I already dealt with this: the FDA does not approve or reject surgeries. It approves or rejects the marketing of products: drugs and implants and catheters and pumps, and things of that type.
I have no idea why you said it, but you did seem to be saying something specific about pills. Under any reading, your statement was incorrect. Bariatric surgery is performed in the U.S. I don’t know what is different about this operation you are talking about, but there are several different kinds, not just lap band surgery. Decisions about what surgeries should be used are made by groups of surgeons, hopefully based on published, peer reviewed evidence that proves they work. The FDA is not involved with that. The FDA would be involved if the surgery involves some kind of implant, for example, as it would have to approve marketing of the product.
I explained this, too. Your link does not include any real information.
Even a fully staffed research team couldn’t cover all of that.
The only reason the request was made is because in my position, I can search for an anomoly. You cannot.
And I agreed to that as well as thanked you for it… Your point?
Since we are still in a generalization of Bariatric surgery. I’ll make it more specific.
To further reading for the clarification of Bariatric surgery, the FDA has not approved the balloon implant which is applied, as well as the Midband. Both of which apply to Bariatric surgery, and both of which, are not approved in America.
The bold is mine.
Any further research is of your perogative, as I have proven my prior claims and support my current statements.
So your entire complaint is that they either have not chosen to seek approval in America or that they haven’t finished the required studies yet? What does this demonstrate, in your opinion?
Real science is full of examples of intriguing and controversial theories being aired, tested and often debunked. Medicine is constantly re-evaluating and changing therapies to fit with new evidence (a sizable chunk of what I learned in medical school is no longer relevant, has been demonstrated to be incorrect or superseded by new and better diagnostic procedures and treatments).
Alt med advocates seem to think this flexibility demonstrates a weakness; in reality it is a profound strength to be able to look critically at your field and acknowledge that there is a need for change.
The lack of revision and reform is one of the most glaring defects in alt med. How often have its practitioners conceded that a modality is useless or even dangerous? Hardly ever - instead the same woo and quackery march on indefinitely.
Have, for instance, leading reiki practitioners ever changed their minds on the basis of good evidence and acknowledged that their woo is ineffective against some conditions, or that their long-standing beliefs about how to perform their work are wrong?
None that I would provide for you, as you have demonstrated any request you make, you cannot handle.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
So your entire complaint is that they either have not chosen to seek approval in America or that they haven’t finished the required studies yet? What does this demonstrate, in your opinion?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=rich2600]
Agreed, the Brazilian/FDA conspiracy post was a bit much, and for you to cling onto that for dear life to break my validity is understandable. That’s what skeptics do. But you missed the point completely. While you have your nose turned up at alternative medicines, the sun is blinding your eyes for the amount of external medicines available which truly are NOT being offered. Which I was hoping would develop into a point that reiki is being used in hospitals, it is actively being studied for developments and it does have results.
[/QUOTE]
I will clarify this my statement as it pertains to what it demonstrates.
Diabetes costs millions in insurance and medical bills, significant death rates and rotation of doctor patient care which could match other long lived diseases. You can read the statistics yourself. They are devastating and painful.
And they are restricting things that could not take away, but help those insurance, medical and death rates. This is an important recognition within the scientific community. I understand what members will want to say next. But that is how we monitor safe and protective medicinal products. And this is only one example.
Ultimately though. We are providing what skeptics would see as “woo” to more than 800 hospitals, and have 70 hospitals with active programs within reiki. And you immediately blasphemise it. Yet you do not recognize the flaw within your system which you hold onto for dear life within this debate?
Mufatango asked me if I could be convinced of reiki invalidity. I cannot. But if you could provide to me, why you hold onto a system which holds back medicinal products that will help you and your loved ones, WHILE turning your nose up at “woo”.
I will absolutely be convinced.
Though this is not the topic of this discussion. I believe it is a significant point that should be considered.
Thank you for your comments and questions Marley23, and I do look forward to any reply you or others(besides the members that have negated their views).
I’m well aware. You probably won’t be surprised to find it’s a huge area of research for drug companies.
This is where you are wrong because you don’t understand the process. There are things a company has to do if it wants the FDA to approve a product. It has to apply for approval, run certain kinds of tests that show the product is safe and that it works, and do things like that. I have no idea if the company that makes this balloon and this bariatric band has done any of that in the U.S. I see there have been trials of devices that seem similar to the products you’re talking about, but I don’t know how similar or different they are and I don’t know if the Midband is being studied specifically. I have found no evidence that the FDA has rejected the Midband, which indicates that either the studies are still in progress, or were not successful, or that the company hasn’t tried to get it approved in the U.S. The FDA does not preemptively ban things.
I don’t have much to say about Reiki. I’m sure it makes some people feel better because they feel cared for, but from a scientific standpoint, it’s bunk. But as far as your attempt to make a connection between the lack of scientific support and acceptance of Reiki and the lack of approval of this bariatric thing, I can tell you you’re misinformed.
My claim is that “acceptance” by the CAM community is of no value because they accept anything and everything uncritically, without testing or doubt.
If this is true, then claiming that Reiki has value because it is being accepted by CAM is worthless as a validity checker. If they accept everything, how do they tell what’s good from what’s bad? Are allclaims automatically valid?
I gave you a chance to refute this by giving an example of some treatment/substance that was discarded by CAM after being first accepted. If you cannot, then your claim of “acceptance” should be ignored by all rationally thinking people, as logic is on my side.
I am now convinced that Reiki works. This is going to change what we know about physics and biology. I’m thinking I might get a couple of Nobels out of it. But before I go further there are some things I need to know:
Does the energy/force just come out the palms of my hands or do I need to close my eyes so I don’t get blinded by what is leaking out the back?
How do I protect the other people in the room? Since this works hundreds of miles away it must be incredibly powerful close up. Can someone point me to the studies that show what the safe levels of Reiki are? Do we put lead aprons on them like in the dentist’s office? Or does this energy pass right through lead.
When I’m using Reiki to heal someone hundreds of miles away what precautions do I need to make sure I’m getting the right person? It’d be pretty bad if I was trying cure some guy named Pat Brown of a malignant cancer only to discover that I caused some woman named Pat Brown in the same city to have a miscarriage. Do I need just the street address, the social security number, the exact geo-coordinates or what?
Does Reiki travel at the speed of light or is is instantaneous? Do I need to consider the Coriolis effect when I am aiming my Reiki beams?
Musicat, how can you look through a transparent window while covering your eyes?
First of all, you are not in a position to “give a chance”. You are not in a position to give ultimatums.
Your excessive attempts at creating any substance within this discussion will be immediately erased. You have lost all weight within your argument and you have lost all validity.
“Why”, do you ask?
Because you have contradicted your own opinions with revisions to your own words.
How can I make this more clear to you?
Have you noticed how absolutely nobody has referenced a topic you have posted, to support their debate? Especially since this has been moved to a section of the forum, where true debaters are giving me a challenge - such as, but not limited to: Czarcasm, Tripolar and Marley23?
They know that any reference they make to you will be exposed by me. Because nobody wants to reference a weightless comment within their argument. It is useless in a debate.
This is because you have no argument, and no debate, your points are no longer valid. As you have broken their validity.
[QUOTE=Musicat]
I gave you a chance to refute this by giving an example of some treatment/substance that was discarded by CAM after being first accepted. If you cannot, then your claim of “acceptance” should be ignored by all rationally thinking people, as logic is on my side.
[/QUOTE]
Secondly, your logic is subject to change as you have proved that yourself. Why should rational, or irrational people of any intellect respect what you say within this discussion?
You have lost. That is a fact, not an insult. Move on. You are only embarrassing yourself by staying.
I was not trying to make a connection, I was trying to make a comparison. And it is important that it is a comparison. Because in comparison, Midband began sales as of 2003. 8 years it has been, 8 years where it could have helped. I understand that testing takes time. But 8 years?
There is no data for the distribution that I could immediately find. But that is why I included the balloon also for comparison. As I cited above, why are all of these countries providing this product while not America? Why is it that all these other countries around the world are providing products that can help, before America?
Also, if you go the route of “Our system is just that much more advanced”. This does not apply because of the length that the much more advanced America has taken to receive both products. Finally on this point. America is the 9th fattest country in the world, which creates obesity and diabetes. How can America place diabete’s and obese treatments on the back burner when people are dying. And then it comes back around to your most direct point.
In that amount of time span that it has taken the FDA to approve such products, Reiki has spread to more American hospitals and more establishments which utilize is effectively.
Reiki has more validity than a product that could have saved lives.
That saddens me more than anything.
But also immediately negates that the comparison was misinformed.
Thank you for your comments and questions again Marley23, I enjoy speaking with you.
Due to the overwhelming abundance of links that rich2600 has tossed out (yet apparently not actually read), I’m not going to go through each of them. I did grab the first one he used as a rebuttal and was able to find out more info about two of the three authors of the study:
They might be lovely young ladies, but I’m not going to give a lot of credence any “study” that they author, as they send my woowoo meter off the charts.
Hold on a second, I need to whipe this sarcarsm off. . . . .
Alright, sure, provide a scan of your certificate of training with reiki and I would be happy to.
[QUOTE=Lobohan]
You are on a website devoted to reducing ignorance and you’re aggressively fighting to defend your belief in magic. You do realize that, right?
[/QUOTE]
As you have provided 3 sarcastic and rhetorical questions to this thread, I feel I must respond with one.
You do realize that you are on a section labelled “Great Debate” of an ignorance reducing website, but have provided absolutely no debate, right?
[QUOTE=DMC]
Due to the overwhelming abundance of links that rich2600 has tossed out (yet apparently not actually read), I’m not going to go through each of them. I did grab the first one he used as a rebuttal and was able to find out more info about two of the three authors of the study:
#1: Oona McFarlane
#2: Nicole Mackay
They might be lovely young ladies, but I’m not going to give a lot of credence any “study” that they author, as they send my woowoo meter off the charts.
[/QUOTE]
The bold is mine.
Hello fellow contributor that has not read my comments.
[QUOTE=rich2600]
Now that presumptions are applicable, you have failed to follow through with your request of documents that you would read and then debate. By now, I have read them all. and finally you have failed to provide an alternative medical diagnosis of reiki being unsuccessful in the majority sense.
[/QUOTE]
Now that you assume I take full responsibility for the persons involved with the research involved in my articles and since you are discounting the entire alternative medication field, and then referencing them as woowoo meter additions. I assume you are accepting the responsibility of all of the research scientists that practice within the “approved” scientific fields.
Let me introduce you to Bruce Edwards Ivins: Army Research Scientist who commited the anthax murders.
What was that?
I hear a “But that doesn’t apply to me, because I didn’t quote him”, coming.
Wrong. You assumed I take responsibilities for the researchers actions within their personal lives. If you are going to label me as the responsible party for these researchers, then I can label you as responsible for any of the research scientists which is in validation of your science.
If you are going to investigate each and every member of the research teams of the articles I provide, go for it. Just accept that you are also labeling yourself as a supporter of the more extreme kind within the entire realm of science, since you have failed to specify otherwise.
Oh and the finale of:
“You have specified the articles, you support them, that means you support those specific authors, you can’t use a blanket statement among all acceptable science.”
Wrong again, I support the articles and the research methods they use. Not the authors.
You are implying blanket statements, in rebuttal, I can absolutely use blanket statements.
rich2600, I’m far more curious for you to tell us about your psychic abilities, such as remote viewing and telepathy. I’m also really interested in hearing about your skills in magick and the exposure of your third eye. This whole placebo thing called Reiki just seems so boring in comparison to exposing one’s third eye. I know that in some (all?) states it’s illegal to expose it, so I’m curious as to how you have managed and what sorts of reactions you get. Also, do you have any links to studies about such exposure? Since we’re talking about a third eye, I don’t think double-blind is going to cut it. Perhaps someone has done a triple-blind study that you could link to.
Welcome to the group of noncontributing posts. The coffee is in the entry way and please put the toilet seat down after usage. Stay a while as most have.
Sorry sh1bu1, your request has been denied since you are now claiming you want to make your own science. Yet claimed you were mainstream earlier. Although mainstream is accepted, your sarcastic statements have shown that contradiction is in your blood.