The Sacred Science
For preview only. Get it at  #ad.

The Sacred Science

2011, Health  -   184 Comments
Ratings: 7.00/10 from 143 users.

A good friend of Nick Polizzi told him he had Parkinson's disease. He started trying to find out if there are any natural means to cure Parkinson's, because you can't do it with drugs. What he found is that if you trace the origins of western pharmaceuticals, over 25% of their active ingredients come from the Amazon rainforest.

And then he began to wonder what else is in the Amazon forest? There are over 44,000 species of plants and to his surprise he found out that only 1% of those 44,000 plants had been studied by scientists for their medicinal value. He reached out to a well known ethno-botanist, Mark Plotkin, who said "If we look at the Amazon rain forest as an encyclopedia of medicinal plants then the indigenous medicine men are certainly as index in table of contents."

On one of their preliminary research trips Nick met a man named Roman. When Roman was 12 years old he was diagnosed with Crohn's disease. For ten years he tried every available conventional method to get rid of it, but nothing worked. At age 22 he said goodbye to his family and left for the Amazon jungle in search of a shaman to work with. Within 5 months all symptoms of his Crohn's disease were gone. Roman was given the option to stay and learn the ancient traditions of Amazonian shamanism. He had spent the last 10 years in the jungle working with indigenous medicine men and improving his craft.

What if Nick told you that your grandfather with pancreatic cancer, your daughter with clinical depression, or your wife with severe stomach adhesions have one final option that had not yet explored... but there's one catch - you need to leave everything behind. You'll be spending 30 days in seclusion, in the middle of nowhere, in a corner of the world that is home to a vanishing group of indigenous healers who reputed to have knowledge of undiscovered herbs and plants that are native only to the uncharted regions of the Amazon rainforest. In October of 2010, eight people from around the world chose this option. Five would come back with real results, two would come back disappointed, and one wouldn't come back at all. This is their story.

More great documentaries

184 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Nonnee_related is a herbal plant....sacred ritual uses.

  2. These people were filmed in October 2010. Melinda Lechter Elliott died of breast cancer October 30, 2011. This film was a BIG DISAPPOINTMENT! As I watched the treatment of Melinda, in particular, I felt..that the shaman did not know enough to treat her. He kept seeking the woods for was hit or miss. I knew deep inside..she needed someone more experienced than the Shaman that tended to her. So sad! Breast cancer Can be healed these days with msny natural herbs .

  3. I found this to be very interesting. I have no medical qualifications but what I do know is that our modern medicine can't seem to do anything except pump us full of poison no matter what your ailment is. This is an ancient way of life and it seems to be working for them. I enjoyed it and felt inspired. There are many different healers in this world other than our traditional medicine doctors. I forwarded this video many times. I loved the simplicity of it.

  4. Interesting arguments on the pros & cons of this video. I'm curious what the qualifications are of anyone here making an argument. Doctor? Scientist?

  5. They got one thing right and that's for sure! Sugar feeds cancer!

  6. The sad truth of the matter most research in medicine are funded by pharmaceutical companies that own all the results, good and bad, and decide whether to publish them or not. Those researches funded by the government are strictly controlled by those in power whom will decide if anything that does not disrupt corporate profits be publish or stored away never to see the light of day. Every article in medical journals are funded in one way or another by drug companies and nothing will be allowed to publish if it does not advocate some maintenance medications or procedures pondered off by the corporations. "hard evidence" is a joke. How would you know if any of the evidence presented to you is real or fabricated to substantiate desired outcome? Even doctors themselves are fooled into believing what they are reading is fabricated and not real outcomes. All the medical research or medicines allowed to be used in the US are for the bottom line of pharmaceutical companies. To those individuals who think otherwise is beyond help.

    1. I'm sorry, but this is kind of nonsense. A ton of evidence exists, BOOKS like Anatomy of an Epidemic that cite many articles that do exactly what you are saying no articles do, are well in circulation. People like you take it too far, yes the pharmaceutical companies control a lot, but to act like "nothing will be allowed to be published" is a joke. Stop falling for conspiracy nonsense and focus on the facts.

  7. It's really not about what you eat. A messed up mind can kill you just like poison can. I was a home health nurse. I recall three black female patients who were 100 y/o. They all had their minds and they could still get around pretty good, considering their age.

    1. Hogwash! Nonsense!

      Food is medicine, you're a terrible nurse.

  8. This documentary is far from being completely truthful, thus, losing all credibility. Just do a search as to the size and location of the compound.

    1. I did, nothing comes up, and everyone has a bias, so what? Your comment is far from being truthful, look up using logic and posting facts.

  9. I wonder if the absence of wheat, dairy, fat, salt in the diet as well as the herbal wonders of the rainforest were all combined to result in the cures.
    It's not impossible to imagine that the absence of 'stuff' that are poisoning us contributes to miraculous cures.
    Just a thought.

    1. Yet you are assuming they were cured. Without hard evidence that they were cured or even that they were ill what do we have? Nothing. Absolutely nothing.

    2. Now we are on the same page, "Without hard evidence", "What do we have Nothing. Absolutely nothing". Boy you are dead on with that one, so that means we can't make false accusations now can we you know about them being quacks or words there to that effect So go get the evidence bring it back and we will be all ears! Just saying it goes both ways. They have posted a video production at some cost and lost of risk of being called out as frauds and going to prison if found guilty. I feel as though if they were guilty the govt. or some one would go back and check the people out, again did they have a medical history on paper of the illness in question that was cured etc. and are the still healthy or what is there current situation. If we have that information we can come at them if the info shows bad in there favor but just say i mean just say they all check out and everything is positive in there findings and story what say you then?

    3. I will refer to the moderator's warning to you.

    4. I was being serious we are on the same page?

  10. It ended abruptly without any sort of resolution.

  11. I did a little research and it's pretty revealing. The "center" which is supposed to be "deep into the jungle" or "in the middle of nowhere" or in the "heart of the Amazon" is none of the three. It is 30 miles from a major metropolitan area of 462,000 people. That is it is on the main paved highway which I followed on Google Earth. The highway is packed with suburbs, shopping centers, a swimming pool here and there - everything you'd expect on a major highway coming from a large city. The pdf I found put out by the center recommends a taxi from town or perhaps catch the bus which passes the main gate. The surrounding countryside appears to be farmland but it is definitely not jungle. The pdf also recommends taking your laundry into town to one of the many laundramats. The center is only 100 acres.

