Jump to content

White Powder Gold


travis418
 Share

Recommended Posts

colloidal gold is a black/gray color in a clear liquid (I use it in photography), Gold Chloride on the other hand is indeed Gold colored.

yes you can absorb amounts of this into your system without a problem, I`m not sure if it plays any biological role though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I`ve no idea in all honesty, but my Opinion would be yes, it should have a Very similar effect.

I know silver nitrate will go gray/black on the skin after UV (sunshine) exposure and Gold Chloride goes Purple/black with same.

 

so I would say yes it should have the same effect (IMO).

 

edit: yes I was correct in my assessment, such a condition Does exist: "Chrysiasis"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysiasis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

My apologies for bringing up an old topic but it recently became one of interest for me as I was exploring it as a possible supplement I would try.

 

I always find it amusing when armchair "scientists" declare with absolution that something is crap or bogus or can't be true, just because it appears to be outlandish on the surface. A true scientist or one with a scientific mind, without any agenda should allow for ANY possibility and seek to explore the validity of that possibility.

 

It appears that a peer reviewed paper published in 1997 no less shows the dramatic improvement in the condition of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers through the administration of colloidal gold containing monovalent gold or gold salt:

 

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13590849762411

 

Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine. Seems there is something going on here. I suspect that the claims of gold being able to repair damaged DNA may not be so outlandish. Gold is a substance used to anchor DNA strands when being examined by electron tunneling microscopes so perhaps the monovalent gold bonds to the DNA strands or helps the DNA maintain its integrity. The theory has some validity.

 

As for the Chrysiasis issue, that problem was more of an issue with the treatment of tuberculosis with much higher doses. And the discoloration appears around the injection site. Do you guys actually read the links you're citing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm aware of tests done on cancer cells with a gold nano particles.

 

http://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/6/1/2#IDAYBQ5M

 

I know individuals who think that monatomic gold brings on an enlightened state and I find them a little nutty.

 

Maybe just start a practice of daily meditation for that end.

 

Here's Dave Hudson and his two bobs worth too.

 

.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyAcgN_LBMQ&feature=related

Edited by throng
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies for bringing up an old topic but it recently became one of interest for me as I was exploring it as a possible supplement I would try.

 

I always find it amusing when armchair "scientists" declare with absolution that something is crap or bogus or can't be true, just because it appears to be outlandish on the surface. A true scientist or one with a scientific mind, without any agenda should allow for ANY possibility and seek to explore the validity of that possibility.

 

It appears that a peer reviewed paper published in 1997 no less shows the dramatic improvement in the condition of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers through the administration of colloidal gold containing monovalent gold or gold salt:

 

http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13590849762411

 

Journal of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine. Seems there is something going on here. I suspect that the claims of gold being able to repair damaged DNA may not be so outlandish. Gold is a substance used to anchor DNA strands when being examined by electron tunneling microscopes so perhaps the monovalent gold bonds to the DNA strands or helps the DNA maintain its integrity. The theory has some validity.

 

As for the Chrysiasis issue, that problem was more of an issue with the treatment of tuberculosis with much higher doses. And the discoloration appears around the injection site. Do you guys actually read the links you're citing?

 

Do you?

 

Gold salts of monovalent gold (AU I) with a gold-sulfur ligand (aurothiolates) are the only form of gold currently in use for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA)

 

Gold salts. Not monoatomic gold, aka ORMUS, which is a bunch hooey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Dear travis418 and all the contributors of this discussion.

 

Please know that I have an engineering degree, so I consider this as an educated answer.

 

I've worked with Alchemy for quite some time now, and I feel compelled to answer your questions from the perspective of my own experience with Alchemy (not from speculation).

 

I understand this discussion might be controversial to many, since we are on a science forum. Please understand that science offers simply a model of reality as currently perceived, true scientists know our understanding evolved over time. Their attitude is of humble curiosity and they are rarely infected by the illusion that they know it all, and by the arrogance that comes with it.

 

I seek not to convince anyone, especially the many "know it all" that are probably deeply rooted in classical materialism - I seek to answer those who genuinely want to know.

 

My experience comes from being taught Alchemy by those guys www.treasurealchemy.com

 

First of all, the monoatomic/ORMUS/ORMEs/m-state people claim (and genuinely believe) they are dealing with alchemy, they are not. This is just baby stuff.

