The Museum of Hoaxes
LifeWave Energy Patches
Posted By:
Fawkes
Feb 24, 2005
 Now you can get more energy from a patch! I especially like the way that
they "believe" that it works. It is also based on years of research from
many fields. While the research may be valid, I'm not sure that their
results were intended to be used with a "patent pending blend of water,
oxygen, amino acids and organics applied to a polyester fabric and sealed
within a polymer shell".

http://www.contactplus.com/lifewave.htm

We can finally have our super-soldiers now!
Category: Health; Replies: 5918

Comments
Page 19 of 99 pages ‹ First  < 17 18 19 20 21 >  Last ›
Able to fly
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 03:09 AM
OH! WHAT A SURPRISE
According to James Randi "at any given time, about 40 to 60 applicants being considered" however "...no one has been formally tested for the big prize, though we're ready and willing."
http://randi.org/research/faq.html#randi

Now some of you are probably thinking that this is proof that the paranormal does not exist. However others may conclude that the standard and method of testing that is set by JREF may be unreasonable.

I wonder which it might be??????
Able to fly
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 03:35 AM
Also according to James Randi
"Scientists can be wrong
Able to fly
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 03:58 AM
PLEEEEASE my sides are splitting. :lol:
I just found this page: http://www.randi.org/jref/join.html

So how many of you are members of JREF?
Are any of you a PATRON?
The perfect example of irony, for just $10,000 you can be a Patron of a foundation that aims to reach out and educate all the gullible people. :lol:
Able to fly
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 05:30 AM
Crank Media Guy said:
"That, however, has no relevance to whether or not the LifeWave patches can do what is claimed for them.

If I say the Earth is round, even if I say it in a nasty way, I'm still right. Facts is facts. As someone said, you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts."

Here are some facts:
1. I felt more energetic while wearing the patches.
2. My son felt more comfortable while wearing the patches after lengthy sporting activity than he would normally.
3. Numerous people have claimed to have felt more energetic while wearing the patches and some have posted these claims in websites and announced it through the media.

These are facts. Undeniably these events took place. There is plenty of video evidence of people making these claims.

Now given that "what is claimed for" the lifewave patches is that they are energy enhancers, then it appears that the facts support the claim. If you say they don't, even if you say it in a nice and loving way, you are still wrong.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 06:34 AM
Able to fly said:

"These are facts. Undeniably these events took place. There is plenty of video evidence of people making these claims."

So, if I told you that taping Lego blocks to your arms would give you more energy and you did it and convinced yourself that you actually felt more energy, you would be perfectly OK with the Lego company advertising their blocks as "energy enhancing devices?"

OR if I sold plain tap water as a cancer cure and I could find someone who would testify that they drank my amazing curing elixir and they didn't die of cancer, it would be just dandy for me to continue to sell it as a cure, right?

Who needs any laws against fraud so long as we can find someone who can talk themselves into believing whatever I say in my advertising?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 06:36 AM
DS said:

"Jed Wallace, President of MPH offered, MPH is fortunate enough to be so situated that we
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 06:40 AM
Razela said:

"CMG - You are my hero."

Aw shucks. What did I do to deserve that?
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 06:42 AM
Able to fly

"I went to http://randi.org and found a Paranormal Challenge. Now this challenge seems a bit weird because to be classed "paranormal" it would be by definition beyond normal. How exactly is "normal" defined? Who defines it? Will it still be classed as paranormal if it can be proved? I suspect the Paranormal Challenge is a bit of a joke."

You really have not read this forum, have you?

LifeWave previously applied for the Million Dollar Challenge, but pulled out when David Schmidt decided to rewrite the rules!

If Schmidt proves that the patches work he wins ONE MILLION DOLLARS period.

People have performed their party pieces for the challenge, and failed. Check out the BBC Horizon program in the UK.

Here are some facts:
1. I felt more energetic while wearing the patches.
2. My son felt more comfortable while wearing the patches after lengthy sporting activity than he would normally.
3. Numerous people have claimed to have felt more energetic while wearing the patches and some have posted these claims in websites and announced it through the media.

1. How do you know it was the patch?
2. How does he know it was the patch?
3. How do they know it was the patch?

It really is a fair and very simple question.

How do you know?

Regards.
?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 06:43 AM
Able to fly said:

"There are other nice little clauses, such as JREF has to agree upon location but the applicant cops the travelling bill etc."

Do you really expect Randi to pay for people to travel to the Challenge? Why?

At least you didn't pull the old trick of claiming that the money doesn't exist, as so many others have in the past. For the record, the name of the company holding the million dollars is on Randi's site.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 06:49 AM
Able to fly said:

"The most challenging part of the challenge is surely going to be the initial part where both the applicant and JREF have to agree upon "what will constitute both a positive and a negative result"."

You do understand why that's in there, yes? It's so the claimant can't say after the fact that he/she was surprised by the testing. It also insures that the claimant is being tested on what they say they can do with the degree of accuracy they claim.

