Re: SynchroMeter and Frequency generator

>

December 28, 2000

> Star Trek technology? I think it may already exist! Look up web

site www.phazx.com and go

>to BodyScan 2010......truly amazing technology to say the least.

>

From the website, if one reads the actual substance rather than the

hype, it looks to me like just a fancy overpriced GSR. These sorts

of things have been around for years, like Scientology's E-meter. If

they are making these kinds of claims, then they will need actual

proof rather than the kind of hype I read there.

Pignotti

December 28, 2000

, This system is the most sophisticated one of its kind ever produced. I

have one! I

have used it professionally for 3 years. I can guarantee you it is NOT hype.

The

homeopathic drops off of this machine is what I believe to have saved both my

and my

daughters life from normally terminal forms of cancer. This is the norm for

these systems,

not the exception. When I survived pancreatic cancer I purchased one, as I

wanted to give

others the help I'd been given. I know the developers personally and their

whole

organization is spiritually based and you could not find anyone with more

personal

integrity. And that includes Mother Theresa!!! And i mean that literally.

Pignotti wrote:

>

> > Star Trek technology? I think it may already exist! Look up web

> site www.phazx.com and go

> >to BodyScan 2010......truly amazing technology to say the least.

> >

>

> >From the website, if one reads the actual substance rather than the

> hype, it looks to me like just a fancy overpriced GSR. These sorts

> of things have been around for years, like Scientology's E-meter. If

> they are making these kinds of claims, then they will need actual

> proof rather than the kind of hype I read there.

>

> Pignotti

>

> Learn more from:

>

December 28, 2000

It is not clear if this $30'000 device can detect pollutants and

parasites in the body?

>

> > Yes, that is very good news. I wonder why noone did it so far?

> > Please, keep me informed. This will allow us to have Star Treck

> > technology very soon.

> >

> > >

> > > > Hi!

> > > > Did somebody have a success using the Synchrometer with

frequency

> > > > generator instead of probes?

> > >

> > > I'm currently building a type of Synchrometer. I am using a data

> > aquisition

> > > card which is installed into a pc to generate scanning

frequencies.

> > > Electrodes are attached to the body and feedback of any

harmonics

> > found gets

> > > recorded by the computer. I hope my friend will have the

prototype

> > circuit

> > > built by late Janurary so I can start doing some test scans.

> > >

> > > Ken

> >

> > Learn more from:

> >

December 28, 2000

Hopefully we will see those devices at affordable price for home use.

-------------

> > > Star Trek technology? I think it may already exist! Look up

web

> > site www.phazx.com and go

> > >to BodyScan 2010......truly amazing technology to say the least.

> > >

> >

> > >From the website, if one reads the actual substance rather than

the

> > hype, it looks to me like just a fancy overpriced GSR. These

sorts

> > of things have been around for years, like Scientology's E-

meter. If

> > they are making these kinds of claims, then they will need actual

> > proof rather than the kind of hype I read there.

> >

> > Pignotti

> >

> > Learn more from:

> >

December 28, 2000

Reliable sourced rumour has it that it cost this organization over 1.5 million

dollars in

research to get this system pushed through the FDA's rigid standards for such

devices. If you

saw what all it has the capacity to do you'd think the price is truly a bargain.

I've seen

systems which sold for $80,000 that didn't do a fraction of what this one can.

egov1@... wrote:

> Hopefully we will see those devices at affordable price for home use.

> -------------

>

> > > > Star Trek technology? I think it may already exist! Look up

> web

> > > site www.phazx.com and go

> > > >to BodyScan 2010......truly amazing technology to say the least.

> > > >

> > >

> > > >From the website, if one reads the actual substance rather than

> the

> > > hype, it looks to me like just a fancy overpriced GSR. These

> sorts

> > > of things have been around for years, like Scientology's E-

> meter. If

> > > they are making these kinds of claims, then they will need actual

> > > proof rather than the kind of hype I read there.

> > >

> > > Pignotti

> > >

> > > Learn more from:

> > > http://home.online.no/~dusan/gallstones/

> > > http://home.online.no/~huldakli/

> > > http://www..net/

> > > http://home.online.no/~dusan/

> > >

December 28, 2000

Usually, the market prices that drive down product prices with new

technology is increasing demand followed by increased supply (which takes

advantage of economy of scale). Sadly, I would not predict this taking

place with this very promising product.