 

If you investigate this domain long enough, like I did, you will reach the true product of Alchemy which is a mysterious white powder that has been called the Philosopher's Stone. This is what is described in ancient texts from all traditions. It was called Mana in the Jewish tradition, Mfkzt in ancient Egypt, Shem-an-na in ancient Babylon. One can also find the following names: The Elixir of Life – Star Fire – The food of the gods – the Philosopher Stone.

 

This powder is real, tangible, the method of production is known (I am using it) - and you can read a bit of my journey here: http://www.realphilosopherstone.com/

 

Now, how can one understand this powder from a scientific perspective?

 

Here is a letter written by my teachers a while ago. It is available nowhere else, and it will help you understand this wacky world.

 

I have adapted the text a bit with links to reference sites so that you can verify some claims.

 

Letter:

 

Neither Hudson, nor anybody else we know did understand really what was happening. Chemistry deluded them. If you are totally rooted in classical chemistry and physics, your eyes will se what you believe in, you will find proof for that in analytical results, and you will not think “beyond”. You have to accept that there might be something else or something more to see that something.

 

We have a close friend in the US with firm chemical, physical and biological academic background who made analyses of the powder. The analyses gave quite similar results as Hudson’s, but a different method was used.

 

But: Hudson says, this white powder consists of monoatomic transient elements. The spectroscopic method he used is based on heating the powder for a relatively long time on a graphite electrode and then assaying it. Then it assays as these elements. Nobody ever proved that they are really monoatomic. It is just a speculation, and has been shown to be incorrect see here. Hudson thought his white powder WAS a monoatomic transient metal mixture when he put it onto the electrode. It was not!! When this powder meets graphite on high temperature and long enough time, it TURNS into these transient elements. White powder IS NOT a transient metal mixture, it TURNS to that in certain circumstances!

 

We put our powder into a graphite vessel, covered it all with graphite powder and then heated it at 1400 Celsius for 24-36 hours. Then the tiny metallic particles produced during this time and the remaining powder were assayed – and guess what, the mixture assayed as silica, gold, copper, magnesium, potassium, chromium, iron, sulphur, etc. When it is done in an inert atmosphere and not just under air, the results are somewhat different. The result of this method somewhat changes depending on reaction time and temperature. In some cases, the reduced powder contained some rhodium, platinum, etc.

 

So it turned out, that our powder transforms into a mixture of NEW elements when heating under such conditions.

 

As you most certainly know, SiO2 cannot be altered into any other element without extremely large energy input, requiring energy levels of an atomic reactor. When you have to jiggle electrons, protons, neutrons, you need those energy levels. Now in our case with some graphite and heat for some time, the miracle happens. So as a conclusive remark, we should add that this SiO2 is a very peculiar one, because such changes are impossible according to the present chemical and physical knowledge.

 

The carbon energy reduction might be what actually happens to the ingested powder in the body. The human body is some kind of an alchemical crucible. It can “use” this powder. We think something very similar is happening in our bodies but unfortunately scientifically it cannot be checked yet. However, judging subjectively from the resultant robust health and very high energy levels, the changes are tremendously beneficial.

 

If or when you are “ready”, it will come to you. You cannot search for it. You can only find it. Or does it find you? Maybe.

 

The only one real personal report on the Internet about the effect of wpg was an interview with an unidentified man from Hudson’s group. It is rather dim or misty when you read it and you don’t understand what he says and why he says it so. Now we know. Our whole experience-mass is so “otherworldly” in a way that it is almost incommunicable.

 

Moreover, when you put the powder into a Faraday cage, you can feel its Meisner field. We tried several methods to utilize its power. You can put it into a metal pendant and wear it in your neck, for example. It has a profound effect even this way, just by constantly interacting with the aura of the body.

 

There was a thermogravimetric analysis done with our powder. First, it was attempted under helium atmosphere. The powder was taken and put on a precise scale and heated up to ca. 1000 degrees Centigarde. The assay had to be terminated about halfway, because the powder behaved in a very unusual way. It's weight was jumping up and down and making the equipment and the personnel go mental. Then the next measurement was done in nitrogen atmosphere. Here the powder was calm. From 100 up to 800 degrees C, it was loosing its weight gradually and at ca. 800 it stabilised having lost 25% of its original weight. Up to 1100 degrees it did not change any more. When it cooled, its weight remained minus 25%.

