I didn't say that the vertigo was caused by the back injury. I said it was due to the same accident. Bppv is often caused by a bang to the head. The diagnosis is to lie down, turn your head to the bad side and tip it backwards, if you have Bppv your eyes spin. You need someone else to watch the movement of your eyes.The diagnosis makes you feel very nausious.
Yes, I know. I've had the tests.Originally Posted by megan
I didn't say your vertigo was caused by the back injury, I just stated I hadn't heard that was a possible explanation for BPPV, that's all.
So, do you have any ideas how the displaced crystals can be dissolved, but the crystals which remain in the correct place are untouched?
How does "he" target the healing with such precision?
This is exactly the sort of reply I was expecting - a string of anecdotes which we are supposed to take at face value.
Where does Dr. Davies practise? There doesn't appear to be a Glen Davies on the GMC's List of Registered Medical Practitioners.
Everyone seems to be getting a little worked up for no reason. I know Psychic Surgery works. Clients who have seen me know that it works. If you don't believe it that's fine don't come to me for treatment.
For those on this forum who think I can help them I will be happy to help in anyway I can.
For anyone who has found offence to the fact that Psychic Surgery exists I am sorry for the way you feel. However I don't think a lot of you will be open for me to change your opinions.
For those who are sceptics I would say that I am happy to be put to the test by any medical profession as long as they are willing to actually tackle it from a serious angle and not out right to try and prove me wrong.
Are you open to changing your opinions? Because we are just as sure that it doesn't work.For anyone who has found offence to the fact that Psychic Surgery exists I am sorry for the way you feel. However I don't think a lot of you will be open for me to change your opinions.
Good, that's a good start.For those who are sceptics I would say that I am happy to be put to the test by any medical profession
If they did that their results would not be taken seriously, the test would not be valid. By the same token, you shouldn't accept a fair test and then, if it shows you in a bad light, just claim that they wanted you to look bad because you can't accept the results. Sound fair?as long as they are willing to actually tackle it from a serious angle and not out right to try and prove me wrong.
What I mean by open to it is that it is a fair test and that they don't intentionally try and prove it wrong if the results are there.
Gary, all you would have to do to prove your ability is to produce a tumour for DNA testing from a patient while under observation. If you can and it is human DNA and a tumour and there is medical evidence to suggest the tumour is now gone then I would fully admit that psychic surgery was real. Can you do that?
What kind of conditions is "psychic surgery" being used for?
I understand that on October 13th there was a demonstration of psychic surgery. Any reported comments?
Anything that heals itself, or responds to conventional treatment. Bit like homeopathy really.
Gary, you appear to have a slight misunderstanding of how these things work. When it comes to medical treatment, it's not a question of not going to see you if we don't believe you, it's a question of you either proving that you can do what you claim, or you being a criminal and ending up in jail. Claiming to cure people, especially cancer, is illegal. You have far more to worry about than what a few skeptics think.
If such a demonstration did indeed take place, was attended by people well-versed in "psychic surgery" and found to be genuine, I somehow think that we'd know about it by now. It would have made front-page news all over the world, torn to shreds everything we thought we knew about biology and physics and made the surgeon a dead cert for a Nobel Prize.
Hi Gary, and welcome to UKS.
Absolutely - any trial of a proposed treatment must be based on an objective protocol ("it is a fair test"), and the implementation must be unbiased ("they don't intentionally try and prove it wrong"). Nobody will disagree with that.
The usual way of conducting a fair trial, which measures results in an objective and reproducible manner, is to use placebo controls.
The usual way to ensure that the personal prejudices of those involved do not effect the outcome is to ensure that the trial is double blinded.
Are you familiar with these ideas?
Here's the thing about scepticism. If it's a person's belief that is making them well, and then a sceptic takes that away from them, who has done more harm?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks