Jime":3gohtc94 said:
That's the reason I said I had no response. I'm just not sure how you track down a Japanese doctor. The other part of my answer was just plain old fashion sarcasm.
What are you talking about? Where did you say you had no response?
You sarcasticaly wrote:" The quote from Dr. Yamazaki is void because Google only shows a link to Eco's site."
Does Galleon's recent attempt, and failure, to track him down shed any light on his credibility for you?
Also, I think you should drop the scarcasm for various reasons.
No. The research is suspect, not Japan.
The statement made was that the fact that the research only came from Japan was suspect. "The support for 'far infrared ceramic' seems to all come from Japanese research that is suspect".
I still don't see how you jump to a dismissal of all Japanese research. The Japanese research on far ir emitting ceramic is supect. You are neglecting the first part of the sentence that qualifies the term 'Japanese research'.
Of course there are technologies that come out of Japan. I am at a loss to understand why you would think I think otherwise.
Technology is built on a foundation of research. You suggest that research that only comes from Japan is "suspect".
Again, I suggested no such thing.
Of course there is, although I have no understanding why you bring up blood. I didn't bring it up, or even infer its import in this discussion. There would be plenty of medical applications for this 'technology' on water.
Are you sure that there are no medical applications that benefit from the use of magnets?
Where did that come from? Please read what I actually wrote while keeping the thread of the discussion in mind. I said nothing about using or not using magnets, in general, in medical research. I was indicating that using magnets in the way ECO claims would have plenty of medical applications, not using blood - which I did not bring up - but just using water.
Are you being obtuse on purpose?
Not at all an answer to the question. You claimed that you bought a car seat based on your friends recommendations, and I want to know what you would do if you found that other friends of yours said the same car seat was junk.
I would have asked if they personally had a bad experience with the car seat in question, if they did I would check
www.carseat.org to find out if other users of this car seat have had the same problems and check for any recall notices.[/quote]
So you only question peoples claims if they both use a product and have a negitive review with it? Use and a good review are acceptable without any back up?
Why?
Did you check that the car seat that you bought for your kids based on your friends recommendations actually passed the safety insepections?
No, it is against the law in the state of California (it may be a federal Law as well) to sell any car seat that does not pass the safety inspections. Such a product would find it impossible to make it to the shelves of a retailer therefore it would be a mood point to check. If it's on the shelf it passed.[/quote]
Do you also not check everything else that is against the law in the state of California because you assume the government has done its job?
You have an incredible ability to ignore great chuncks of posts asking you questions that would help me to answer your questions. Why do you do this?
It is not intentional, I am usually responding to multiple questions from multiple users and sometimes I just assume you are asking rhetorical questions. If you can direct me to the questions I failed to respond to, and you feel it will help, I will do my best to answer it.
Please define scientific evidence.
Have you bought the far ir emitting undergarments? Why not?
Why do you think this [it not being used in medicine]is the strongest argument?
If 'Dr. Yamazaki' said psychic surgery was great, would you give it a try?
You say "I have read several positive testimonies from people using the ECO and have no reason to doubt the results they claim". Have you not read positive results from people who claim psychic surgery works? Would you have no reason to doubt the results they claim?
Are you a troll?
Why do you trust them and their advice? Do you assume that somewhere along the line the science was done, giving good evidence that the car seat will protect your children?
Would you please clear this up: In my next post I question your statement that magentic healing aids and the 'real science' behind the effects of magnitism on water. You have not cleard this up, nor have you cleared up this statement: ' I have read about the effects of magnets on water molecules and I think we all agree that the effects are real.'
BTW you answered my question in a earlier post, I just found it weak on unconvincing.
Based on strange, obtuse interpratations of what I wrote.
What I don't see is you finally admitting the difference between proof and scientific evidence. You also still believe that it was difficult to acquire record of findings in favor of a skimmer's function. My post was an attempt to make you understand otherwise.
Obviously there is a difference between proof and scientific evidence. I think that you missed the piont, I was asking for proof of a specific product out performing another specific product backed with scientific evidence. I think this request was in direct response to Righty stating;
The only testing that matters is the testing that shows the effects of the device. In a large sense, it doesn't matter how it works, it matters if you can show the effect of its working. Showing us some studies that show actual differences between water before and after using the device, and we will have something to talk about.
What is the difference between proof and scientific evidence? (Not a rehotorical question)
I am missing your point, as you were given such scientific evidence, and we have been given no evidence (excluding anecdotal) on the working of the Eco. I know, I know you don't find it to be 'scientific'. I am still waiting for you to tell us what scientific means for you.
.....