Thanks for the first hand account, .

Vince Richter

>From: Blair <lblair@...>

>Reply-Dregroups

>Dregroups

>Subject: Re: Re: SynchroMeter and Frequency generator

>Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:26:00 -0700

>

>Reliable sourced rumour has it that it cost this organization over 1.5

>million dollars in

>research to get this system pushed through the FDA's rigid standards for

>such devices. If you

>saw what all it has the capacity to do you'd think the price is truly a

>bargain. I've seen

>systems which sold for $80,000 that didn't do a fraction of what this one

>can.

>

>egov1@... wrote:

>

> > Hopefully we will see those devices at affordable price for home use.

> > -------------

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

December 28, 2000

Very true! But ONE reason the price is what it is I believe to be the

organizations

spiritual orientation. They turned down money for scholarships and research

from Bill Gates,

among others, because of this.

" V. Richter " wrote:

> Usually, the market prices that drive down product prices with new

> technology is increasing demand followed by increased supply (which takes

> advantage of economy of scale). Sadly, I would not predict this taking

> place with this very promising product.

>

> Thanks for the first hand account, .

>

> Vince Richter

>

> >From: Blair <lblair@...>

> >Reply-Dregroups

> >Dregroups

> >Subject: Re: Re: SynchroMeter and Frequency generator

> >Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 16:26:00 -0700

> >

> >Reliable sourced rumour has it that it cost this organization over 1.5

> >million dollars in

> >research to get this system pushed through the FDA's rigid standards for

> >such devices. If you

> >saw what all it has the capacity to do you'd think the price is truly a

> >bargain. I've seen

> >systems which sold for $80,000 that didn't do a fraction of what this one

> >can.

> >

> >egov1@... wrote:

> >

> > > Hopefully we will see those devices at affordable price for home use.

> > > -------------

>

> _________________________________________________________________

> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

>

> Learn more from:

http://www.mib-berlin.de/rl/np.html

>

December 29, 2000

Anyway, I hope that soon we will have an affordable device for home

use that can be plugged to any home computer, detect parasites and

pathogens within minutes. We have the technology. It is here. THE

FUTURE IS HERE, IN THIS VERY MOMENT! I am reading a book right now,

called " The New Coming Energy Revolution " . In this very moment as you

read this, there are free energy generators in various places on this

planet, that produce FREE energy and are capable of powering homes,

cars, everything (one is available for sell here:

http://www.futurehorizons.net/free.htm ). Would you believe if I tell

you that we had those since 1930, but, sadly, all inventors were

killed... by their own government. Can you imagine the revolution of a

maintenance free electric car with UNLIMITED free power? Or a table

top device that can power your home, your greenhouse, your airplane...

A Synchrometer in every home that will detect any poisons and

parasites in the food, before we consume it? You could live anywhere,

eat your own organic food from the greenhouse... No need anymore to

stick to the crowded sick cities with unhuman atmosphere. For us this

is the New Paradigm to come, for a couple of people is a nightmare,

because their days of power are over.

Talking about a new coming Paradigm, I would recommend you reading

and studying it:

" I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're

afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the

future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I

came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up

this phone and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want

them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you, a world

without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries, a world

where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave

to you. "

from the movie " THE MATRIX "

-------------------------------------------------

> > >

> > > > Hopefully we will see those devices at affordable price for

home use.

> > > > -------------

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

> >

> > Learn more from:

> http://www.mib-berlin.de/rl/np.html

> >

December 29, 2000

AMEN!!!! :-) :-)

egov1@... wrote:

> Anyway, I hope that soon we will have an affordable device for home

> use that can be plugged to any home computer, detect parasites and

> pathogens within minutes. We have the technology. It is here. THE

> FUTURE IS HERE, IN THIS VERY MOMENT! I am reading a book right now,

> called " The New Coming Energy Revolution " . In this very moment as you

> read this, there are free energy generators in various places on this

> planet, that produce FREE energy and are capable of powering homes,

> cars, everything (one is available for sell here:

> http://www.futurehorizons.net/free.htm ). Would you believe if I tell

> you that we had those since 1930, but, sadly, all inventors were

> killed... by their own government. Can you imagine the revolution of a

> maintenance free electric car with UNLIMITED free power? Or a table

> top device that can power your home, your greenhouse, your airplane...

