Native Americans as wall as the tobacco. How did they use it?

    Jamie.

    Mostly they smoked it -- but the claim is that they smoked it only
    ceremonially, rather than recreationally or otherwise chronically.  I
    have my doubts about this (I question all claims that are supposed to
    apply to all native american groups without exception), but it is
    certainly seems to be true for many native american groups.  We could
    certainly question how beneficial such use is, but it would be hard to
    support on scientific grounds such occasional use as creating a real
    health problem -- the ill effects we are so familiar with come from
    chronic, frequent usage.

				    Topher

Jamie,

There are many things that you know about and that's good but this isn't one 
of them. For many tribes, it was used ceremonially. It was used in curing 
ceremonies where the smoke might be blown on an area of the body by a 
medicine man. It was also used in pipes, but in a sacred way. It was a few 
puffs. Much of the smoke was offered to the 4 directions and above and below. 
It was used in prayer. I'm sure there was some use recreationally but it was 
minimal. THere wasn't the abuse that is present in today's society.

It's funny you use this example. I was talking about Echinecea and Golden 
Seal and hundreds of other herbs. Things like Echinecea have been used for 
thousands of years. Scientific studies now are showing that it boosts the 
immune system by doing something with the white cell count. There are many 
herbs. Some are good for certain purposes and not for others. 

Sam

    
    Re.-1
    
    Or get moderator privs.  (;^)  
    
    Cindy

    What a *busy* group of noters you all are!!!

    Bridgitte (remember Bridgitte, my two year old who was the root subject
    of this whole conversation) is doing great.  She gets evaluations 2
    times each year by her speech, occupational, and physical therapists.

    We just got the results of the last evaluation.  She's still catching
    up on gross motor skills (she was under 3 pounds at birth and had 2
    heart defects).  But her tests show that she is closing the gap on
    this.

    Her fine motor skills are even nearer to normal developmental ranges
    and closing fast.

    But the kicker -- her speech and cognitive tests are at age level with
    some skills *beyond* age level.

    And on the personal level -- the kid has an attitude!  I'm teaching her
    to kick butt and take names.  Right now, Bridgitte wants it
    all!

    It's obviously fun to get references and hard core proof...but in the
    meantime, I'm sticking to my strategy. 

    -- Ruth
   

    That's great, Ruth.  I'm glad to hear how well Bridgitte is doing.
    
    You're obviously doing something right !     
    
    							todd