Internal Power of Martial Arts (Breathing Technique)

[Gerry Seymour]

yes and a quarter of the control group got better with out a drug, how does that not support faith healing?

Because faith healing is a specific treatment, which does not consistently out-perform the control group.

Now, perhaps you and I are using the term "fath healing" differently? To me, it refers to healing through religious intervention - an approach not found to consistently out-perform placebo approaches. If you're referring to the body's ability to heal itself (or at least to relieve symptoms), that's pretty much what accounts for much of the placebo effect. Mind you, we'd also need a second control group that receives absolutely no treatment, to establish that the placebo group improves at a significantly higher rate. If 23% of our no-treatment group improves, and 25% of our placebo group, that's probably not a statistically significant difference (unless we have a very large study population). If the no-treatment group sees a 10% rate of improvement, we have a high incidence of placebo effect, which implies faith-healing might achieve that same efficacy with people who believe in its effect. As would any other treatment they believed would work.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

in controlled studies in to the placbo effect they have multiple groups and change to colour of the pills to see if that affects results.
if they get a higher cure rate with red pills, of both the real drug and the sugar pill, then its clear that red pills are more effective

Agreed.

 

[jobo]

Because faith healing is a specific treatment, which does not consistently out-perform the control group.

Now, perhaps you and I are using the term "fath healing" differently? To me, it refers to healing through religious intervention - an approach not found to consistently out-perform placebo approaches. If you're referring to the body's ability to heal itself (or at least to relieve symptoms), that's pretty much what accounts for much of the placebo effect. Mind you, we'd also need a second control group that receives absolutely no treatment, to establish that the placebo group improves at a significantly higher rate. If 23% of our no-treatment group improves, and 25% of our placebo group, that's probably not a statistically significant difference (unless we have a very large study population). If the no-treatment group sees a 10% rate of improvement, we have a high incidence of placebo effect, which implies faith-healing might achieve that same efficacy with people who believe in its effect. As would any other treatment they believed would work.

I'm using faith healing in its widest sence, that is the treatment requires faith in the treatment, it could be laying on of hands, or powdered rhino horn or sugar pills, it matters not if the subject believes in it

 

[Kadral]

What's really upsetting is the fact that there are real people who suffer from blindness and you're peddling this nonsense as legitimate.

I find it upsetting that there are real people who suffer from blindness and you're ignoring other methods of rehabilitation for the blind because you don't understand it. I understand why you are skeptical. It is healthy to be a skeptic but it's not going to do anyone any good if people just deny something without figuring out what really is going on. Once it is disproven then, we can say its non-sense. But as of right now. Vibravision is very new and this is why we don't see any journals in science (in the west at least). I am sure in the next year or so, some universities are going to want to verify this ability. Think of the good this can do (assuming it is real). Which for myself I know it to be true. But we need more scientific proof before it is taking more seriously within the community. Only time will tell.

 

[jobo]

I find it upsetting that there are real people who suffer from blindness and you're ignoring other methods of rehabilitation for the blind because you don't understand it. I understand why you are skeptical. It is healthy to be a sceptic but it's not going to do anyone any good if people just deny something without figuring out what really is going on. Once it is disproven then, we can say its non-sense. But as of right now. Vibravision is very new and this is why we don't see any journals in science (in the west at least). I am sure in the next year or so, some universities are going to want to verify this ability. Think of the good this can do (assuming it is real). Which for myself I know it to be true. But we need more scientific proof before it is taking more seriously within the community. Only time will tell.

no that's not how science works, if you say it works then you need to prove it to be so, with some properly designed studies. Other wise you shouldn't be inflicting it on people

 

[Kadral]

no that's not how science works, if you say it works then you need to prove it to be so, with some properly designed studies. Other wise you shouldn't be inflicting it on people

What do you propose if they are working on university studies and it is an ability anyone can learn? Should they just keep quiet until a reputable study has come out or can they show what they can do, start to rehabilitate then the study come later?

 

[jobo]

What do you propose if they are working on university studies and it is an ability anyone can learn? Should they just keep quiet until a reputable study has come out or can they show what they can do, start to rehabilitate then the study come later?

there are con men the world over with cures, if its not a con then show it to be true

 

[Kadral]

there are con men the world over with cures, if its not a con then show it to be true

You didn't answer my question. But I get your point.

I know you need the proof, once I get the study I will send it your way. Other then that I guess, I have nothing else to say. Because this kind of stuff can never be proven over a video. I have my own personal videos but even then I could just stage the whole thing so that is unreliable.
This is new to the western public so it's only a matter of time before it becomes more known.

 

[jobo]

You didn't answer my question. But I get your point.

I know you need the proof, once I get the study I will send it your way. Other then that I guess, I have nothing else to say. Because this kind of stuff can never be proven over a video. I have my own personal videos but even then I could just stage the whole thing so that is unreliable.
This is new to the western public so it's only a matter of time before it becomes more known.