> A Synchrometer in every home that will detect any poisons and

> parasites in the food, before we consume it? You could live anywhere,

> eat your own organic food from the greenhouse... No need anymore to

> stick to the crowded sick cities with unhuman atmosphere. For us this

> is the New Paradigm to come, for a couple of people is a nightmare,

> because their days of power are over.

>

> Talking about a new coming Paradigm, I would recommend you reading

> and studying it:

>

> " I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're

> afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the

> future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I

> came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up

> this phone and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want

> them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you, a world

> without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries, a world

> where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave

> to you. "

> from the movie " THE MATRIX "

>

> -------------------------------------------------

>

> > > >

> > > > > Hopefully we will see those devices at affordable price for

> home use.

> > > > > -------------

> > >

> > > _________________________________________________________________

> > > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

> > >

> > > Learn more from:

> > > http://home.online.no/~dusan/gallstones/

> > > http://home.online.no/~huldakli/

> > > http://www..net/

> > > http://home.online.no/~dusan/

> > >

December 29, 2000

Is there any proof that Bill Gates offered them money for scholarships

and research? If so, where is the proof?

Leo

------------------------------------------

> > >

> > > > Hopefully we will see those devices at affordable price for

home use.

> > > > -------------

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

> >

> > Learn more from:

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject.cfm?FL=B

> >

December 29, 2000

>Reliable sourced rumour has it that it cost this organization over

>1.5 million dollars in research to get this system pushed through

>the FDA's rigid standards for such devices.

It also must have cost them a good deal to deal with the following

letter of warning they received from the FDA which can be viewed in

Adobe Acrobat, if you have that program, at:

As for Bill Gate's offer, if it existed I'm confused about this. Did

this company decide that it was against their spiritual principles to

take money from one of the wealthest men on earth, and yet okay to

charge the average consumer $29,000 for the product? I'm not

following their line of reasoning here.

Pignotti

December 29, 2000

The machine is meant for professionals to use due to the influx of info and

training it takes

to " put the puzzle pieces together " . I was actually in Spencer's office when

one of the

calls from the Gate's organization came in and he was not a happy camper. It was

actually

kind of scary because Gates has a LOT of power. The system is extremely

sophisticated and it

COSTS A LOT TO MAKE IT. I guess until someone understands the technology

involved it is

difficult to understand this. They don't make very much money from selling the

system. I

have known these people well for 17 years, they could be very wealthy from this

technoloy and

clearly are not. Their intent and integrity are in alignment with God. I just

wanted to

try and share something very special to me, as I feel everyone should know about

this system

and what all it can do. I feel it saved both my life and my daughter's life, and

I would've

paid a LOT more than what I did for it. I am really sorry so many of you are so

suspicious

and don't seem to understand that this system is truly ahead of its time and is

space age

technology. Naive on my part.

Also, this organization truly tries to live their lives in alignment with " God "

as much as

humanly possible and do business with those that do.......somehow I don't think

this would

include Gates.... Also, trust me here. one just doesn't " take money " from Bill

Gates. There

are strings attached.

Pignotti wrote:

>

> >Reliable sourced rumour has it that it cost this organization over

> >1.5 million dollars in research to get this system pushed through

> >the FDA's rigid standards for such devices.

>

> It also must have cost them a good deal to deal with the following

> letter of warning they received from the FDA which can be viewed in

> Adobe Acrobat, if you have that program, at:

>

> http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject.cfm?FL=B

>

> As for Bill Gate's offer, if it existed I'm confused about this. Did

> this company decide that it was against their spiritual principles to

> take money from one of the wealthest men on earth, and yet okay to

> charge the average consumer $29,000 for the product? I'm not

> following their line of reasoning here.

>

> Pignotti

>

> Learn more from:

> > http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject.cfm?FL=B

>

December 31, 2000

A good start at proof, but the person who actually took the call

should report it here, and give the name of the person in Gates'

organization who made the call. And if the caller confirmed...then we

have proof.

Leo

-------------------------------

> > >Reliable sourced rumour has it that it cost this organization

over

> > >1.5 million dollars in research to get this system pushed through

> > >the FDA's rigid standards for such devices.

> >

> > It also must have cost them a good deal to deal with the following

> > letter of warning they received from the FDA which can be viewed

in

> > Adobe Acrobat, if you have that program, at:

> >

> >

> > As for Bill Gate's offer, if it existed I'm confused about this.

Did

> > this company decide that it was against their spiritual principles

to

> > take money from one of the wealthest men on earth, and yet okay to

> > charge the average consumer $29,000 for the product? I'm not

> > following their line of reasoning here.

> >

> > Pignotti

> >

> > Learn more from:

> > > http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject.cfm?FL=B

> >

December 31, 2000

Somehow Leo I don't think the person who took the call cares if you believe the

story or

not. As a matter of fact I don't much care myself. You're making way too big a

deal outof

this. I just wanted to share this special machine with everybody. If you think

it is a farce

then so be it.

leoelfie@... wrote:

> A good start at proof, but the person who actually took the call

> should report it here, and give the name of the person in Gates'

> organization who made the call. And if the caller confirmed...then we

> have proof.

> Leo

> -------------------------------

>

> > > >Reliable sourced rumour has it that it cost this organization

> over

> > > >1.5 million dollars in research to get this system pushed through

> > > >the FDA's rigid standards for such devices.

> > >

> > > It also must have cost them a good deal to deal with the following

> > > letter of warning they received from the FDA which can be viewed

> in

> > > Adobe Acrobat, if you have that program, at:

> > >

> > >

> > > As for Bill Gate's offer, if it existed I'm confused about this.

> Did

> > > this company decide that it was against their spiritual principles

> to

> > > take money from one of the wealthest men on earth, and yet okay to

> > > charge the average consumer $29,000 for the product? I'm not

> > > following their line of reasoning here.

> > >

> > > Pignotti

> > >

> > > Learn more from:

> > > http://home.online.no/~dusan/gallstones/

> > > http://home.online.no/~huldakli/

> > > http://www..net/

> > > http://home.online.no/~dusan/

> > >

December 31, 2000

and Leo,

This cuts to the heart of the controversy between Conventional and

Alternative medicine. What is proof? I submit that if an adult looks at

all the evidence and decides what they believe, then acts on that belief,

and it works: That's proof. This places the responsiblity on each

individual instead of on " them " , whether it be the govenment, the

conventional health industry, or anyone else. The reason many of us are on

this list is because we are willing to accept anecdotal or other

non-conventional proof and act on it. If it works, fine. If it doesn't,

fine. Part of the personal responsibility that we must assume is to do

ourselves no harm in the process.

Vince Richter

>From: Blair <lblair@...>

>Reply-Dregroups

>Dregroups

>Subject: Re: Re: SynchroMeter and Frequency generator

>Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2000 00:16:21 -0700

>

>Somehow Leo I don't think the person who took the call cares if you believe

>the story or

>not. As a matter of fact I don't much care myself. You're making way too

>big a deal outof

>this. I just wanted to share this special machine with everybody. If you

>think it is a farce

>then so be it.

>

>leoelfie@... wrote:

>

> > A good start at proof, but the person who actually took the call

> > should report it here, and give the name of the person in Gates'

> > organization who made the call. And if the caller confirmed...then we

> > have proof.

> > Leo

> > -------------------------------

> >

> > > > >Reliable sourced rumour has it that it cost this organization

> > over

> > > > >1.5 million dollars in research to get this system pushed through

> > > > >the FDA's rigid standards for such devices.

> > > >

> > > > It also must have cost them a good deal to deal with the following

> > > > letter of warning they received from the FDA which can be viewed

> > in

> > > > Adobe Acrobat, if you have that program, at:

> > > >

> > > > http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/wlcfm/subject.cfm?FL=B

> > > >

> > > > As for Bill Gate's offer, if it existed I'm confused about this.