Without such a clause, the claimant could say after the testing, "Well, I never said I could read your mind with more than a 10% accuracy rate" or something like that. OF COURSE the claimant has to agree to the testing in advance; that's the only fair way to conduct things.
Razela
in Chicago, IL
 Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 09:33 AM
"The most challenging part of the challenge is surely going to be the initial part where both the applicant and JREF have to agree upon "what will constitute both a positive and a negative result"

Would it make sense any other way? The applicant must agree to the precedure because they are the ones get tested, and like CMG said, they know what it is they can or can't do and will most likely to be able to understand if the procedures are testing what their ability (or in this case, the products ability) is. JREF has to agree because otherwise many con artist applicants could devise a testing procedure that they could cheat their way through, or that doesn't prove anything.
Able to fly
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 10:15 AM
EDHUK said

"LifeWave previously applied for the Million Dollar Challenge, but pulled out when David Schmidt decided to rewrite the rules!"

I saw mention of this several times on this forum, but no I haven't read every post. I did a google search for "randi david schmidt" and found http://www.randi.org/jr/050605free.html#3 that mentions that an application was received for the JREF million dollar prize. I wasn't sure reading this if this was the same prize. Why would David Schmidt apply to prove the patches work in a "paranormal" way if he is claiming that they are backed by science(therefore they are not paranormal)? Are we sure that David Schmidt was the person who sent in the application? Did David Schmidt ever respond to the email sent to him by James Randi? I wasn't sure where to find any of this information. Can someone please point me to evidence that David Schmidt did actually apply.
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 10:15 AM
Friday October 28th 2005

We discuss, LifeWave continues to make money from a bogus product.

Pretty cool eh?
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 10:20 AM
Able to fly

If you read the whole piece A NEW AND EXCITING APPLICANT from the link you posted, does that not document the email questions and answers between James Randi and David Schmidt?

Regards.
Able to fly
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 10:23 AM
Cranky Media Huy said:
"So, if I told you that taping Lego blocks to your arms would give you more energy and you did it and convinced yourself that you actually felt more energy, you would be perfectly OK with the Lego company advertising their blocks as "energy enhancing devices?""

If 1,000s of people taped lego blocks to their arms and found that their energy was enhanced then I would have no problem with the Lego company advertising that the blocks were energy enhancers. Actually it would be great because the blocks come in lots of different shapes and colours and would be easy to co-ordinate with my wardrobe.
Able to fly
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 10:42 AM
EDHUK do you mean the part that starts:
"To quote from a comment by Mr. Schmidt in the posting just sent to me:"

The posting was apparently about a comment claimed to be made by Mr. Schmidt. If Mr Schmidt were writing this directly to Mr Randi why would he say "when LifeWave is proven by Mr. Randi"? Wouldn't he have written "when you prove Lifewave works" or something along those lines. It just doesn't make sense.

Im not surprised that JREF called this "A NEW AND EXCITING APPLICANT". By mentioning David Schmidt or Lifewave on his website he is sure to get a few extra clicks from internet searches. To convince people that Lifewave is a hoax would be a step towards possibly recruiting new members to JREF. New members means more money 😊

Now where is the evidence that David Schmidt applied and how far did the application procedure go before he pulled out? Did anyone from JREF actually talk to David Schmidt about the application? Did David Schmidt confirm that he made the application? Oh and just one more thing.....PROVE IT.
Able to fly
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 11:04 AM
Also in the text under the heading A NEW AND EXCITING APPLICANT http://www.randi.org/jr/050605free.html#3 it states: There's no "human magnetic field."

Please refer to http://www.reiki.org/reikinews/ScienceMeasures.htm

"It has long been known that activities of cells and tissues generate electrical fields that can be detected on the skin surface. But the laws of physics demand that any electrical current generates a corresponding magnetic field in the surrounding space. Since these fields were too tiny to detect, biologists assumed they could have no physiological significance.

This picture began to change in 1963. Gerhard Baule and Richard McFee of the Department of Electrical Engineering, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY detected the biomagnetic field projected from the human heart. They used two coils, each with 2 million turns of wire, connected to a sensitive amplifier.

In 1970, David Cohen of MIT, using a SQUID magnetometer, confirmed the heart measurements. By 1972, Cohen had improved the sensitivity of his instrument, enabling him to measure magnetic fields around the head produced by brain activities.

Subsequently, it has been discovered that all tissues and organs produce specific magnetic pulsations, which have come to be known as biomagnetic fields. The traditional electrical recordings, such as the electrocardiogram and electroencephalogram, are now being complemented by biomagnetic recordings, called magnetocardiograms and magnetoencephalograms"

Is this also a HOAX?
laarson
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 11:10 AM
The just made a film about LifeWav: "The corporation". - Ever felt the just use you?
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 11:21 AM
Able to fly

Is this of any help?

http://p2.hostingprod.com/@worldwidescam.com//lwchicken.htm
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 02:10 PM
Able to fly said:

"If 1,000s of people taped lego blocks to their arms and found that their energy was enhanced then I would have no problem with the Lego company advertising that the blocks were energy enhancers."

Well, if the blocks were tested under controlled conditions and were found to "enhance energy" for a significantly larger percentage of the people than a placebo did, yeah, they might have a case for calling them "energy enhancers." Same goes for LifeWave. Test 'em and prove the claims.

"Actually it would be great because the blocks come in lots of different shapes and colours and would be easy to co-ordinate with my wardrobe."

Works for me.
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 04:22 PM
Human Energy Fields

Any interested readers please check out this link. In particular the paragraph titled "Daniel Wirth's Prior Research".


http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-09/miracle-study.html
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 04:29 PM
POLYWATER AND THE ROLE OF SKEPTICISM

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/obas/contents/values.html

Lessons to be learned?

I wish.

?
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 04:44 PM
The case of polywater demonstrates how the desire to believe in a new phenomenon can sometimes overpower the demand for solid, well-controlled evidence.