I'm open minder about the power of the mind,but not that gullible that I accept as true what I'm told is true by someone I've never met

 

[DanT]

I find it upsetting that there are real people who suffer from blindness and you're ignoring other methods of rehabilitation for the blind because you don't understand it. I understand why you are skeptical. It is healthy to be a skeptic but it's not going to do anyone any good if people just deny something without figuring out what really is going on. Once it is disproven then, we can say its non-sense. But as of right now. Vibravision is very new and this is why we don't see any journals in science (in the west at least). I am sure in the next year or so, some universities are going to want to verify this ability. Think of the good this can do (assuming it is real). Which for myself I know it to be true. But we need more scientific proof before it is taking more seriously within the community. Only time will tell.

WRONG. You need to prove that it works, I don't need to prove that it doesn't.

 

[Kadral]

You didn't answer my question. But I get your point.

I know you need the proof, once I get the study I will send it your way. Other then that I guess, I have nothing else to say. Because this kind of stuff can never be proven over a video. This is new to the western public so it's only a matter of time before it becomes more known.

I'm open minder about the power of the mind,but not that gullible that I accept as true what I'm told is true by someone I've never met

Well good, I like your way of thinking. I think this is a good trait. But this also says we are both wasting our time since you won't accept something as true that was told over the internet by someone you have never met.

I teach this martial arts and I know everyone in those videos (the american ones anyways). Now I will say I cannot do this stuff because when I first joined, I didn't quiet believe it either thus neglecting to put much time into the practice. But over time, working with these people, becoming friends, they have proven to me on what they can do. Honestly that is all I need at the moment. The research will come in time. Until then we will keep working to rehabilitate the blind and practicing our own skills to become more and more precise and consistent in what we do.

 

[Kadral]

WRONG. You need to prove that it works, I don't need to prove that it doesn't.

I could be wrong but this seems pretty hostile. I may also be reading into things.

Anyways, we will prove soon enough to the public of what we can do, so that will come in time. But as I said earlier, there is little reason to prove something to a person on the internet forum that I have never met. We are both wasting our time but I think open minded skepticism is more beneficial than outright denial. How would anyone ever study something if they don't ask questions about it. I don't see how anything can be studied in science if we deny everything without proper questioning of a subject. You don't have to say this is true but I think someone saying "what if this is possible" will gain a lot more from a discussion.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

What do you propose if they are working on university studies and it is an ability anyone can learn? Should they just keep quiet until a reputable study has come out or can they show what they can do, start to rehabilitate then the study come later?

"They" can do what they like. The point is that "we" don't have to accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. In this case, the claims are not dissimilar to some that have been made in the past by shysters. So, this is how science works for something like this: a test is put together that should produce random results if the thing doesn't work. It has a control group (involves some people who were taught the technique and some who were taught something that is reasonably known not to work), preferably double-blind (participants don't know which is the control group, and the observers don't know which group each participant is in), controlled by someone who has no personal gain in "proving" the thing works, and has other controls (random select, etc.). If it passes that (produces significantly better results in the treatment group than the control group), then there's reasonable evidence to try to figure out how/why it worked.

 

[Kadral]

"They" can do what they like. The point is that "we" don't have to accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. In this case, the claims are not dissimilar to some that have been made in the past by shysters. So, this is how science works for something like this: a test is put together that should produce random results if the thing doesn't work. It has a control group (involves some people who were taught the technique and some who were taught something that is reasonably known not to work), preferably double-blind (participants don't know which is the control group, and the observers don't know which group each participant is in), controlled by someone who has no personal gain in "proving" the thing works, and has other controls (random select, etc.). If it passes that (produces significantly better results in the treatment group than the control group), then there's reasonable evidence to try to figure out how/why it worked.

Yes sir, you are correct, that is how science conducts experiments.

We are willing to have any university who studies vision or consciousness contact us to test what we can do. We want the tests and studies done to verify in the scientific community that we can help the blind. But until that happens we just have to keep on pressing forward and do what we do out here.

Here is a clip from our immersion workshop from a blind man..... How blind is he?? Well this man "Mike Armstrong" is a blind advocate and you can find youtube videos of him taking out his eyes (yes both eyes).... This isn't proof by any means because its a video online but it does raise questions.

and here is a video of him taking out his eyes like 6 years ago...

 

[drop bear]

"They" can do what they like. The point is that "we" don't have to accept extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. In this case, the claims are not dissimilar to some that have been made in the past by shysters. So, this is how science works for something like this: a test is put together that should produce random results if the thing doesn't work. It has a control group (involves some people who were taught the technique and some who were taught something that is reasonably known not to work), preferably double-blind (participants don't know which is the control group, and the observers don't know which group each participant is in), controlled by someone who has no personal gain in "proving" the thing works, and has other controls (random select, etc.). If it passes that (produces significantly better results in the treatment group than the control group), then there's reasonable evidence to try to figure out how/why it worked.

You know he is saying it works in the street. Don't you? And even backed it up with anecdotes.

I have seen this sort of evidence before from someone.

Why are you being such a ****

 

[Gerry Seymour]

You know he is saying it works in the street. Don't you? And even backed it up with anecdotes.

I have seen this sort of evidence before from someone.

Why are you being such a ****

Oy. You never will get it. Hopeless, mate.

 

[drop bear]

Oy. You never will get it. Hopeless, mate.

Yeah hopefully.

 

[Mouzalina Mahfud]

Getaran technique / Vibravision Video compilations