> > Did

> > > > this company decide that it was against their spiritual principles

> > to

> > > > take money from one of the wealthest men on earth, and yet okay to

> > > > charge the average consumer $29,000 for the product? I'm not

> > > > following their line of reasoning here.

> > > >

> > > > Pignotti

> > > >

> > > > Learn more from:

> > > > http://home.online.no/~dusan/gallstones/

> > > > http://home.online.no/~huldakli/

> > > > http://www..net/

> > > > http://home.online.no/~dusan/

> > > >

January 2, 2001

> Reliable sourced rumour has it that it cost this organization over

1.5 million dollars in

> research to get this system pushed through the FDA's rigid

standards for such devices.

From the IABP (International Academy of Bionetric Practitioners - the

recommended place to be trained according to the phazx.com page)

website:

" Different EAV systems may or may not be registered as medical

devices. In either case, it must be understood that they are not

approved for sale as diagnostic devices, and their use cannot be

construed as or considered a medical procedure. These devices cannot

diagnose specific conditions within the body or treat any diseases.

Phazx Systems, Inc. makes no claims regarding the practice or

particular use of this equipment in any particular state. "

So is it the 2010 system which got " pushed through the FDA's

standards? " Under what label? As a biofeedback machine? Then

marketing it as a homeopathiuc whatever behind the scenes or in the

training classrooms would be unethical. Does the " end justify the

means " ... get a machine approved as a simple biofeedback machine

(which doesn't take a gazillion dollars to egtt approved ... it's a

pretty unextraordinary concept. In fact the 2010 is described as a

GSR and EMG machine in the promo lit on the page).

Does anyone on the list know what the initials signify and what the

machines actually do?

JALyons

January 2, 2001

>

> and Leo,

> This cuts to the heart of the controversy between Conventional and

> Alternative medicine. What is proof? I submit that if an adult

looks at

> all the evidence and decides what they believe, then acts on that

belief,

> and it works: That's proof.

No, that is not " proof. " That is belief or opinion.

The language used (in English anyway) to define " proof " includes

words like " truth " and " conclusive evidence. " Also the concepts

of " testing " and " proving " are included in the idea of " proof. "

Now you may chose to believe that looking at " all the evidence "

(????) is what an adult does and then he/she decides what he/she

believes, acts on it and that is " proof. " But that is your opinion /

belief about proof, not a dictionary based definition.

If you are the defendent in a case you surely would not want to be

found guilty based on someone's belief about you. You, and generally

speaking, the courts would require that unless they could provide

evidence ... facts and objects and testimony which could be examined,

that their claims would not be deemd to be true.

There are many reasons why things seem to work. When something does

work it does not necessarily mean my explanation or understanding of

why it works is proof or evidence at all.

You are quite correct, if I understand you correctly, that this is a

major difference between Conventional (science based) and Alternative

medicine.

Alt proof is anecdotal, and selective, as well as being difficult if

not impossible to reproduce. It is not open to skeptical analysis as

it does not have to meet the narrow definitions for evidence, or

utilize the highly valued criteria of the scientific method.

Science is not a dirty word. Neither is belief or opinion or proof...

But it is important to have a good grasp on the definitions of the

words, otherwise one falls down the black hole of postmodern thinking

which in part allows one to make truth out of any blessed scrap of

fantasy they find appealing.

Adult people who are mature in their thinking are not afraid of

accountability.

JALyons

January 2, 2001

The BodyScan is registered as a Biefeedback Classified II Medical Device, GMP

and ISO 9000

compliant. This is how we hook up to do the testing...as a biofeedback machine.

Trust me

(what a joke), the FDA is acutely aware that this is a homeopathic device.

There is nothing

unethical about the marketing of this device, none the less the company.. If

you were to

ever experience being tested by one of these devices you'd never refer to it as

a simple

biofeedback machine again. I am beginning to be sorry I shared this. Had I any

idea what I

was getting into I would not have done it.

jalyons@... wrote:

>

> > Reliable sourced rumour has it that it cost this organization over

> 1.5 million dollars in

> > research to get this system pushed through the FDA's rigid

> standards for such devices.

