Comments by "Technolus" (@technolus5742) on "Джеймс Рэнди горячо критикует экстрасенсорное мошенничество." video.

@hesha912 "But homeopathy cures" - that is the issue, it doesn't. It is not even reasonable to think it does when, as aptly put by Randi, the active ingredient may not even be present ("well below Avogadro's limit").
7
@TheLuminous01 Cause it actually does something. Indeed homeopathic "treatments" won't kill you - unless you have diabetes and pop those placebos like you're James Randi! lmao
7
As absurd as it is, it is an accurate description.
7
@peachent Except homeopathy still does not work (with often very clear reasons why) and modern medicine is still employing the practices that do work.
5
@Revelation18-4 Many homeopathic products don't even contain the actual ingredient. When you're taking sugar pills like that and still feel the effects that's called the placebo effect. Now you can avoid the astronomical margins of overly wealthy greedy pseudoscience peddling companies and just make your own sugar pills. Of course taking a placebo won't harm you. It will also not do any good to you (which might be bad news if you actually need treatment). And hey, when a treatment is devised, it actually needs to be verified that it actually works. Saying that melatonin has some effect does not validate homeopathy in any way. It validates melatonin. If you want to say that homeopathy has any sort of validity, you'll have to show that the principles of homeopathy actually work - and not only are they in contradiction with principles that are shown to work, but they also produce no discernible effect in practice.
5
@Revelation18-4 That is exactly why Big Naturopathy and other Big Quackery, should actually embrace sound methodology. There is just a slight problem (for them), that when things are done following sound methodology they become, well, medicine. And what would be a major blow to their business is that many of their products don't really have any actual use case. But indeed we do have to figure out what works and what doesn't, and that is exactly what medicine is about.
5
"comments about the height of his pants" lmao the height of one's pants tend to be correlated with age. Babies don't wear them, teens wear them mid-butt, there is a period where people just use them at the waste, and then as people approach 100 years old their pants will climb all the way to their armpits.
4
@peachent Actually it's evidence based, medicine. Evidence, that supposed alternatives are lacking. Evidence that you're lacking when you pretend that the royal couple live to perfectly normal longevity due to an evidenceless sham.
4
The height of one's pants tends to be correlated with age. Babies don't even wear them, teens wear them mid-butt, there is a period where people just use them at the waist, and then as people approach 100 years old their pants will slowly climb all the way to their armpits.
4
@Revelation18-4 When you take capsules that actually contain the active ingredient you're by definition not taking a placebo, when you take substances diluted to the point of all the active ingredient having been removed, then you are by definition taking a placebo. If you're using "real herbs" it seems you're on something like naturopathy, which often isn't giving out placebos, but is riddled with quackery and lacks the systematic approach that made every serious endeavor dramatically improve since medieval times.
4
@Revelation18-4 Is is quackery when it abides by ideas that have long been determined to be plainly invalid. To hail bloodlettings as a holly graal of medicine would make you a quack regardless of whether it was used before modern practice. But here you are saying that you'll stick to poisonous herbs of wildly varying potency peddled by quacks that cling to ideas are demonstrated to be false and refuse to evaluate whether their practices actually work and then go on to deceive their clients with the naturalistic fallacy. Oh well, I'll wait while you take the time to consider that identical molecules are identical.
4
@Revelation18-4 Actually, synthesized molecule is indistinguishable from the same naturally occurring one. When different versions are designed is because the naturally occurring version was worse (eg. had worse side effects). Licking wounds was here first and it does not hold a candle to modern practices. Again, your argument is a blatant fallacy. "Being here first" does nothing to show that it is better. Obviously some herbs work, that is why specialists make pills from them - getting a diluted version with inaccurate dosages is not better, it's just poor quality [EDIT: and that is the best case scenario for when it actually happens to work as intended].
4
@Revelation18-4 Impressive. For someone who names herself "truth seeker" I'd expect a different reaction when when facts contradict your beliefs.
4
@Revelation18-4 That is evidently false, and I'm pretty sure that you know it. Tobacco for instance is a plant that contains numerous known carcinogens (and yes, the carcinogenic substances are in the plant, not just the smoke, and you can get cancer from simply chewing it). And molecules are exactly the same unless there is actually an intention to use some different molecule for it's specific benefits. For your information, generic versions are exactly the same as brand ones (safe for the removal of brand identification). If you are allergic to the brand one you're also allergic to the generic. What I meant is that there probably are different substances that treat the same condition, so which you might not be allergic.
3
@Revelation18-4 Even byproducts of nicotine in the stomach are known to be cancer causing (like N-Nitrosonornicotine). Tobacco plants contain nicotine regardless of how natural they are. And there are plenty of other plants that cause cancer... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK216657/#_ddd0000207_ Generics are made by the same formula as the original. If your allergic to something in that formula you will be allergic to it no matter who is manufacturing it. "While researchers will likely continue to look into the performance of generic versus brand-name drugs, the bulk of research out there shows that taking the no-name brand not only saves you money, but also provides you with a medication that is just as effective as the original." - https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/do-generic-drugs-compromise-on-quality
3
@Revelation18-4 Your argument is invalid regardless of the specific practice involved. I used bloodletting to illustrate the point such that you could distance yourself enough to understand why your line of reasoning is wrong. And again: identical molecules are identical.
2
@Revelation18-4 Black cohosh may cause more cancer than premarin (but premarin has been studied in more detail for us to know the ramifications of taking it). There probably are alternatives to premarin to which you aren't alergic, if black cohosh works for you, great. But that does not make naturopathy's methodology sound nor does it make their products safer than conventional medicine when effectiveness is accounted for nor does it make their effectiveness reliable (in many cases the effectiveness of these kinds of "therapies" is disproved yet they continue to be promoted even in detriment of proven ones).
2
Bongo Man Apparently no one does, I take it that might be the reason why practitioners can't get it to work.
1
Bongo Man well, either you can get it working now (as you claim it did back in the 1800's) or just come back when you can. Otherwise why are you promoting something when there is no testable setting where it works?
1
Bongo Man I'll make it as plain as I can: demonstrate that it works.
1