 

Later in the letter, they wrote:

 

Now we can make healing powders designed exactly for a sick person to heal him/her. And it works. The only exception might be when the soul does really want to quit...

 

The question on how healing occurs is discussed here: http://www.treasurealchemy.com/1-creations-and-effects-of-achemy - it is discussed around 13 minutes 30 sec.

 

If you have questions, ask and I will do my best to answer you.

 

All the best to you.

Edited by Saint Germain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have questions, ask and I will do my best to answer you.
I find this part a bit too convenient:

 

This knowledge of this powder is somewhat of an alchemical secret. Nobody talks about it. We can understand that now, this is wise to behave so. If or when you are “ready”, it will come to you. You cannot search for it. You can only find it. Or does it find you? Maybe.
It's a secret that you now believe it is wise to protect, and nobody else can search for it until they are ready to accept that it's true? If you want acceptance from the scientific community, doesn't it make sense to work within the scientific method and make some of the powder and your test results available to others so your work can be reproduced and verified, then peer reviewed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The word "secret" here isn't meant in the sense "needs to be kept away from others" - it is more like a realization that comes to you when your consciousness is ready.

 

The very idea of such an exotic material is so beyond what the average scientist has been trained to think and believe that it is automatically rejected as "nonsense".

 

And it IS nonsense, yet this is how it is.

 

As stated, I don't seek acceptance from the scientific community at all. This stuff doesn't fit in today's scientific framework, and science will need to go a long way to integrate this, if it ever can.

 

Nevertheless, Alchemy is a precise science (please don't choke) in the sense that it is repeatable by anyone (obviously, since I have followed my teacher's method and have produced the Stone myself), and it works every time. Now can the process be understood and explained within the current scientific understanding? Certainly not, and it might never be fully explained by science.

 

And if you think that the nature of the powder is weird, let me assure you that its creation violates the very foundation of physics - but I will not disclose more about this publicly.

 

As an Engineer, I am pleased to see that tests have been performed, that the powder has been studied with various scientific equipments and methods.

 

But as an Engineer, I am also well aware of the limits of science. Not everything can be fully grasped within the scientific perspective, especially the way science has been defined since Descartes, Newton, and all these mighty figures: as an objective reality made of dry impersonal matter.

 

As an Alchemist, I am pleased that these tests confirm that the substance is exotic - but I know the real value is in its use, not its study.

 

Doesn't it make sense to work within the scientific method and make some of the powder and your test results available to others so your work can be reproduced and verified, then peer reviewed?

 

Your question is very natural from a scientific logic.

 

Now let me ask you: how do you suggest to set up a thorough study of the powder using the scientific method? What would be the purpose of having it published and peer reviewed?

 

Let me remind you that it HAS been analyzed and the studies tell us "what you are looking at will laugh at you - I will show up as different matters, change weight".

 

People have performed these scientific studies and have arrived at a point where they throw up their hands in despair, saying they cannot account for what they see.

 

Science likes to put thing in boxes of knowledge. Many scientists actually believe that by studying, observing and measuring something, you can actually know what it is. You may know a bit ABOUT something, but you don't know what it is.

 

Now you may not like what I will write next, and I do not know to what degree you are educated in the nature of reality (beyond the mechanical understanding), but this is the truth.

 

The Stone has been sought for years, many have invested fortunes, have risked their lives to uncover the secrets of Alchemy.

 

Why do you think it is so?

 

Because when used in the alchemical context, it is magnificent gift that allows one to accomplish miracles.

 

The Stone isn't to be understood as matter that you can use to build stuff. The Stone reacts to consciousness - and is to be used within a spiritual context. This is the context of Alchemy as it was used in former civilizations, and as it is used today.

 

I understand if people refuse to integrate this in their worldview, reject this, call this view crackpot, or any other funky names. I know I would have done so a few years earlier.

 

Now again, we are outside of the scientific domain - no one is asking you to believe anything - I am just sharing my perspective.

Edited by Saint Germain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have performed these scientific studies and have arrived at a point where they throw up their hands in despair, saying they cannot account for what they see.

 

So, where are the peer-reviewed studies showing what they did, and how they cannot account for it? Things that behave strangely are considered very interesting by scientists, because it points to something where they could gain new understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dear Mr Skeptic,

 

You seem to have a very idealized view of science... Actually, I think scientists have two major types of behaviors when facing "things that behave strangely".

 

The large majority purely and simply rejects it because it doesn't fit their understanding. They treat the thing as not possible before proven otherwise, they feel threatened by the unknown and have a very attacking attitude, and seem on a crusade to preserve their current worldview (which is often hard materialism).

 

Only a small group of scientists actually have an open-minded attitude and consider the phenomena - these are the geniuses who help humanity make giant leaps.

 

Now, I could give you something from a major US university - but I'm not sure you even know why you are asking for these studies.

 

So, give me your view on these questions, and I will give you something:

 

1. What do you mean by "peer-reviewed" study? People looking at other people's measurements? Stand-alone measurements are not peer-reviewed, scientific papers offering some kind of theory or hypothesis are. Do you understand what the process of peer-reviewing entails?

 

2. Then the two same questions as for Phi for all.

How do you suggest to set up a thorough study of the powder using the scientific method? What would be the purpose of having it published and peer-reviewed?


Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
White powder gold is a bunch of hooey! Seriously though, like many have already said above me, it is. Like Mr. Skeptic said, let us see the scientific studies.

 

I'm curious, why are you asking for scientific studies if you know it is "hooey"?

 

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption of scientism. Let me remind you that I seek not to prove or convince, but inform on the very first question asked.

Edited by Saint Germain
Consecutive posts merged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The large majority purely and simply rejects it because it doesn't fit their understanding. They treat the thing as not possible before proven otherwise, they feel threatened by the unknown and have a very attacking attitude, and seem on a crusade to preserve their current worldview (which is often hard materialism).

Alternately, the unknown can provide a convenient way to get large amounts of grant money and graduate students to do research with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now let me ask you: how do you suggest to set up a thorough study of the powder using the scientific method?
Take any of your non-natural results (like the one where your powder changes into other elements), show some research, make a prediction, set up an experiment to test those predictions and review the results. Share your findings with everyone.
What would be the purpose of having it published and peer reviewed?
Validity.

 

Let me remind you that it HAS been analyzed and the studies tell us "what you are looking at will laugh at you - I will show up as different matters, change weight".
Can you link us to those studies?

 

People have performed these scientific studies and have arrived at a point where they throw up their hands in despair, saying they cannot account for what they see.
This would be HUGE news. I haven't seen anything about it. Scientists love two things almost equally about peer review: confirming results and being part of the new frontier, and proving the results flawed after thorough testing. They do NOT love throwing up their hands and saying they can't account for what they see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alternately, the unknown can provide a convenient way to get large amounts of grant money and graduate students to do research with.

 

I agree that the unknown can be used for deceit, it has been, currently is, and most probably will be.

 

I'm not sure it is a justification repel other suggestions with an attacking attitude, especially from scientific people, who often consider themselves as educated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dear Mr Skeptic,

 

You seem to have a very idealized view of science... Actually, I think scientists have two major types of behaviors when facing "things that behave strangely".

 

The large majority purely and simply rejects it because it doesn't fit their understanding. They treat the thing as not possible before proven otherwise, they feel threatened by the unknown and have a very attacking attitude, and seem on a crusade to preserve their current worldview (which is often hard materialism).

 

No real scientists do this. Anything that violates the known laws of physics is considered absurdly unlikely, unless it happens to be true -- in which case, Nobel Prize gets awarded.

 

Only a small group of scientists actually have an open-minded attitude and consider the phenomena - these are the geniuses who help humanity make giant leaps.

 

Nope, only the ones who follow the scientific method make the great leaps. The others are a bunch of crazies with no evidence (if they had evidence it would be scientific).

 

Now, I could give you something from a major US university - but I'm not sure you even know why you are asking for these studies.

 

So, give me your view on these questions, and I will give you something:

 

1. What do you mean by "peer-reviewed" study? People looking at other people's measurements? Stand-alone measurements are not peer-reviewed, scientific papers offering some kind of theory or hypothesis are. Do you understand what the process of peer-reviewing entails?

 

Of course I understand peer review. A study in evidence of what you are suggesting would detail how the substance was obtained, what was done with it, and show that the results contradict or cannot be explained by the known laws of physics. The peer review would verify that said claim is not based on a misunderstanding nor on poor experimental setup.

 

2. Then the two same questions as for Phi for all.

How do you suggest to set up a thorough study of the powder using the scientific method? What would be the purpose of having it published and peer-reviewed?

 

Because there are a bunch of crazy dumb people, and no one with any sense will believe this unless they either did it for themselves (which requires it to be published) or because they are vouched for by real scientists (peer review). The paper just has to describe what was done and the results.

 

I'm curious, why are you asking for scientific studies if you know it is "hooey"?

 

He's giving you the benefit of the doubt, on the possibility that he is one who is mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the unknown can be used for deceit, it has been, currently is, and most probably will be.

 

I'm not sure it is a justification repel other suggestions with an attacking attitude, especially from scientific people, who often consider themselves as educated.

 

I didn't say anything about deceit. I suggested that a scientist would love the unknown because it gives him something to research and can get him grant money to do the research with. Researching stuff that's already known won't get you a grant or a job -- it's pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about deceit. I suggested that a scientist would love the unknown because it gives him something to research and can get him grant money to do the research with. Researching stuff that's already known won't get you a grant or a job -- it's pointless.

 

My apologies, I must have misunderstood you.

 

I agree with this mindset loving the unknown, but the shortcut to the research is too fast in my opinion.

 

A good example of this is psy phenomena. Dean Radin is doing a tremendous job in providing evidences of phenomena like clairvoyance, influence of REG (random event generators) with intention, telepathy, and many such phenomena - yet he had to go to a private institute to do his research since no money is being granted to do the research.

 

Otherwise, let me share one of my favorite quote about the open-mindset:

 

"Sit down before fact as a little child, be prepared to give up every preconceived notion, follow humbly wherever and whatever abysses nature leads, or you will learn nothing." - Thomas Henry Huxley

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Germain, since you seem to have misplaced your logic in the defence of "white powder gold". I will attempt to clear up your misunderstandings.

 

"White powder gold" is what some producers call their non-colloidal gold. Monatomic gold is another name some companies call their "white powder gold" products. White powder gold, supposedly, is a water soluble gold salt that is dissolved in water. The gold salt MUST be water soluble to create an ionic solution.

 

Laboratory testing of products labelled as white powder gold have determined they are really gold chloride (Chlorauric acid). Which is a water soluble gold salt.

 

But, gold chloride is a neuro-toxin, so if it does have amazing abilities hopefully they outweigh this fact.

 

Some of these companies are trying to avoid the problem of selling gold chloride (a known neuro-toxin). So they have stated that their white powder gold is gold hydroxide. The problem with that claim though is that gold hydroxide is not water soluble, therefore it does not even match the description of their original product.

 

The preceding was a paraphrase from http://www.purestcolloids.com/ionic-gold.php

 

If you do a general search on Google you will find many articles that claim this to be a scam.

 

Another very simple flaw with white powder gold is that when you ionise gold it turns black, not white. That is common scientific knowledge.

 

Furthermore, the person who has claimed to discover monatomic gold is David Icke. David pronounced himself as the "son of god" during an interview with Terry Woogan in 1991. I don't know about you but It seems funny to me that the "son of god" would need to sell monatomic gold.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take any of your non-natural results (like the one where your powder changes into other elements), show some research, make a prediction, set up an experiment to test those predictions and review the results. Share your findings with everyone.Validity.

 

What is a non-natural phenomena?

 

You here share the method - not an actual experiment set-up.

 

In our case, what type of prediction would you be making?

 

Can you link us to those studies?

 

I can give you references.

 

This would be HUGE news. I haven't seen anything about it. Scientists love two things almost equally about peer review: confirming results and being part of the new frontier, and proving the results flawed after thorough testing. They do NOT love throwing up their hands and saying they can't account for what they see.

 

Here you hit the bull's eye, one of the greatest benefit of experimental replication is giving a cutting edge scientist the assurance that he/she isn't self-deluded by showing that results are not flawed.

 

Ok, you deserve something.