>

> >From the IABP (International Academy of Bionetric Practitioners - the

> recommended place to be trained according to the phazx.com page)

> website:

>

> " Different EAV systems may or may not be registered as medical

> devices. In either case, it must be understood that they are not

> approved for sale as diagnostic devices, and their use cannot be

> construed as or considered a medical procedure. These devices cannot

> diagnose specific conditions within the body or treat any diseases.

> Phazx Systems, Inc. makes no claims regarding the practice or

> particular use of this equipment in any particular state. "

>

> So is it the 2010 system which got " pushed through the FDA's

> standards? " Under what label? As a biofeedback machine? Then

> marketing it as a homeopathiuc whatever behind the scenes or in the

> training classrooms would be unethical. Does the " end justify the

> means " ... get a machine approved as a simple biofeedback machine

> (which doesn't take a gazillion dollars to egtt approved ... it's a

> pretty unextraordinary concept. In fact the 2010 is described as a

> GSR and EMG machine in the promo lit on the page).

>

> Does anyone on the list know what the initials signify and what the

> machines actually do?

>

> JALyons

>

> Learn more from:

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/m3766n.pdf

>

January 2, 2001

> So is it the 2010 system which got " pushed through the FDA's

> standards? " Under what label? As a biofeedback machine? Then

> marketing it as a homeopathiuc whatever behind the scenes or in the

> training classrooms would be unethical. Does the " end justify the

> means " ... get a machine approved as a simple biofeedback machine

> (which doesn't take a gazillion dollars to egtt approved ... it's a

> pretty unextraordinary concept. In fact the 2010 is described as a

> GSR and EMG machine in the promo lit on the page).

>

> Does anyone on the list know what the initials signify and what the

> machines actually do?

You and anyone else who'd like to see actual documentation from the

FDA might find it helpful to look at the warning letter they sent to

Phazx, which is available at the following site:

This letter, dated May 19, 2000, makes it clear what the devices were

approved and not approved for.

Here's what the letter says about the Body Scan 2010 (which is

what " K892114 " refers to):

" Premarket notification K892114 was cleared under section 510(k) of

the Act and is a biofeedback machine for relaxation training,

providing electromyograph, galvanic skin response, and skin

temperature biofeedback. "

The entire letter can be viewed at the above listed site.

Pignotti

January 2, 2001

JA,

Comments below.

>From: jalyons@...

>Reply-Dregroups

>Dregroups

>Subject: Re: SynchroMeter and Frequency generator

>Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 01:49:25 -0000

>

> >

> > and Leo,

> > This cuts to the heart of the controversy between Conventional and

> > Alternative medicine. What is proof? I submit that if an adult

>looks at

> > all the evidence and decides what they believe, then acts on that

>belief,

> > and it works: That's proof.

>

>No, that is not " proof. " That is belief or opinion.

>

>The language used (in English anyway) to define " proof " includes

>words like " truth " and " conclusive evidence. " Also the concepts

>of " testing " and " proving " are included in the idea of " proof. "

>

Proof leads to belief or opinion. Of course, belief or opinion can be

strictly emotional with no proof. Our disagreement is seemingly what

constitutes valid, trust your health on it type, proof. There are all

different degrees of proof. You've chosen what is valid proof to you. I've

chosen what is valid to me. Trust me, I don't take every claim of alt

health folks as true. I also don't automatically take the claims of the

Conventional medicine as true. The conventional, and in some cases alt

health, are still sucking the life out of people as they used to do with

leaches. We've just gotten more high tech and sophisticated.

Lets look at what the English Language Webster Illustrated Contemporary

Dictionary Encyclopedic Edition Published by J. G. Ferguson Publishing

Company Chicago, Illinois 1982 ISBN 0-89434-032-8 says that proof means.

While we are looking at it, JA, keep in mind that this, not your opinion, is

the meaning of the word proof. [my own comments will be in brackets]

1. The act or process of proving; esp,. the establishment of a fact by

evidence or a truth by other truths. [testimonials are truths when

reliable: " this happened to me when I took xyz. of course reliability is

important. Also involved in the interpretation of testimonials is that it

doesn't mean that the same thing will happen to anyone else when they take

xyz. That's where seeking many testimonials comes in and learning about the

reasons xyz works and why it may not.]