The case for LifeWave Energy Patches demonstrates how the desire to believe in a new phenomenon can sometimes overpower the demand for solid, well controlled evidence.

I think it would be great if the patches were not a scam placebo. I have said this from the beginning.

However, we have to get real. LifeWave is not entitled to a "free pass" just because believers of the product say so. The world just doesn't work that way.

*
Human Being
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 05:49 PM
Cranky-

What's your point?

Just wondering?

Kidding of course. I was asking how cars could be compared to something like the patches. The patches are meant to give out more energy, cars are meant to get people to their destination.

I see no comparison.
So maybe you should rethink your Point.
Human Being
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 05:51 PM
It's suppose to say..
cranky said....
"What's your point"
Then I responded... Ok now it's clearerererererer..er
Cranky Media Girl
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 06:01 PM
i suggest that you try them before you make claims. if they don't work, at least you can have some kind of experience like Able to Fly had, and make a claim by your experience. Able to Fly can say that they gave her energy. but skeptics can't say that it doesn't, unless they have actually tried them for themselves.

Cranky I love your site. How often do you post new things?
Cranky media girl.... 💋
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 08:50 PM
Cranky Media Girl

i suggest that you try them before you make claims. if they don't work, at least you can have some kind of experience like Able to Fly had, and make a claim by your experience.

Are we to take it that in your world we can only make any comment, observation, criticism of a given product based purely on personal experience?

That without said personal experience we cannot be allowed to even think about the pros and cons of said product because our thoughts will be of no value?

?
Able to fly
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 08:53 PM
WWSN1 and EDHUK, thank you for the links.

It is amazing how different it all appears when the full text of the correspondence is presented, which now confirms my suspicions that JREF is a website not to be trusted.

The reasons Dr. Haltiwanger gave for being reluctant to proceed were:
1. He had "a problem with Mr. Randi who is a self confessed conman"
2. "The rules are that he (Mr. Randi) is the only person who will decide if the study is positive"
3. "Mr. Randi also destroyed the career and reputation of one of France's top scientists"
4. He descibed it as "a media event where the rules are/will be rigged against us. This basically is a setup."

It is interesting that when I read yesterday "THE TWELVE OFFICIAL RULES GOVERNING THE JREF CHALLENGE" I immediately felt that this was the greatest scam I had ever seen. (see my earlier posts). What better way to establish a name and power then to set impossible challenges and then accuse all those who fail or withdraw to be either con artists, liars or simply unenlightened. That way Randi can continue to scare or embarrass people into accepting his rules of PROVE IT OR IT IS WRONG. No wonder Dr Haltiwanger did not wish to proceed. You might call him chicken, but I just think he was being very smart.

Those who agree with Randi really amaze me. Only a vain man could believe that human beings are capable of proving all that exists and is real. WE CAN NOT. Just yesterday I heard a comment on TV that human beings double their knowledge every decade. So imagine how much we have yet to discover. Does our ignorance PROVE anything doesn't exist?????.......NO IT DOESN'T. Therefore regardless of how many times Randi may claim that failure to take up or succeed in his challenge is proof that something doesn't exist is simply nonsense and arrogance. All it proves is that it is yet to be proved right and not that it has been proved wrong.

Dr Haltiwanger was very wise to be reluctant and no doubt their lawyers would have also advised against such a move. To me this Challenge is like saying JUMP OFF A TALL TOWER TO PROVE YOU ARE BRAVE and if you say no you are called a coward.
Able to fly
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 09:08 PM
I ask all those who read this forum to please not let JREF and its supporters narrow your world by filling it with fear. If life were not full of risks and dangers it would be absolutely boring. To close your mind to all that is possible by requiring proof before acceptance would be an unfortunate state.

JREF talks about the dangers of accepting that which is not yet proven. Please consider the dangers of living a life that is so restricted as they would have you do. Why just ask for proof that something exists when you can also ask for proof that it doesn't exist? Then you are free to make your own decisions instead of allowing someone like Randi the dictator to make decisions for you. He isn't even a scientist, just someone who has found a way to make a living out of lecturing.

The other option is to simply say I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS REAL. Do you really need to know how and why things work to take pleasure from it? Do you ask for proof of someones love before you enter a relationship, or do you enter a relationship and keep your eyes open? I am not suggesting that you should accept on blind faith, but if you live your entire life waiting for proof you will surely miss many opportunities.

I am not even saying that you SHOULD try the patches. What I am saying is that you should not be afraid to try the patches as no-one has presented any negative effects.
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 09:12 PM
The reasons Dr. Haltiwanger gave for being reluctant to proceed were:
1. He had "a problem with Mr. Randi who is a self confessed conman"


Able to fly

Isn't every magician a conman?

Mr. Randi has the decency to admit it.

*
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 09:29 PM
Able to fly

You are obviously very interested in this subject and also in reading all sides of the debate.

Here is the transcript of the BBC Horizon program challenge. It is long but very interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml

The references to placebo effect are even more important in view of the recent amazing research on pain control and placebo effect.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/24/placebo_natural_high/

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_1468236.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1446132.htm

Regards.

*
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 09:45 PM
Able to fly

He isn't even a scientist, just someone who has found a way to make a living out of lecturing.

With respect, could we not also state that David Schmidt isn't even a scientist but has found a way to make a living out of selling placebo glucose and glycerin patches on the internet?

I am not even saying that you SHOULD try the patches. What I am saying is that you should not be afraid to try the patches as no-one has presented any negative effects.

Again, with respect, would it not be rather difficult to come up with negative effects for a placebo? Users are generally primed to expect positive results, especially for $100.

I am also a little confused as to when the "fear factor" entered the equation.

LifeWavers have traditionally used the line "what are you scared of? Why don't you try the patches?"

I don't actually feel any fear about the patches. I'm not afraid to try them, but to do so would, for me, be on the same plane of worth as putting cow manure on my bald spot to make my hair grow.

*
Able to fly
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 11:09 PM
EDHUK said:
"With respect, could we not also state that David Schmidt isn't even a scientist but has found a way to make a living out of selling placebo glucose and glycerin patches on the internet?"

Well that is why I made the comment, because earlier on this forum, and more than once, it WAS stated that David Schmidt is not a scientist.

I look forward to reading the links you have provided in the earlier post and thank you.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 11:10 PM
Able to fly, you said:

"It is amazing how different it all appears when the full text of the correspondence is presented, which now confirms my suspicions that JREF is a website not to be trusted...etc,etc,etc
"

Of all the wavers that have come on here to try and convice everyone they really believe this shit works, you are the least believable. Your acting is really bad. Give it up.
human being
Posted: Fri Oct 28, 2005 | 11:47 PM
Captain Al-...

GOOD ONE!(obviously sarcastic)
Actually I think Able to Fly makes a very good arguement, she also has seen right through Mr. James Randi's Challenge.
You must find that everything she is saying is the truth, or else you wouldn't be trying to shut her out.
Acting? what is she acting? her belief?
Even if it was a placebo effect she still got what she wanted out of them right?
how about YOU give it up pal.
Able to fly
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 12:05 AM
Captain Al you are not even worthy of a response, however I will give you this post to let you know that I have read yours. Do you make a habit of disrupting forums with personal attacks? What do you actually gain from it?
Able to fly
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 12:43 AM
Hi EDHUK

They were very interesting articles.
However it got me thinking....

First, why were there any positive results in the experiments done by Benveniste? This wasn't really explained. More important, why were there positive results from the plain water. You can't explain this experiment with a placebo effect so why were there any positive results at all?

Second, in one of the articles it said "This so-called placebo effect occurs because receptors in the brain, called mu-opioid receptors, are activated. And this leads the brain to produce opiate-like substances." If that is the case then doesn't that suggest that the use of a placebo as a control in an experiment is flawed?

I'm beginning to think that it might be wise for governments to organise the production of lots of lovely coloured placebo tablets to administer as cures for illnesses that they haven't yet been able to control. Could come in handy with the threat of a Bird Flu. It can't hurt and at least some people may survive as a result of the placebo who otherwise might have died. Rumour is that scientists have proven that the current drug being stockpiled for bird flu may not work. Why don't they just keep their mouths shut and in the event of a breakout administer the drug anyway? (In case you are wondering I am being serious. Sometimes ignorance is bliss.)
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 01:02 AM
Able to fly said:

"The reasons Dr. Haltiwanger gave for being reluctant to proceed were:
1. He had "a problem with Mr. Randi who is a self confessed conman"

Randi has referred to himself as a "charlatan" in reference to his career as a magician and escape artist. I'm not aware of any time he has called himself a "con man."

"2. "The rules are that he (Mr. Randi) is the only person who will decide if the study is positive"

Absolutely not true. If you actually READ the rules, you'll see that Randi will NOT take part in the testing except as an observer. As I've mentioned before, the challenger has to agree in advance to the conditions. Therefore, what constitutes passing the testing is understood by the challenger before the testing starts.

"3. "Mr. Randi also destroyed the career and reputation of one of France's top scientists"

Who? When? How?

"4. He descibed it as "a media event where the rules are/will be rigged against us. This basically is a setup."

Bullshit. This is a way to duck the challenge. As I've now said at least twice, the challenger has to agree in advance to the conditions of the challenge. How can the rules be "rigged against you" if you agree to them in advance?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 01:07 AM
Able to fly said:

"I ask all those who read this forum to please not let JREF and its supporters narrow your world by filling it with fear. If life were not full of risks and dangers it would be absolutely boring. To close your mind to all that is possible by requiring proof before acceptance would be an unfortunate state."

Oh, absolutely! Drink some battery acid if someone says it might cure whatever ails you. Hell, maybe it'll work! Who knows, right? Proof? Ha! I laugh in the face of proof.

Buy some tiny little adhesive plastic patches for an exhorbitant price. Who knows, maybe they really CAN violate everything we know about physics and biology. Don't listen to those stupid "scientists" and their ridiculous "facts." They're just trying to dampen your spirit of adventure. It's the people with no ability to explain how their "inventions" work who are on your side.

Oh, and under no circumstances, point out that Able to fly's argument assumes that there is nothing between total gullibility and abject fear of the unknown. Stick your finger in that light socket if you think it'll cure your cold!
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 01:12 AM
Cranky Media Girl (!) said:

"i suggest that you try them before you make claims. if they don't work, at least you can have some kind of experience like Able to Fly had, and make a claim by your experience. Able to Fly can say that they gave her energy. but skeptics can't say that it doesn't, unless they have actually tried them for themselves."

If you go back and read some of the earlier postings, you'll see that I actually received a few patches and gave them to my wife to test. She experienced NO effect at all.

As for the notion that a person can only comment on that which they have tried themselves, I suggest you test that "theory" of gravity. Go to the roof and jump off. Maybe you'll float. Since you've never tried it, you can't say you won't, right?

"Cranky I love your site. How often do you post new things?"

Actually, I haven't put anything new on it in a while. I got sort of burned out when I was updating it several times a week, I guess. Have you seen some of the video on the site? How about the thing with Andy Kaufman? That's my favorite.

"Cranky media girl...."

So, you're like Supergirl to my Superman? Cool.
Able to fly
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 01:47 AM
Cranky Media Guy

You conveniently ignore the fact that I was refering to items for which "no-one has presented any negative effects".

It may surprise you how intelligent human beings can be, and often they are quite able to determine, without help from you or Randi, what is sensible behaviour and what is just too dangerous.

You mentioned in earlier posts the Catholic Church and the problems you had accepting it. How is what you are doing here any different to what a priest does when he tells the congregation that they must live by a set of values determined by the church and they should live in fear of disappointing God. You talk of the Challenge as though it were a test set by a God. Randi is not a God. Just because he says that something doesn't exist unless you can scientifically prove it does, does not mean that is the case. In fact MOST of society does not agree.

People in all parts of the world believe in Gods and energy that they can not prove exists. They are happy to accept because they are satisfied with the results. If believing in a God gives them hope when all seems hopeless, a common interest that they can celebrate together and a set of moral standards to live by, then who are we to complain. Provided man is harming no-one with their practices and beliefs then why do they need to prove anything.

Remember it is not the Lifewavers who are asking for proof that the patches work .... it is the sceptics. Why do those who believe need to prove anything to you or JREF? It isn't like anyone is forcing you to buy them.

I don't appreciate when bible pushers knock on my door and tell me I need to read the bible in order to be "SAVED". Could you also please stop trying to Save the Lifewavers from being unscientific if they clearly state they don't care.
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
 Member
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 08:39 AM
"Actually I think Able to Fly makes a very good arguement, she also has seen right through Mr. James Randi's Challenge"

Seen right through it? She hasn't even read it. If she had, she would know the $1,000,000 Challenge is based on sound scientific principles. Real science is designed to ensure techno mumbo-jumbo like Lifewave's is shown for what is really is. A scam.

Able to fly:
At least you read one of my posts. The acting I was referring to is you trying to make us think you are being objective about this. You have already made up your mind without demanding the slightest bit of evidence. In fact you think the skeptics are the ones who have something to prove. In science, things are not innocent until proven guilty. Without even considering the Lifewave's background (David Schmidt's lack of scientific training, no patent, no research facility, etc.) you are defending a fraud. What do you have to gain by this?

The JREF $1,000,000 Paranromal Challenge is an internationally recognized and respected institution. Claimants such as Lifewave and psychic Sylvia Browne have no choice but to make false accusations about it and Mr. Randi because there is no way they can prove what they claim. If they could, they would have done it already. Any attempt by the JREF to weasle out of paying would be grounds for a lawsuit. And even if the JREF did avoid paying, there would still be the international publicity of winning the Challenge. That would be worth far more than $1,000,000. The fact they refuse to try says it all.
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 10:12 AM
BBC Horizon Program from the UK.

Here is the link again to the Horizon program involving James Randi. You will notice that Horizon chose to test homeopathy NOT James Randi. The Horizon people then assembled their team and invited Mr. Randi to be involved (knowing that he would bring the element of the Million Dollar open challenge into the program to further enhance it's viewer appeal).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathytrans.shtml

"The Randi challenge doesn't only apply to homeopathy, any paranormal effect would qualify. It started in 1964 when, during a heated radio debate, a parapsychologist challenged Randi to put his money where his mouth is. Randi replied by offering $10,000 of his own money and the Paranormal Challenge was born." (Horizon)

The reason I have given the link is for readers in the US to see that not only was the particular claim about homeopathy being tested but James Randi was under the watchful eye of the Horizon program staff as well. This was NOT a one sided deal.

In the UK (as well as worldwide) Horizon is a well respected BBC television series that has covered many fascinating subjects over the years. When I lived in the UK it was one of my favorite shows.

You will notice that HORIZON conducted the experiment under clearly defined guidelines. James Randi was merely a bystander who "sweated it out" wondering if, at last, he was about to see the challenge money awarded to the contestant.

There are links at the top of the page to the right of James Randi's picture. These links give thorough details of what took place.

The one detail that I take from the program is that James Randi is not saying to anyone "Your claim about (insert claim) is definitely FALSE".

He IS saying "Prove to independant people by mutually agreed rules that what you claim to happen, really happens. If you demonstrate that your claim actually happens, exists, works etc., you will will receive the check for One Million Dollars."

Please take time to read the links on the programme website. It makes fascinating reading.

Cheers.

*
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 10:24 AM
CMG
"3. "Mr. Randi also destroyed the career and reputation of one of France's top scientists"

Who? When? How?

I think this is the scientist being referred to.

http://www.digibio.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathyqa.shtml

"Jacques Benveniste published a controversial paper on homeopathy in Nature in 1988. He implied that water had properties that meant that it 'remembered' what chemicals it had been in contact with. This results of this paper have since been called into question.

Following this incident, Benveniste lost his funding from the French government. However, he has continued his research with a small team and still stands by his original results.