Here you have both a video that contains many references to such studies - among which a spectroscopy study performed at Cornell University.

 

http://www.treasurealchemy.com/further-scientific-proofs-of-its-exotic-nature

 

And here some text presenting other results (also this Cornell study).

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/hudson2.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sited Dean Radin doing an amazing job by researching telepathy and such. Now I won't completely touch on the obvious physical flaws of telepathy, which include the ability of an electrical signal from a neuron in the brain being able to transfer through the skull, through the air, and then through the receiver's skull all without the connection of synapses or the transfer of the chemical neurotransmitters.

 

But Dean Radin works for IONS (Institute of Noetic Sciences) has been reviewed by the non-profit organisation Quackwatch. Quackwatch has stated they view IONS with considerable distrust because of wild scientific claims which have not even been submitted for peer-review. Suggesting that if these scientific studies were accurate and factually sound they would submit them for peer-review. Obviously another less than credible source.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Noetic_Sciences

 

But I don't know if you consider Wikipedia a credible source, because David Icke has publicly criticised Wikipedia as being part of the conspiracy to cover up the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saint Germain, since you seem to have misplaced your logic in the defence of "white powder gold". I will attempt to clear up your misunderstandings.

 

As explained several times above, I do not intend to defend anything, I simply offer my perspective.

 

Also, I answered to this question: I was wondering if anyone knows about white powder gold(monoatomic gold) or any other M-state elements. - which is exactly what I am doing.

 

"White powder gold" is what some producers call their non-colloidal gold. Monatomic gold is another name some companies call their "white powder gold" products. White powder gold, supposedly, is a water soluble gold salt that is dissolved in water. The gold salt MUST be water soluble to create an ionic solution.

 

Laboratory testing of products labelled as white powder gold have determined they are really gold chloride (Chlorauric acid). Which is a water soluble gold salt.

 

But, gold chloride is a neuro-toxin, so if it does have amazing abilities hopefully they outweigh this fact.

 

Some of these companies are trying to avoid the problem of selling gold chloride (a known neuro-toxin). So they have stated that their white powder gold is gold hydroxide. The problem with that claim though is that gold hydroxide is not water soluble, therefore it does not even match the description of their original product.

 

The preceding was a paraphrase from http://www.purestcolloids.com/ionic-gold.php

 

It seems this company is talking about something else.

 

If you do a general search on Google you will find many articles that claim this to be a scam.

 

You can find anything and its opposite. I bet you can find articles about Elvis being alive and singing in Las Vegas as well...

 

Another very simple flaw with white powder gold is that when you ionise gold it turns black, not white. That is common scientific knowledge.

 

Furthermore, the person who has claimed to discover monatomic gold is David Icke. David pronounced himself as the "son of god" during an interview with Terry Woogan in 1991. I don't know about you but It seems funny to me that the "son of god" would need to sell monatomic gold.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke

 

When does he claimed to have discovered this? Pretty much all sources dealing with white powder gold acknowledge David Hudson as being the great (re)discovered of this material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sited Dean Radin doing an amazing job by researching telepathy and such. Now I won't completely touch on the obvious physical flaws of telepathy

 

Now this is interesting.

 

This domain is now well-documented, and even the major skeptics have reviewed the results and acknowledge that something unusual is going on.

 

All that is left is ignorant-skeptics, with arguments such as "obvious flaws of telepathy".

 

which include the ability of an electrical signal from a neuron in the brain being able to transfer through the skull, through the air, and then through the receiver's skull all without the connection of synapses or the transfer of the chemical neurotransmitters.

 

Where did you get that from?

 

All that can be done today is speculations - to my knowledge, o such nonsense is being spoken about by Dean Radin.

 

But Dean Radin works for IONS (Institute of Noetic Sciences) has been reviewed by the non-profit organisation Quackwatch. Quackwatch has stated they view IONS with considerable distrust because of wild scientific claims which have not even been submitted for peer-review. Suggesting that if these scientific studies were accurate and factually sound they would submit them for peer-review. Obviously another less than credible source.

 

This is exactly my point.

 

Peer review is just a tool used by science to progress. If it were the measure of truth, no advancement could be done because the majority would permanently stand on its position.

 

Less than credible if you go for the uneducated majority, but guess what happens if you look at the facts and studies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.