2. A trial of strength, truth, fact, or excellence, etc,; a test. [This is

what we do when we take something that we think might help us. If it helps

us we use it. If it doesn't, we quit using it or find out what prevented it

from working and try it differently.]

3 Evidence and argument sufficient to induce belief,

4. (In Law) Anything [yes, Websters says ANYTHING, it doesn't say a thing

about CONCLUSIVE evidence or ESTABLISHED, ACCEPTED truth] that serves to

convince the mind of the truth or falsity of a fact or proposition.

5 The state or quality of having successfully undergone a proof or test.

6. - 12. [these definitions pertain to printing and alchohol proofs]

[i'm not about to narrow the definition of " evidence " or " proof " much

narrower than our language defines it. To do so would require me to believe

only the elite's opinion about what I need to do. They would then be the

only ones who could provide proof with their multimillion dollar studies.

One of the main things wrong with relegating to them the right to say what

treatments are valid is that they choose what to study and approve based

primarily on profit potential - not efficacy].

Really, I don't disagree with most of what you say. We are really only in

disagreement of what is valid proof. I won't lengthen this by going into

all the different degrees of reliability. For instance, I would need a more

reliable proof of efficacy to give a treatment to another besides myself

than I would need to try something myself, etc.........

>Now you may chose to believe that looking at " all the evidence "

>(????) is what an adult does and then he/she decides what he/she

>believes, acts on it and that is " proof. " But that is your opinion /

>belief about proof, not a dictionary based definition.

>

>If you are the defendent in a case you surely would not want to be

>found guilty based on someone's belief about you. You, and generally

>speaking, the courts would require that unless they could provide

>evidence ... facts and objects and testimony which could be examined,

>that their claims would not be deemd to be true.

>

>There are many reasons why things seem to work. When something does

>work it does not necessarily mean my explanation or understanding of

>why it works is proof or evidence at all.

>

>You are quite correct, if I understand you correctly, that this is a

>major difference between Conventional (science based) and Alternative

>medicine.

>

>Alt proof is anecdotal, and selective, as well as being difficult if

>not impossible to reproduce. It is not open to skeptical analysis as

>it does not have to meet the narrow definitions for evidence, or

>utilize the highly valued criteria of the scientific method.

>

>Science is not a dirty word. Neither is belief or opinion or proof...

>

>But it is important to have a good grasp on the definitions of the

>words, otherwise one falls down the black hole of postmodern thinking

>which in part allows one to make truth out of any blessed scrap of

>fantasy they find appealing.

>

>Adult people who are mature in their thinking are not afraid of

>accountability.

>

>JALyons

>

JA, I do respect your opinion on this and on everything else. I hope I

didn't come off as adversarial. There was no intention to be.

Vince Richter

_________________________________________________________________

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

January 3, 2001

Sorry , this is registered as a NON-COGNITIVE bio-feedback machine. Now

go do your

homework and figure out what this means. Also, wrong number! Woops!

Pignotti wrote:

>

> > So is it the 2010 system which got " pushed through the FDA's

> > standards? " Under what label? As a biofeedback machine? Then

> > marketing it as a homeopathiuc whatever behind the scenes or in the

> > training classrooms would be unethical. Does the " end justify the

> > means " ... get a machine approved as a simple biofeedback machine

> > (which doesn't take a gazillion dollars to egtt approved ... it's a

> > pretty unextraordinary concept. In fact the 2010 is described as a

> > GSR and EMG machine in the promo lit on the page).

> >

> > Does anyone on the list know what the initials signify and what the

> > machines actually do?

>

> You and anyone else who'd like to see actual documentation from the

> FDA might find it helpful to look at the warning letter they sent to

> Phazx, which is available at the following site:

>

> http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/m3766n.pdf

>

> This letter, dated May 19, 2000, makes it clear what the devices were

> approved and not approved for.

>

> Here's what the letter says about the Body Scan 2010 (which is

> what " K892114 " refers to):

> " Premarket notification K892114 was cleared under section 510(k) of

> the Act and is a biofeedback machine for relaxation training,

> providing electromyograph, galvanic skin response, and skin

> temperature biofeedback. "

>

> The entire letter can be viewed at the above listed site.

>

> Pignotti

>

> Learn more from: