Is 'John of God' a Healer or a Charlatan?

The BBQ Pit
21

I will.
I read his "Memorandum of Agreement’ – and if anyone could possibly meet all of his conditions and (I forget what he called the other things), you’d have to be God’s brother. More “ifs” than an Arabian marriage contract.

The master conjurer conjures up an impossible set of conditions that looks doable – at first glance. (Till you read the details).

On one side you have speculation, on the other side you have deception.
Frankly I don’t think the Truth lies anywhere within either one of these

These guys are just opposite ends of the spectrum that preys on the gullible.
“John” gets some, “Randi” gets the others. You been snowed.

You been had.

22

Please give an example of something you believe to be an unfair condition.

23

EvanS, until you can show me just one psychic healer who can prove his powers by rigorous, unbiased, repeated scientific testing, we have every right to assume they are all frauds.

There doesn’t seem to be a stampede to get tested just yet, even for hundreds of years. And why should they run the risk? The world is full of gullible victims lining up to throw away their money; deluded souls who think that ignoring the obvious and wishing it were true is the same as having an open mind. T’ain’t so, my friend, just t’ain’t so.

24

Cat, you have every right to assume anything you want.

So do I.

I assume someone who disbelieves everything is just the flip side of the coin from someone who believes everything. That is: gullible.

I’m a skeptic. I suspend belief until I have a good reason to believe.
I haven’t found a good reason to believe either side yet.

25

Psst…Devilsknew and EvanS, I have opened a “Randi is a fraud” thread here, so we can continue the hijack over there.

However, your last post included something not inappropriate for this thread:

What conditions, events, tests, or situations would be sufficient for you to believe that psychic healing is possible?

What conditions, etc…for you to believe that all psychic healers perform miracles?

What conditions, etc…for you to believe that all psychic healers are most likely to be frauds?

Or, if you have considered all the evidence, what do you believe is the strongest in favor of miraculous cures and the strongest in favor of the fraud hypothesis?

26

Frauds prey on the gullible, not on open-minded skeptics. I chose to judge the program – and the man – after viewing rather than before.

I wonder why Primetime bothered at all. I had much rather see some investigative reporting on the placebo effect in general.

27

After viewing it, was it much different from what I predicted? Not as I could see.

These kind of programs seem to follow a pat formula and I find them pretty predictable. Discouragingly so, if education is a laudable goal.

28

I’m a believer.

I believe in John’s ability, under certain circumstances, to cure all sorts of deadly diseases.

What? Oh, no - not John of God. John of Hopkin’s. Their magic is much more powerful.

29

Thank him? Shit, they give him money and come back for more!

As for psychic healers go he’s pretty boring. He cleans their sinuses (did you notice that when he gave the forceps those good, solid twists the handle didn’t actually turn?) and, soo-prise-soo-prise, the patients get bloody noses. Their own blood, not chicken blood. He cuts the patients and really cuts them and doesn’t pull anything good out, like chicken guts or balls of feathers. Maybe the standards for a curandero in Brazil are pretty low but he’d be laughed out of the Phillipines. Benny Hinn is more fun.

30

Well, I watched the second half of the show.

They did only give Randi a few seconds but they did also talk to a doctor and they did follow several patients after their ‘treatment’.
One guy did get better by ‘unknown’ means. They guy had some sort of tumor that was considered to be fatal. It was much smaller after treatment. The doctor, who specialzes in this sort of thing, said that he didn’t know how it worked but it obviously did. He did say that it should be studied and that maybe, irratating the putitary gland, somehow helped. Also the environment chage for most of these people would help. Relaxing, meditating, (basically learning bio-feedback) and eating better are all healthful things. Developing a positve attitude that one is going to get better is important. (though anti-biotics are important, to me at least)

The other people that followed were not so lucky.

One lady did improve but the doctors said her improvement could have been accomplished with PT.
Another women still had breast cancer.

Another guy was still going to die.
But to me, that John guy just gave me the creeps. No way would I turn to him.

31

You’re kidding, right? This is a whoosh??
And if I do this for you, what do I get out of it?

Look up sceptic in the dictionary, and it will answer all your questions.

32

One hopes that at the very least you would get a reputation for answering questions that are put to you, rather than a reputation for weaseling away from them.

How much value you place on that type of benefit is a question best answered by you, perhaps. But you should be aware that in the absence of an answer, observers will surely form their own impressions.

33

EvanS, I occasionally see someone on the street challenging people to games of three-card monte. You know, there’s the king and then there’s two jacks, and they show you the king and then move the cards around, and if you point to the king you win twenty bucks, and if you don’t you lose twenty bucks.

Three-card monte is a scam. The method for performing it is published. I’ve heard of many cases of people performing the scam, and I’ve never heard of anyone running the game legitimately (at least not with money involved).

Let’s say I’m walking down the street, and across the street I see a guy with a three-card monte game going. As a skeptic, do I:
a) Assume he’s running the same scam as everyone else whom I’ve seen running the game, or
b) Cross the street and watch him carefully to see if he’s also running the scam?
c) Not cross the street, but suspend judgment; and if someone considerng playing the game asks me whether it’s legit, say, “I don’t know; it could be!”

Me, I choose a. Life’s too short, and there’s other, more interesting things going on. Sure, there’s a chance that this guy has chosen to run a legit game; but that chance is pretty small, and I’ve got no reason to think he is. Why would I waste my time?

And why would I tell someone it could be legit? The chances of that seem pretty small, and the chances of their getting suckered seem pretty big.

Now, that’s just an analogy. The difference between three-card monte and psychic healing is that, in order to run a legit game of three-card, you’d have to have fairly unusual motives. In order to perform a legitimate psychic surgery, you’d have to violate the known and understood laws of biology and physics, as demonstrate in millions of events every day.

I’m a skeptic, but I’ll admit there’s a chance that John of God is for real. There’s also a chance that the moon landing didn’t happen, that Hitler was a pooka gone out of control, and that the Straight Dope Message Board is a database existing in a giant brain in a vat in Tuscon.

None of these possibilities is large enough for me to give them any attention. Why should I?

Daniel

34

None. Anything is possible. So-called psychic healing is possible, but it may have a very mundane explanation.

All of them would have to be tested under rigerous scientific conditions.

Too vague and inclusive to determine. “Most likely??” “all???”

I hardly have the time to consider all the evidence, but would not formulate an opinion until I did so.

35

Oh.

kaaaaaaay.

36

This from the same poster who started a thread in which he insisted a breaking shelf, spilled beer, and a magic trick were elemental manifestations surrounding his psychic prediction of an earthquake.

I predict I shall roll my eyes.

:rolleyes:

37

This just in…

This week’s What’s New column by Bob Park contains:

38

Let’s see you put toothpaste back in the tube without damaging the tube.

39

Except that a true skeptic does NOT “disbelieve everything”. A true skeptic REQUIRES PROOF for everything. Which is a fundamental difference.

40

You couldn’t think of something difficult? That’s a piece of cake.

Even I could do that! And I can prove it, too.

Now I don’t know where you’re coming from, cause I never said I could do anything, just that it is possible. Maybe you’re just being smarmy?