His new research takes the concept of the memory of water a step further. He now claims to be able to record a signal stored in the water and turn it into a computer file, which can be emailed around the world. This emailed file can be played back into a sample of pure water, which then takes on the properties of the original substance.

These claims have met with even greater scepticism than his original results and have earned him an unprecedented second IgNobel prize."

http://www.improb.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html

I'm not sure how James Randi was able to "destroy" this man's career and reputation. Given his claims, does he (did he ever) have a reputation?

?
Able to fly
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 10:28 AM
WWSN1 said:
"Our friend ABLE TO FLY does not appear to be able to participate in a professional dialogue..."

I'm sorry, I didn't realise this was a professional forum. Maybe I was confused by comments like yours that suggest that it if someone decides not to participate in the JREF Challenge they have "chickened out". Or was that comment being used in a professional manner. 😊

Since you seem to have a relationship of a sort with Randi, would you mind asking him for an example of the criteria that he would set if Lifewave were to accept the challenge.
What would Lifewave have to demonstrate and how in order to win the challenge?
What would be used as a control? Would they need to produce a placebo patch or would JREF prefer to provide their own? Alternatively if an independent body were to produce the control patch, how would it be produced and using what materials? Also at whose expense?
What equipment would be used in both the preliminary test and in the formal test and who could provide it? (Costs involved would be handy)
Could he please provide some examples of institutions that would be acceptable to Randi for both the preliminary test and the formal test to take place?

Taking into consideration all of the financial commitment involved, would $1,000,000 adequately compensate? Remember David Schmidt and Dr Haltiwanger are busy people with conferences to attend. Time away from their business could mean lost business. Every aspect needs to be considered. $1,000,000 will not go far.

Since you are going to accuse Lifewave of being chicken, how about finding out for us exactly what was to be involved in the challenge that they backed away from.
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 10:49 AM
Able to fly

You certainly have a great sense of humor!

You want James Randi to pay people to apply for the Million bucks, is that right?

By the way, what is you involvement with LifeWave?

Cheers.

?
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 02:14 PM
Able to fly
Posted: Tue Oct 25, 2005 | 01:29 PM
Hey Cranky Media Guy you are right, I am not a "dumb guy" I am a smart girl.

Having now been given a large amount of material to read, can you honestly report that there is not even the tiniest part of you that says "maybe there is more to this LifeWave thing than meets the eye?" "Perhaps, after all, it will turn out to be a scam."

You are a "smart girl" after all, and perhaps smart enough to know when it's OK to admit that this subject isn't quite as cut and dried as you first thought.

Sceptics like WWSN1, CMG and many more, including me, would be only too happy to be proved wrong. There are occasions when extra energy would be most useful! I've always been very comfortable with leaving the possibility open for proof.

Prove the patches are real and do as they claim...somebody...anybody.

!
Anon
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 02:25 PM
I love the "prove it DOESNT work" comeback.

I have a feeling thats how Lifewave will market their scam in this next little phase. To this day I STILL think the whole plan for this company was to makle a quick buck by hyping a product no one can disprove, and then getting outta Dodge with a few million. Lets face it, they already have likely made quite a bit from the pawns who invested 100$+ in patches that likely cost 10 cents to make.

I love how everyone I have met selling lifewave is either some poor college student or someone with no clue how the product works, nor has any sales experience. It's truly funny, and I have lost respect for 2 or 3 of my friends who bought into the crap. Sadly, one is in pretty deep, after spending 700+ on membership/patches. Schmidt likely makes 675$ on all that!
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 02:46 PM
Anon

You have highlighted why I originally started posting on this forum a few months ago. One of my friends was already deep into LifeWave but a second friend was "looking into it". I was trying to give her all the information I could find about LifeWave and that's how I came across this site.

As a general rule, when I "investigate" any subject using the internet, and specifically Google, I type in subject scam or subject hoax.

It's a quick way to find out about hoax emails for example. "LifeWave hoax" brings you here.

The trouble is, once you are here you become somewhat like a moth round a lightbulb..

It's hard to leave!

!
hcmomof4
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 04:20 PM
I believe that I can prove they don't work, by applying the standards already set in this forum:

My sister's boyfriend's aunt used them, and they didn't make her feel any better.

Hundreds of atheletes don't use them, and they win competitons.

They just don't work, period. Why are you afraid to stop using them?
EDHUK
Member
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 05:06 PM
hcmomof4

Your logic is impeccable.

Bravo!

!
Able to fly
Posted: Sat Oct 29, 2005 | 10:27 PM
WWSN1 said:
"Gosh, ABLE TO FLY, are you ABLE TO READ? What's the use of posting links to unedited e-mails and documents if you won't invest a little time in reading the information contained therein?"

I had read every post and every link that you had provided for the last ten pages of this forum. The problem you seem to be having is that I read them and addressed them with my eyes open.

You say you wish to have a " "professional" dialogue and exchange of ideas, facts and information". It just so happens that MY ideas are a little different to yours. CAN YOU ACCEPT THAT? I don't believe that what you have provided as evidence in any way PROVES that Dr Haltiwanger "chickened out". All you have proved is that he doesn't TRUST James Randi. Previous links that you have provided led me to sites expressing their misstrust of James Randi:
http://www.alternativescience.com/james-randi.htm
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi-retreats.htm
http://www.alternativescience.com/randi's-letter.htm
http://www.mariondampier-jeans.com/james_randi.htm
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/05/lkl.00.html
You went on to say above:
"Dr. Haltiwanger chose to "shut up" - he "chickened out". Because he knows he cannot prove that the patches work. He is obviously a phony - the patches are a fraud - and David Schmidt is little more than a charismatic carnival barker.

These conclusions are made on the basis of known science and physics, and facts."

Since when did your personal opinion constitute a FACT? Well if it does then let me provide my facts:

Based on the information at the links provided above, I conclude that James Randi is an egotistical, fraudulent liar who "chickened out" of testing Rico Kolodzey and refused to answer questions about the Challenge from Larry King by hiding behhind a pretence of ignorance.

Now that we have established those FACTS then I guess there is no need for you to contact Randi for me and ask him what the criteria would have been etc. The JREF Challenge is more likely to be fraudulent than the Lifewave patches and therefore failure to accept the Challenge is not a sign of cowardice or fraudulence but a sign of intelligence.
Able to fly
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 | 12:11 AM
WWSN1 maybe it is YOU who is not reading MY posts fully or the links that I have provided and you refuse to accept that Randi is not very co-operative when it comes down to the criteria.

Read the following from http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/05/lkl.00.html

"KING: James, give us a simple example. What might be something you would ask her to do that could win her a million dollars? I know about writing it all up and everything. Give me an example. What -- you meet with her next week. You would say to her what?

RANDI: We would sit down and determine what she believes her powers are and to what extent they go, how far they will go, with what accuracy they will go. And then we would agree on a set of questions that would be asked that would have to have answers correct within a certain degree. We can do this.

KING: A question like -- like what? All right, give me an example.

RANDI: Such things as the gender of a person. That's a yes or no. That's a binary question, either right or wrong. Related, not related, old or young. And we'd have to determine what that would mean, too. A set of binary questions like this could easily decide whether or not Rosemary has the power.

KING: And how many questions would you want to have her respond to? As an example.

RANDI: It depends on what she says she can do and with what accuracy.

KING: With what you've seen tonight, what would you set up? How many questions?

RANDI: Oh, I would set up at least 40 questions.

KING: For -- and if she were right on 35, would she fail to get the million?

RANDI: You'd have to talk to a statistician about that, Larry. I'm not a statistician.

KING: Well, what would -- you give me an example.

(CROSSTALK)

What would you give the million for? What would you give the million for? Would she have to get 40 right?

ALTEA: Another wall.

RANDI: I can't talk the statistics with you. We have to refer that to our statisticians.

ALTEA: Another lock on the door. It's a very good trick, James, and I applaud you. "

to be continued
Able to fly
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 | 12:12 AM
continued:
"RANDI: There are no tricks being imposed here by me, Rosemary.

ALTEA: I think it's a really good trick. I think...

RANDI: The tricks are on your part.

ALTEA: Yeah, I think...

RANDI: I don't play tricks on people when I'm doing these tests.

ALTEA: Well...

RANDI: We agree at the test in advance, and you either pass or you don't pass. Will you try, yes or no?

KING: I'm asking a simple question, James. What is passing?

RANDI: It depends on what the test is, Larry. We have to assign the statistics to it.

KING: All right. A 40-question test, what passes? You know you're going to give away a million dollars.

RANDI: That's true.

KING: The statistician -- I assume you know statisticians. I assume you...

RANDI: No, I don't -- I know statisticians.

KING: You've never...

RANDI: I don't know statistics.

KING: So if she met with you tomorrow, you couldn't tell her what -- how many of the 40 she'd have to answer.

RANDI: Yes, I could, because I would have the right people on hand to advise me on the statistics. It's that simple.

KING: And if they told you she was 30 percent right, that would be considered extraordinarily accurate and you'd give her the million, if she had the 30 of the 40 questions right?

RANDI: If that were the statistical expectation that we could have, yes.

KING: Ah! But who sets the expectation? You can't tell us -- you have to give the statistician the expectation.

RANDI: That's right.

KING: The -- what do you ask him that he give you?

RANDI: The statistician will tell us what is significant in a set of binary questions, yes. The statistician will tell us if there were 40 questions, she would have to get x number right.

KING: I see.

RANDI: If there were 50 questions, you'd have to get...

ALTEA: I have something I don't understand.

KING: And he or -- and he or she, the statistician, would define "significant"?

RANDI: Yes, that's true.

ALTEA: I have something I don't understand. I have something here that I don't understand, because if -- James, what you're doing, and this deal is really genuine and you really expect to give it away this million dollars...

RANDI: No, I don't expect to give it away, no.

ALTEA: Well, OK -- well, you put it out there.

RANDI: I'm offering it to you.

ALTEA: OK, OK. If you -- well, then, you know, if you're seriously offering, not just to me but to anyone, I would have thought you'd really got this down. You would have had your numbers, you would have had your statisticians.

I mean, a million dollars is a lot of money. You don't just give it away and then come on TV show and say, well, it depends on this, it depends on...

RANDI: It all depends on what you claim your powers are and what your accuracy is.

ALTEA: I -- you know, I'd love you to you listen to this show. If you're recording this show, I would love you to listen to this show afterwards, because you're doing to me, to us, exactly what you're claiming I do to other people. You're doing exactly -- you are fishing, you are..."
Able to fly
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 | 12:32 AM
WWSN1 have you ever wondered WHY "Most applicants never agree to a proper test"? http://www.randi.org/research/faq.html#1.4
Has it occured to you that in most cases Randi may be asking the UNREASONABLE in order to protect the million dollars and his reputation.

Rosemary Altea said repeatedly that she could not guarantee that the deceased person who made contact with her was necessarily the person that was requested. If she could answer correctly 100% binary questions about the grandfather, but the request was to contact the father, then Randi would probably say she failed. However I would say that she only failed to please Randi, but in fact suceeded in demonstrating her powers. Some things do NOT have a clear PASS or FAIL. If she answered correctly 30 out of 40 questions would she be right or wrong? Some statisticians would argue that anything above 60% would indicate that she at least deserved further investigation. Others might argue that it would require above 80%. Who determines which statistician in RIGHT and who is WRONG? I studied first year statistics at university...does that mean I have the right to determine what is a pass and what is a fail by the standards of SOCIETY, or only by MY standards that I choose to set?

Haven't you realised yet that the Randi Challenge is no different to lotto? If I claimed that I could correctly guess 52 out of 52 of the cards that you chose (one at a time) out of a single deck, the odds may seem impossible, but then so do the odds of winning the lottery. Still people win. So if I sat the test and correctly guessed all 52 cards, there is still the possibility that I was very lucky. Would you all proclaim me a "mind reader" or "one hell of a lucky girl"?

I'll state my opinion again, nice and loud:
THE RANDI CHALLENGE IS A HOAX. IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY PROVE NOR DISPROVE SCIENCE OR FACT.

I have repeatedly said that I keep myself open to the idea that the results I experienced wearing the Lifewave patches were Placebo or from an unknown cause (such as the glue). I have never claimed that the lifewave patches necessarily work in the way that David Schmidt has claimed. However I will say this again, for those who have had trouble understanding my point of view, for some reason I and many others DID experience an increase in energy.
Able to fly
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 | 12:44 AM
FOR ALL THOSE WITH STATISTICAL TRAINING:

From the following transcript:
"CALLER: It was a total shock. He had just planted a rosebush for my mother, and they had a nice day at the park, and he just was going to feed the dog and passed over.

KING: And he was drawn and thin, and...

ALTEA: May I just say there -- you mentioned a rosebush, and he holds up his hand and tells me that there were two special rosebushes. You only mentioned one, and he tells me that there were two.

CALLER: He planted two that day, you are right. One in my sister's yard and one in my mothers's."

What is the likelihood that Altea only guessed that it was two rather than one rosebush?
Please indicate how you came to your estimate.
Also, please indicate if you would accept this demonstration by Altea as either:
1. A coincidence to be ignored.
2. A good reason for further investigation.
3. Definite proof.

You are welcome to answer if you are not studied in statistics but please indicate that this is the case.
Able to fly
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 | 01:09 AM
Another interesting link:
http://www.dailygrail.com/node/1311

Will WWSN1 read or recognise this claim by Dr Gary Schwartz?

Gary E. Schwartz, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology, Surgery, Medicine, Neurology, and Psychiatry at the University of Arizona, as well as the Director of the Center for Frontier Medicine in Biofield Science and Director of the Human Energy Systems Laboratory.
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 | 01:46 AM
Able to fly said:

"I have never claimed that the lifewave patches necessarily work in the way that David Schmidt has claimed."

What you say is not the issue here. What David Schmidt says, however, IS. He makes claims for the patches and how they allegedly work which he either can't or won't back up. THAT'S the issue. Period. Your opinion (or mine, for that matter) is not the issue.

"However I will say this again, for those who have had trouble understanding my point of view, for some reason I and many others DID experience an increase in energy."

You've been asked before, but I'll try again: how do you know that the "increase in energy" you believe you experienced is attributable to the patches and not to something else?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 | 01:54 AM
Able to fly, in every "psychic reading" I have ever seen, the "psychic" makes many statements and/or asks a LOT of questions of the subject. You have chosen to isolate a small part of the reading you cite. There is NO way to make a fair analysis of that small part of the entire reading.

Over the course of the reading, how many statements did the "psychic" make and how many questions did the "psychic" ask? In order to ascertain the accuracy of the reading, one would have to look at the ENTIRE session, not take one small part out of it. After all, even through sheer guesswork, a "psychic" is likely to get the occasional "hit."

Actually, that's a big part of how cold readings work: the "psychic" throws out a lot of information and leads the subject into revealing a lot of information through questioning. It's a quirk of human nature that people, especially those inclined to believe in "psychic powers" will tend to remember the "hits" and forget the misses after the fact.

In the specific section you cite, how do you know that their actually WERE two rose bushes? Isn't it possible that the subject was persuaded by the "psychic" to misremember how many there were? Believers tend to want to "help" the "psychic" along. It is not possible to determine whether the "psychic" was accurate unless we know how many bushes there actually were. Plus, as I have pointed out, you can't really draw any conclusions from one small part extracted from a longer session. After all, I could probably find a section where the "psychic" misses; would you consider that proof that the "psychic" had no powers?
Cranky Media Guy
Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2005 | 01:00 AM
Anon said:

"It's truly funny, and I have lost respect for 2 or 3 of my friends who bought into the crap. Sadly, one is in pretty deep, after spending 700+ on membership/patches. Schmidt likely makes 675$ on all that!"

I was sent a few patches by someone on this forum a while back; I ultimately sent them on to James Randi. If Schmidt is paying more than a nickle each for these things, HE'S the one being ripped off!
Page 19 of 99 pages ‹ First  < 17 18 19 20 21 >  Last ›

 Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.