    Enough of the deep dark jungle bulls**t.

    And this ain't even the really good stuff I found.

    1. Great digging, sleight of mind, an exaggeration, shows the bias. Self seeking behavior sucks.

    2. There's a lot of "embellishment".

      What astounds me is the unquestioning acceptance of all that is claimed by this doc. I'm sure you understand. I'm absolutely perplexed by it.

    3. Yes, as Richard ironically posted, considering his other comments, your bias is obvious as well. You are criticizing the documentary for the SAME THING YOU ARE DOING!!

  12. Standard issue new age circle jerk.

    1. Because, they did not say how far it was from a metropolitan area? Or you are just brainwashed by the modern world?

  13. I thought the subjects were very brave, going off to stay in the rain forest like that.
    I'm way too chicken to do that! I could totally relate to Joe.
    I'm much more at home in the Boreal Forest.

  14. Wonderful subject; beautifully done. Certainly one of the best documentaries I have ever seen.

    Thank you, to everyone involved in this.

  15. Good interesting documentary that gives many hope.

    1. false hope.
      If someone is offering you a cure for cancer, they are either lying to you, or deluded.

      We have a word for natural medicine that can be proved to work. We call it medicine.

      If someone has discovered the cure for cancer, but rather than informing the scientific community instead sets up expensive month long trips for people into an unregulated part of the world, then i'm sorry but occams razor says that guy is about to fleece you for everything you're worth.

      If these herbs actually existed and actually worked, then it would be ridiculous to not tell people and start work on getting special protections for that forest. And don't try telling me about any dumb conspiracy theory because there are very prominent Biologists and ecologists in the scientific community that are desperate for any excuse to protect what's left of the rainforests.

    2. Got a point and the rainforest lobby as other lobby groups like that for medicinal marijuhana are doing a similar thing: brainwashing folks to believe their stories. But the truth is our current medicin is far from complete and every fisable alternative that has potential must be explored. I like yourself distrust new age folks and others who take short cuts and delude people.

    3. So what i hear you saying is old age medicine is the only thing that works and new age medicine no matter what is fraud?

    4. Do you think the people in this doc that "recovered" their illnesses were false or shills just placed there to defraud the public? Do you think they really were not cured and it was all just a lie? And if it wasn't a lie and they were cured? a-no-n your posting words there posting "reality", if in fact those people were cured? All the "medicine" Bristol Myers develops comes from those plants? +

      a-no-n I am not saying your wrong and we should throw caution to the wind!

      It would be too easy for the govt. to track these people who had these horrible illnesses; to one see if there are any records that prove they were ill or not and two to see if they are cured by just checking on them.

      I'm listening to you talk and I'm watching them cured? If those people who were "cured" are just acting I mean Danzel Washington couldn't pull that off. To prove that false would be a no brain'er don't you think, give us some slack here.

      This wasn't in a court of law, he said she said. This was a documentary of proof in our face period. If these people were all actors there far better then anything Hollywood has ever produced, and no music to boot.

      That young fellow that went over there to learn and get well and spend what seven years there. Do you think he even look or sounds like a con Artist? Does that young man look or sound like someone who would intentionally kill some one and go through that whole mess.

      a-no-a you want to believe what your saying is true you not thinking it through.

    5. it's not unknown for cancer to go into remission by itself. Alternative medecine relies on this!

      I'm not saying they are frauds or shills, i think they're desperate people who have been conned.

      I don't think they were cured, i think they desperatly want to believe they are cured, and have convinced themselves that they have been but probably have not.

      Why hasn't this supposed cure been put forward for scientific testing? i'm sorry to say it but 99.9% of the time, when someone doesn't submit their "cure" for double blind testing, it's because they KNOW it doesn't work.

      Unfortunatly a highly edited documentary with a clear bias is not anywhere near proof of anything.

      You say i'm not thinking it through, but you're the one that hasn't asked any critical questions of what you've seen.

      It's a sick sad world out there.

    6. it's not a con... It's a tradition... Blame whichever entity (studio and/or person) enticed them to try out Shamanistic healing.... This wasn't real enough to be abridged into a research paper, if that's what you need. But, ah, it doesn't format well in the sense of objectivity, of course, you knew that. Love you long time. Love your, "blah blah blah."

    7. leaches were a tradition was human sacrifice...Arguments from tradition are a logical fallacy. Just because it's a tradition, that does not mean it works.

    8. true and that goes for both old and new age medicine

    9. Of course. There might be a dearth of support for some concepts of the Noetic sciences that have yet to be debunked/proven out.
      Ethnobotany is a bit of a 'crank', as it is apparent. A lot of funding for inquiry on the fringes of science can't be sought via normal means; funding for, say, research concerning contemporary psychedelics as an alternative treatment for PTSD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, etc.
      This sort of documentary is a very great laughing stock, and that tends to disappoint, for example, followers of the late Terrence McKenna and his kind of 'lofty and far-fetched' ideas. But, then again, some of these ideas are scientific theories, in the strict sense, until they can be proven false (debunked).

    10. Larz they don't understand so they dismiss it ad fraud or words to that effect? The Drs. in the jungle did not have suits and ties on and no paper saying there a Dr. So they can't handle it. There is no way to turn their head no matter what.

    11. I'm a very open minded person, but your asking me to believe in something that can't be proved.

      Sounds like the god debate all over.

      It needs looked into before we all head to the jungle.

      Also if we don't understand, would you please explain it.


    12. Here's what is puzzling. Where are these "patients" now? It is more than two years on. Don't you think with this big push to sell the DVD's these "cured" people should make an appearance?

      Really it's not puzzling at all.

    13. I have to agree with everything you've said Anon. Humans don't know how to defeat cancer yet, because we don't fully understand it.

      And within this hole in our knowledge, thieves and liars thrive.

      Maybe something else is at work, the placebo causing a remission. I don't know, nobody does.

    14. it could be a whole host of factors all added together rather than one specific thing. If they had taken any real treatment for their cancer, that might also have been a factor into it.

    15. I am wonder who you are or better yet who you think you are to tell anybody what is "real treatment" Real Treatment Is based on success and a cure I would venture to say? Do you agree or do you still think without proof on can dismiss their claims as BS? All your doing is talking with no back side to back it up at least these good people are trying to help and from what we can see not just mouth they have achieved some success. What have you done to help cure cancer, you finish it, Jack ?....t

    16. if you're talking about cures, then you don't understand what Cancer's a mutation, each one is unique, by it's very nature a cure is impossible.

    17. This subject is futile, at this point in time, between you and i.

      Falls hope is and oxymorn, you either have hope or you don't.

      There is a lot of "quacks" out there in medicine new or old age, a mute point.

      The young man who left his family and went to the jungle to be healed and stayed is still healed and is now a doctor after years of study. I feel he would Know of any set backs concerning those people in this doc who came to him and the other Doctors for help?

      I am going to track those individuals; there is a contact ref. I don't know you but for some reason a "feel", (sorry for the i feel), you would never do that.

      Deepak Chopra is a Harvard Medical school grad. He backs those Doctors in the jungle 1000%, along with old age medicine.

      There is a short doc. 22.13 minutes long. on YouTube; a dialog between Richard Dawkins and Deepak Chopra, MD., I watched it yesterday. Could you take the time to view it and brake it down for me or give me some input?

      To me Medicine, a large, is not a "Science" Its and Art every picture is new and different. The creation of or testing of "drugs" falls under the umbrella of Science, In my opinion.

      Science deals with measurable physical properties, (and this is a good thing).

      Science can not and will not allow anything into their sphere of understanding that can not be measured. (and that's a good thing).

      Philosophy understands everything Science understands and everything Science doesn't understand. (and that's a good thing).

      Philosophy doesn't want Science concerning itself with anything that will distract it from the integrity of the infrastructure of the bridge. (and that's a good thing).

      Philosophy knows that Science doesn't know it doesn't know and has empathy for Science. (and that is what it is).

      a_no_a If you will watch that 22'13, minute doc. with Dawkins and Dr. Chopra, MD. I will share with you, The only thing that you and I know exist in the external world that is non molecular and one can see it with the naked eye (I would like your no frills thoughts on the subject at hand)?

    18. Deepak Chopra is the worst of the lot!
      He has no evidence for anything that he claims, his use of Quantum physics to justify his woo is so...decietful that it smacks to me of opportunism.

      If someone tells you that they understand quantum physics, they are lying. even physicists trained in quantum mechanics (who openly laugh at Chopras misunderstandings) barely have a handle on the subject, because we know so little. Which makes me think that perhaps, Chopra in my opinion edges closer toward the Con man end of the scale than he does deluded believer.

    19. Dr. Amit Goswami and Dr. John Hagelin AMONG OTHERS use "quantum physics" to justify their theory. Neither one claim to overstand quantum science but after many years of study, research and teaching based on math literacy, these scientists have come to under-stand quantum as it may be understood at the moment. Because they think it points to a different direction than most, does not mean their theory does not have validity.
      Time will tell, but until then science is increasingly paying attention to the potential of "consciousness".

      Also you write: "it's not unknown for cancer to go into remission by itself" right, I agree!... And the majority of those claims come from doctors who are testing people who have opted for alternative methods. They don't understand the reason because they do not accept the reason as it is out of their field of acceptance.

    20. so they're using something they don't understand as evidence for their theory...sounds like stand up work to me...Unfortunatly, most people who opt for alternative medecine go the way of Steve Jobs and die painfully and unnecessarily. why do their experiences not matter, considering they are in the majority?

    21. Would like to participate in the exchange today but unfortunately I have a lot to do today. Will hopefully have time to read the thread tonight, and comment on the doc as i watched it late last night.

    22. Consciousness is the link, (the conduit), between the manifest and the unmanifest.

      If Consciousness were not a factor a stone could have produced E=MC2. The scientific implementation of an experiment and its original idea is a byproduct of Consciousness. Do you agree?

      (this post was meant for a-no-n below). But you can chime in if you wish?

    23. Dr. Chopra has a "Harvard Med. degree" I would think that would mean something to you, I guess not?

    24. You are incorrect about Depak Chopra graduating from Harvard Medical School. He in fact went to medical school in India, All India Institute of Medical Sciences to be exact.

      He does have a brother who is a professor at Harvard

    25. I stand corrected maybe that's what i heard, his brother teaches there. The fact still remains he is a Med. Dr. and that should carry so weight in his "new age" approach?

      New age or Old age medicine I want to see and hear about it all. I haven't been to a Dr. for many years. As for making a visit because I am sick. I do go for a check up at the Va once a year and only because if you don't they will boot you out of the system, If you miss to years in a row.

      I have healed my self so many times over the years.

      Medicine is an Art not a Science. as i posted above drugs/pills fall under science. Because one does not understand or its past there scope of understanding doesn't mean its voodo. Medicine is Medicine no one has a handle on it period.

    26. he's also a quack

    27. I am prepared to say that this documentary is bogus from start to end.

    28. There are numerous cures for cancer.

      You are an iiot.

    29. There aren't. Cancer is a mutation of cells, so every single instance of cancer is unique, because of this, Cancer isn't something that can be cured, only treated.
      The only people who have ever claimed to have a cure for cancer, have been confidence tricksters, or deluded.

    30. Wow, I didn't see this one... Maybe it's lost on you. :`(

    31. the most prudent assumption is that... the rainforests of the world are big... Lots of competing biology... Plants and their secretions/toxins, animals with complex venoms that would be a dream of good fortune for any pharmaceutical chemist to deconstruct. Maybe wont of, specifically, mammalian biology, but then... Occam's razor would tell us that DNA, being a principle structure in all biological chemistry, with respect to which, can be conceived to be similar to ours (forgiving the minute aspects of structure/form that we have not yet learned to describe so well), in turn. A lot of remedies from the classical Chinese pharmacopeia, if I recall correctly, might still be prescribed on a well-known basis for use (and for me in USA, approved by the FDA, et al... [can't think of any off-hand examples, never took time to peruse fully, 'the Chinese pharmacopeia']). Still, the remedys have their legacy-- and this is no charlatan display of good faith

    32. The Sacred Science? Science it ain't. I'm with you.

    33. Why hasn't anyone informed the scientific community?... FDA regulations state that only a drug can diagnose, prevent or cure a disease. By that merit it is forbidden (mainly in the US and several other countries) to assert that anything other than a drug has any medicinal benefit whatsoever. Since a plant does not constitute a drug it cannot even be considered as medicine for anything anywhere the FDA operates. And so you'll find much less talk about what a plant can do for you anywhere the FDA operates and a lot more about what chemically synthesized drugs can do for you. Since you obviously live in an FDA regulated zone, you're sure to have far less knowledge of plants and their medicinal properties than basically anywhere else in the world.
      I'm not going to argue about the validity of the claims in this documentary. Rather, my aim is to shed a little light on your obviously oblivious state on economic incentive. There are many ways to cure cancer. Not just some miracle plant somewhere. You're right! Cancer is a mutated cell and is not cured in the sense of removing or destroying something foreign to the body. But treating a cancer patient until cancerous cells are no longer malignant or proliferating is considered a cured patient. So regardless of how one gets cancerous cells to remit is beside the point. Remission is curing, plain and simple.
      Now back to my point... One Dr named Max Gerson has a long track record starting 100 yrs ago pretty much, who cured not only cancer patients of differing stages but over 1500 (on record) terminal patients who were given only 3-6 months to live by our medical establishment. And get this, he cured them, not with some miracle plants from some far off place, but with the ordinary fruits and vegetables you can find in your average grocery store. How? Because cancer is a mutation of a normal cell that is caused by numerous reasons, but for the sake of discussion, the general reasons are deficiency and toxicity. Solve these two problems in the body and the body doesn't mutate its cells. It's a simple solution to a complex problem and it works better than anything else because the best doctor we have is the anatomy we were born with.
      Lastly, economic incentive is indifferent. It's not bad nor good. It just is what it is. Unfortunately, when economic gain is profound, it becomes against the best interest of companies, organizations and agencies to plummet profits for consumer benefit... It's just cold hard business... Nothing personal.

    34. 1/ you realise that Asprin is willow tree bark right?
      about 90% of the chemicals used in drugs come directly from plants, so your first point couldn't be more wrong.
      I can't even begin to imagine where you got that idiotic notion from.

      2/ Remission is NOT curing because remission is no guarantee that the cancer will not return. Once you've had cancer, you're always likely to get it again.

      3/ If Gerson cured 1500 people with Fruit and vegetables, why did he not submit his evidence for scientific research so it could reach more people? was he evil or something?'s more likely that he was eithert lying or deluded.

      finally Cancer is NOT a deficciency or a toxicity, and it is not caused by just these two factors...The only people that ever make this claim are people with something to sell. There is no evidence for that claim and it flies in the face of biology, therefore it's probably wrong.

    35. Sorry for my rant the other day it wasn't personal or wasn't meant to be, it was the mind set, (in general) that i disagree with. I should have slept on it, thought it through and then replied but didn't. It was the way i handled it that I would take back if i could.

    36. I believe the Dr. Gerson doc. is on TDF if you haven't watched it you might? want to?

      His premise is if the body is clear on toxins etc. and so on.....

      These so called all cure all diets don't impress me to the point of undeniable belief though in a lot of case have merit and people are trying to help and in the cases of health i'm all ears.

      What impressed me is Dr. Gerson lived to 116. Are you going to watch it now that you know that?

    37. no...Rich doctors tend to have long lives, when they get sick they can pay for the best real medecine. His longevity is no evidence for his own claims.

    38. actually false.. the average dr's lifespan is somewhere in the 70s if I recall correctly

    39. recall from what?

    40. What determines your maximum length of life, is the lifespans of your ancestors. Other things being equal, it is the genes that make the difference.

    41. That's the primary foundation of course but lets not rule out taking care of yourself nutrition and all the rest of it.

      The Fact that he followed his on system and lived to be 116 says a whole lot. It would be interesting to take a look at his ancestors life span data.

      Have you watched his doc? My Dr tells me at Va Hosp. that there finding out that nutrition plays a critical part in ones health and longevity?

    42. You make some generalizations and assumptions...
      1- it's not willow tree bark, it's an extract from it ( salicylic acid) to be specific.
      2- it's not an idiotic notion; check the FDA regulations yourself.
      3- I know what medicinal drugs are made from (not all of them specifically of course)
      So... 4- you missed my point entirely. Drugs are not the same as plants. Drugs use extracts from plants and are mixed with catalysts and binding agents. The result is a chemical we prescribe as medicinal drugs... Not to be confused with natural plants.

      5- when a patients' cancer remits, whether it be by chemotherapy, natural ingredients or unknown causes, it is considered by all medical standards, as cured, regardless of whether it comes back or not. Just like a cold, you can cure it but that doesn't mean you won't get it again. At which point you'll need to cure it again.

      6- Dr Gerson and his daughter, who is still alive, have been urging the medical establishment to consider and look into the therapy. They have been routinely ignored... Because big business is not fond of the idea! Imagine what would happen to the multi-billion dollar cancer industry if it was openly admitted that simple healthy foods could reduce the risk of cancer between 90-95%. Also, they tried to open a clinic/hospital but were denied by the FDA (for the above stated regulation). So they opened a hospital in Mexico where you can go and visit anytime you like. Maybe checking out what is going on there with your own eyes might shed a little light on the subject.

      7- I didn't say cancer 'is' deficiency and toxicity. Nor did I say it's caused by just those two factors. I specifically stated that cancer has numerous causes but to make it easier for discussion I generalized the numerous causes down to the root causes - deficiency and toxicity.

      8- contrary to your assumption that people make this claim because they have something to sell; the claims are outright ridiculed by lobby groups because it stands to cost large corporations billions in sales. So it's the suppression of this information that is the motive for the sake of profit.

    43. 1 is pedantic.
      2 i'm British, so don't really care what the heavily lobbied FDA think
      3. well done you.
      4.misleading...Drugs are the extracts of all the USEFUL bits of the plant.
      5. Lie. there is no such thing as a medical Cure for cancer. no doctor anywhere would ever say you've been cured.
      6. if they could prove efficacy of their claims, they would have been granted permission, pure and simple.
      7.that's EXACTLY what you said!
      8. Conspiracy theory nonsence...The scientist who discovers the 'cure' for cancer stands to join the ranks of Einstein and Newton...Cancer isn't just going to go away because we find a cure for it...people will still develop cancer, so your tin foil hat wearing suggestions make no sense when you consider it from any realistic angle.

    44. 1. It's concise, not pedantic.
      2. Moot point and purely dismissive.
      3. Thanks
      4. I believe you misconstrue my statement and therefore are stilling missing the point. You basically restated what I said in a more general sense. The bottom line is, a drug is a synthesized compound that, yes of course uses extracted chemicals within plants, but is not the same as the whole plant itself and the two can have very different physiological effects.
      5. No it's not. Refer to the 'cold' analogy. And yes, I understand cancer is not something that is probably ever completely eradicated from the body but that's not the necessary parameters to consider someone cured. Referring back to the cold analogy, the viruses and bacteria responsible for most illnesses and diseases are already present in the body - the body keeps them under control. When the immune system loses check and a virus begins to proliferate, we get sick. But regardless of their presence, when we get rid of any disease or sickness we call it cured... And if some medical dictionary out there has a definition that relates more closely to your parameters for calling something cured, then it's just a semantics issue.
      6. I'd have to look more closely at both sides of the Gerson story to know that one way or the other for sure. But you could be right there.
      7. Read more carefully please.
      8. I'm by no means a conspiracy theorist. I look at all sides of the story and all potential systems of information the same. I don't have a bias so I don't exclude any areas of research. I don't have all the answers but here's what I do know.
      Corporatocracy runs the show. That doesn't mean it controls every aspect of the program but it's their production. If you have any issues with that statement, credible reading can be found in the books of Howard Zinn, Michael Parenti and Noam Chomsky (among others). Do check them out if you're serious about being informed. As for cancer and the main part of the discussion... When looking at the full body of evidence, (articles for and against a cure [or at least effective and lasting treamtment], stories of suppression against claims of pseudo or conspiracy, what IS know in medical science vs what is still in the process of discovery), it becomes clear there is much to debate on both sides. I'd like to see the end of polarized debates where the optimist cries eureka at everything without discernment while the pessimist rails aggressively at every alternative. Anyone can write an article - whether it's for or against an alternative. Discerning which, if any, are being transparent and completely honest, is the key here. If you read an article that states such and such treatment is a sham, that doesn't mean it's accurate either. Not without hard evidence to back it up... And simply stating its proven or has evidence doesn't mean it does. Without checking, physically, there's really no way to know who's being dishonest and to what degree. And at this point I'm implying that at least part of what you believe to be true is not entirely accurate.

    45. oh look...a gish gallop

    46. maybe on second thoughts i've confused gish gallop with long winded...

      1 thru 4...fair enough. can't argue with that.
      5. there is no such thing as a cure, because there is always a chance it will come back, a doctor telling you you're cured is a doctor that should be preparing for a malpractice suit.
      6, again fair enough.
      8, not excluding any area of research is fine, so long as those areas can all provide the same ammount of evidence for what they claim. Otherwise you're giving it special treatment.
      Though you seem to have a good handle on what you're saying, people who are less informed take that feeling and apply it to an "Evil scientist" sentiment...Meanwhile the politicians that are deregulating the industry carry on with business as usual, is what i mean by conspiracy theory (which i apologise for accusing you of now I understand where you're coming from amd apologies for the accusations of gish gallop too. that was unwarranted...I'd delete it but then my apology would make no sense.

    47. Haha! Well I can't argue with long-winded. Alright so 1-4, 6, 7 are resolved. That's 6 out of 8! Pretty good if you ask me. Just 2 to go...

      As for 5... Ya we've pretty much reached a semantics issue. I don't argue this point. So resolved as well.

      And finally 8... I agree perfectly with your first paragraph. And thank you for your mention in the second. I'm also not a fan of fanatics and quick to information slow to wisdom kind of folk. So... Resolved as well.

      If you'd like to discuss this topic on any other fronts, I'd be happy to endulge it. If not, I enjoyed the discourse. And bravo to the both of us for probably being some of the few who make it through a discussion with some form of consensus.

    48. no arguments with that either.

    49. just stop will ya, just stop trying to defend science all the time, science is only as far as the discoveries it has made untill that point, period. You wouldnt call quantum mechanics a science back in the 19th century because people would say it is bullocks and not been proven, etc etc etc. Man you really think science knows everything there is to be known. Come on, I have a Phd in neurobiology and have studied very hard on the subject and found that many many many healing plants, herbs, healing processes etc that has not yet been fully understood by science in, let say 1950, have only subsequently been discovered through which pathways etc they work. But they work! and indigenous people could have told you this probably 100 years ago but you would have said that if science doesnt know its bulls*it.

      Dont get me wrong I am atheist alll they way but also spiritualist. Science is my work not my religion and I will always be open to new suggestions as they are the SOURCE of creativity and the driving force that makes science go forward.

      The reason I am mad at you is because conservative people like you stunt our progressiveness by holding on to all that is soo dear to you, might your little worldview be crushed. Dont be so f***ing afraid and go and explore the world beyond your own worldview, this place gets so much more interesting then.

    50. I don't believe you have a Phd in neurobiology or you'd have at least a basic grasp of how the scientific community works ... and then you would have understood anon's post, which you clearly didn't. It's quite apparent you just went off on a rant while not even addressing any of the points made in what you were responding to. Just empty rhetoric. IF there were something in the rainforest that could cure cancer, scientists would be all over it. It's got nothing to do with your colourful language or nonsensical romantic rhetoric about exploration and "progresisveness", it's a simple fact that they would BE THERE. I can only assume you falsely claimed you have a Phd to try to add weight to your weak, ignorant rant. In which you give evidence that you probably did not graduate secondary school.

    51. Look man, i do not have a phd in neurobiology, but i have a master in Education, Development and Counseling Psychology, and i wrote my master thesis on the placebo effect, and im not trying to take anyones side here, but you wouldnt believe what our brains can do for our health in the "precise conditions". And now you ask:"and wich are those precise conditions?" Well that still remais a mistery, but there are reputable neuroscientists that agree that our brains might hold healing powers completelly unknow to us... What i mean is that in the perfect circumstances the power of suggestion can cure us from many of the illnesses known to man...and i know that it sound like whoo whoo bulshit and i dont care because im not stating that it is like that, im just saying that it is possible, and thats what i want to believe... Have you ever heard about a placebo event that happened in 1957 with a guy called mr.Wright? Well search for Krebiozen placebo event and you be the judge of it...from what i read nobody could explain it or disprove it...

      The invitation in this story, is for each of us to consider how our own thoughts – both conscious and unconscious – dominate the realities of our own lives, and how we might adjust our thoughts to create the lives we want.

      Lets just hope we hold this power within us so that we free ourselves from whatever hard-core therapies we have available today to cure cancer.

      And if you're interested in more recent research on the placebo subject look after Fabrizio Benedetti on Diazepam...

      there is something going on man, and it might not be due to shamans or plants, but due to brains, concepts, ideas, information...

    52. The placebo effect has been known for a very long time and is an established part of orthodox medical theory, which every first year medical student knows.

      I am not sure the point of your post here but it is no longer addressing the topic. The placebo effect has nothing to do with miracle substances in the Amazon.

    53. *Off topic as you mentioned*
      Yes I believe it is precisely the placebo effect that double-blind drug trials are tested against to see if they are considered to be effective. Which I might add many approved drugs do not pass.
      I guess this also points out the blatant fact that science basically accepts the placebo effect as a real phenomenon. Or more concisely put; a principle of physiology not yet understood.

    54. Yes, its been known for a very long time. So has the role of stress in disease and other similar effects. They are now beginning to identify the chemical pathways and responses that cause some of these things (the role of stress in intestinal inflammation for instance - a neurohormonal cascade has been identified as the culprit).

    55. The relation between the placebo miracles and the miracle cures is that it is possible - and im not saying it is for sure - that cure itself, in many cases might not be as mechanic as we've always thought to be, maybe counciousness has something to do with it, through faith and expectations... Quantum physics states that we might be creating reality through observation by the so called colapse of the wave function caused by the observer, and it seems that physicists are gathering more and more data that corroborates that assumption. And if it possible that we create the reality we experience it seems plausible to assume that we might hold power over our health on both concious and uncouncious level. Its all connected here, but if you couldnt make the abstraction to establish the relation its not worth it to keep sharing my thoughts with you, because it takes not only loads of info, but also something that you're not willing to take: a leap of faith.

    56. It's unlikely to have anything to do with quantum mechanics, which has little impact beyond the atomic/molecular level (don't believe those New Age shows that say you can walk through walls if you just believe ... you can't).

      But, mental states are chemical arrangements with physical effects in the body. For instance ... stress is associated with chemical products that change how your body operates. Likewise if you're in a good mood, your brain is pumping out all kinds of chemical signals to your body. Psychoactive drugs tap into receptors that are already there, and change how your mind operates (whether you like it or not) ... it's all much more mechanical than you might think. It's possible to make you smell burnt toast just by electrically stimulating the right part of the brain, or have you see things or undergo mood changes or have ideas like paranoia just by introducing a substance to your brain ... even personality changes ....

    57. Just one more thing i remembered that has been experiencied by thounsands and science is not over it all...

      have you ever heard about a substance called ibogaine? did you know that ibogaine cure heroin addict's withdrawal sympthoms in one to two hours(although the experience last for 24 to 36 or more) when normaly it takes weeks for the body to recover with classic drugs? That it cures hepatitis? And more conditons... Why isnt science over it?... There are many reasons for western science not to explore different possibilities...

    58. Ibogaine has been known to science since the 1860s and has been marketed as a drug, studied in clinical trials as a treatment for drug addiction, etc. Science HAS explored it, you just assumed it hasn't, maybe you saw some New Age documentary or something. It is well-established in published results of clinical trials as being highly effective in treating substance addiction, the problem is that it can't meet drug safety standards because it was found to cause sudden death (from heart attack or respiratory problems) in a signifigant number of patients.

    59. yes that is true but dont you think it is weird that a drug with such an astounding efficacy for treating substance abuse is researched so scarcely and dismissed because of a few patients dying. Dont get me wrong it is a horrible thing but do you know how many patients die from medicines each year and these are the ones supposed to be "safe". all I am saying is that if the Ibogaine would be more deeply investigated then maybe more safe alternatives to use it might have been discovered. The reason they dont is because of its controversial nature and because there is simply not much profit to be made out of something that is directly derived from a plant in such a way that other can easily reproduce it and since it is a part of ancient healing it will also not be patented, so why investigate something purely to help people? at least that is how these companies think. They all have shares and shareholders and need to think first and foremost about profit in order to keep the company running and their shareholder happy. Rational, logical, and simple but something many people here fail to understand...

    60. Well mister doctor Phd in Neurobiology and behavior, why aren't you researching it?

    61. I have my own priorities and research interests...too complicated to divide attention among so many interesting topics and must specialize on a certain topic out of cognitive necessity.

    62. Well then that would make it real hard for you to criticize others for not researching it.

    63. criticize others, is that what I am doing because i have not researched it myself i have no right to give my opinion that it is under-examined at the moment and give reasons your reasoning nobody here has any right to say anything at all...please stop trolling and respond only if you have anything to say of value

    64. So you say I am trolling. How rich.

    65. It's a question of how many patients die ... if it's a small percentage then a lot of people will be affected when it gets used widely, but the risk for an individual remains low because the percentage is still small. If it's a large percentage, then people will be dropping like flies when it's used widely, and every individual will have a high level of risk, and that's considered a failed test ... those drugs do not get approval. That's what happened with the ibogaine tests; there was a large percentage of fatalities. If it was synthetic and it had the same percentage of deaths, you would no doubt have a fit if they put it on the market.

      There is lots of money to be made with plants. Most drugs result from isolating the active ingredient from a plant source. This has been done with ibogaine ... it used to be marketed as Lambarene in some countries. But it was pulled off the market because of severe side effects (like death).

    66. if you open your mind too much, your brain falls out.

      Science can Prove what it says, and the fact that science changes it's opinion when presented with new evidence is it's biggest virtue, not a flaw!

      I'm not conservative either...i'm a socialist! it's perfectly acceptable for left wingers to be rationalists!

    67. I am sorry mister but you really lack a deep understanding of science and only know what you have been taught in school. It goes much further than that...for example:
      "presented with new evidence", yes but evidence can only be gathered when something is examined.
      "prove what it says": yes but what "it says" are in other words hypotheses and theories and these are again deduced from observation, something that needs to be done through experimentation.
      In other words: science does not know what it does not examine and since it is impossible to examine everything, or we hadnt had enought time to research everything, science has a sort of patchwork understanding of nature. They understand individual processes but have no clue how it all works together perfectly and seemingly conscious.

      Anyway, what I am trying to say is that there are many different plants that scientist have not fully examined yet but have been used by primitive cultures for centuries, who are you to so arrogantly claim it doesnt work because science doesnt know about it.

    68. What kind of person feels the need to go by the name of their my experience, people who don't actually have that PHD but like making arguments from authority.

      Anyway i'm claiming it doesn't work because they've had time to set up expensive retreats and make documentaries advertising those retreats, but they apparantly haven't had time to test it and submit their findings...If that PHD were real, you' be getting the same alarm bells as me by that fact.

      If it works so well, then why haven't they done it? Surely a double blinded test would prove without a doubt that these things work...instead they've gone down the money grabbing route.

      Arrogance? How is basic Skepticism arrogance? what the hell sort of doctor are you?

    69. yes exactly, in your experience, so do not go around projecting that on would maybe lie to make claims from authority I wouldnt. And no dont talk as if you know like if it would be effective they would have submitted their results and they would have been published. Hahahaha you clearly do not know that it is near impossible to publish data that is so controversial, you think it is easy to go around publishing about the health effects of a hallucinogenic compound. They have tried that with LSD and the psychologist were laughed at when they anounced that LSD seemed to help with many psychological disorders. It is just too controversial. Moreover, I couldnt even get a paper published about a very widespread subject: namely the role of the amygdala in fear. Since science has "proven" over and over again that it is the key structure in fear generation they wont even consider contrasting information that would otherwise deepen and enrich our understanding. NO, amygdala is fear, period, do not try to question that.

      Dont talk as if science is fair and everything that works, get published. It doesnt work like that. when the real founder of string theory tried to publish his new theory they laughed at him, to the point he quit his carreer. Now years later it is the leading theory in physics. So no dont think it is all that easy and smooth publishing such data. Most scientist do not even try out of fear of ridicule or being discredited.

      I think that this documentary has given you all a biased view because it is all so subjectively recorded. But that doesnt make it less true...

    70. ok, i'm going to go through all your logical fallacies one by one.

      1"Hahahaha you clearly do not know that it is near impossible to publish data that is so controversial,"

      I direct you toward the JREF foundation. If you can prove your alternative therapy works under scientific conditions, the JREF will perform the study with you, and if it's successful give you a million dollars...There are plenty of people out there willing to give alternative medecines the chance to prove themselves, so your conspiracy theory is just that.

      You then offer up two different examples of the Gallileio fallacy...And you ignore the political influences that gagged those scientists from talking.

      Science doesn't say "Do not try to question" it says "Prove it."

      Science most certainly is not fair...It is strict, and it goes entirely by evidence and evidence alone...special pleaders need not apply.

      The real reason the founder of String theory (your second Gallileio fallacy) wasn't taken seriously was because he didn't have the technology available to prove his we do.

      Do you have any arguments that aren't based entirely around logical fallacies?

    71. you just confirmed what I am saying with your last argument. Namely, that the technology wasnt available at that moment so thats why they didnt take him seriously. Indeed, so science is only as far as its discoveries and measurement tools. Because, although they couldnt prove it doesnt mean it wasnt true, he was simply ignored because he was too far ahead or tried things nobody else did.

      Moreover, your whole argument doesnt hold up anyway because we still dont have the technology to prove string theory. It is not an empirical theory. It is theoretical physics. The word "theoretical" is key here because that would mean that the maths behind were already present at the time and he didnt have to "prove" his theory with empirical evidence, just show the math behind it is correct. Thats how "theoretical" physics work.

      Secondly, James Randi??? seriously???? Need I go into this one. James Randi is someone who likes to debunk paranormal phenomena,not alternative medicine. He wouldnt even take on such a project because there is nothing paranormal about some plant providing a medicinal value. It is well accepted, even by science, that many plants hold medicinal value, why would James take on such a sensible claim, nothing paranormal about it. He doesnt want to lose his 1million. Even more so, nobody ever received that price, nobody, so how is this a good venue for financing your creatively novel research ideas.

      When I read JREF I really thought, wow okay, I didnt know such a foundation existed. Then I looked it up: James Randi. You know I love that guy but I hope that new pharmaceutical ideas and compounds do not all have to pass his tests, that would be ridiculous. Just do a double-blind randomized experimental trial and then try to publish it.

      Seriously dude, I do not understand why you attack me on such sensible and logical claims. It is not that I am saying that the government is doing all he can to sabotage it. However, if you look up the funds for alternative medicine it is laughable: $441.000 yes that is not a typo, it is really that low....

    72. I because science is only as good as the technology can allow, we should abandon all rational thought and scepticism in place of whatever woo anyone can make up? Give me a break, what kind of backward logic in that?
      Please check your Ignorance at the door. The JREF quite famously worked with the BBC to debunk Homeopathy...five minutes on google would have revealed this to you.
      Also, the Foundation prize is actually at 1.3 million, $441,000 is what the foundation STARTED WITH when Rhandi first started out decades ago...Generally it helps if you read more than just the first paragraph on Wikipedia!

      The fact that alternative medicines get any funding at all is a travesty.

      wow you think you're being logical and reasonable? Dude, there's less bullcrap on a cattle farm than is coming out of your mouth right now!

    73. Please read this comment without assuming i am angry because somehow you really miss my points. After this comment I will stop arguing with you because you do not read my replies correctly, assume all sorts of things, and with all due respect still confuse all sorts of things...I have known James Randi for years so no I do not judge his work from Wikipedia. As I said I love his style and I am actually quite a fan of this guy. I know what he is about.

      I am not suggesting you should abandon rational thought or sketicism, I have never said that.I am a scientist so why would I say something as dumb as that. Please. I just said that you should also be open to possibilities you did not know were possible. This can only be done by being open to new suggestions and researching these suggestions. How do you mean "whatever woo"? you mean the maths I mentioned that were used to support string theory. That is not "woo" man, you are attacking the whole basis of theoretical sciences, a theory is not just "woo" it has to be supported by empirical facts or mathematical certainties.

      Secondly, homeopathy is not "medicine" but a technique based on the diluting of substances to the point there is literally no molecules left of the so called working ingredient. So no I do not consider homeopathy are part of the medicine I am talking about and actually there is no science whatsoever to homeopathy. Thats why James Randi took on such a claim, because it based on paranormal claims, namely the memory of water and its ability to change structure to match whatever was in it. Yeah whatever. I am talking about serious plant ingredients that have not been studied enough to go around saying that the amazone has nothing left to offer or otherwise scientist would have known.

      The 441.000 figure I mentioned has nothing to do with the Randi foundation at all but with what the government spends on research for alternative medicine. Its rather strange you say it is exactly the same number Randi started with since that would be a huge coincidence. I mentioned that number because it is laughable considering that research of "real" medicine get billions and billions of funds. That is, research done with medication developed by the mainstream pharmaceutical companies.

      Look i do not disrespect you, you should know that before you go on ranting and connecting things that are unconnected. Most people like yourself keep referring to the ideological goals and values of science and how it "should" work. However, realistically it just doesnt work that way. Just wanted to open your mind to alternative possibilities to look at science but you just keep on going into confrontation. Please lets just keep it with this.

    74. So you don't judge his work from Wikipedia, but you think the Funds the foundation started with are what they're working with now?
      Oh no wait, now you're claiming that figure was actually something else entirely...careful mate, if you backpedal any harder the wheels might come off your goalposts!
      Real medecine gets billions in funding, because it's real and it can prove it's efficacy...Alternatives cannot, so they are awarded exactly what they deserve.

      I don't care who you do and don't respect...i certainly have no respect for you, so any respect my way is completely wasted i'm afraid...respect is worth nothing, evidence is the only currency that matters!

    75. You certainly were sharp to catch fallacies he was presenting... But be careful not to be basing you argument on ad hominems.

      P.S. If the pharmaceutical industry receives billions and returns with all kinds of evidence of its efficacy, while alternative medicine receives $441,000 to accomplish the same - you could expect that alternative medicine research would yield 441,000/billions ratio of information to back it up against pharmaceuticals. If it were just 1 billion, we should expect alternative medicine to come up with 0.0441% of the quantity and quality of research pharmaceuticals does. Considering what alternative research is doing and that pharmaceuticals receive more than 1 billion, I'd say alternatives are doing pretty damn good with those limited resources. And working well above its statistical landmark of 0.0441%.

    76. Couple of things. The pharmaceutical companies don't "recieve" anything. It's all on their own dime.

      Second, could you explain exactly what $441,000 produced exactly what medical discovery.

    77. My apologies, I should've said 'spend' not 'receive'.

      No I cannot. Because I was referencing 'phd guys' comment where he stated that alternative medicine received that amount for research. I'm merely stating statistical results. If his statement was accurate, then my point stands. If it wasn't accurate, it would take a huge leap in funding for alternative medicine for my point to have no merit still.

    78. OK

    79. Thank you, i certainly do try...I kinda figure that after a threshold has passed Ad Hominems the other way are personally excusable...It's not a moral argument, I don't pretend it's the right thing to's more like stress relief really.

      It also isn't as if you couldn't fund at least one large study with 441k...yet they never do.

    80. Haha, understandable. But to be perfectly understandable I notice both sides relieving stress in similarly unsubstantiated ways lol.

      True... But I wouldn't want to be the one to stand in between all the proposals to choose the one out of a thousand such applicants. Cuz either way you'll have 999 unhappy researchers.

    81. Also, Homeopathy is a billion dollar a year international industry...It has more than enough funding of it's own!

    82. Yeah it does tend to smack of someone intending to put on airs....never mind a Phd so readily mocking science.

    83. Hahaha what is your problem with my Phd people, let it be, please. I have a Phd and yes I do research does that make you jealous or feel dumb or something. I do not feel superior in any way to anyone. I am a pretty normal guy. Funny thing is, that you are all projecting your own insecurities on me, apparently my Phd make you feel inferior triggering the need to defend yourself and say that I am the one who is trying to make you feel that way. It is pathetic really.

    84. I do not give a Hoot! to what or how many Phd's you have, this doc is not about you, stick to the topic only. warning 1#

    85. seriously you are going to warn me..have you even read the comments? if you have you would see that I am only defending myself against others who try to discredit what I am saying because they think that I have picked this name to come over as superior or something...I am not the one bringing up my Phd for gods sake...Nevermind, I will leave this discussion myself...

    86. i doubt very much that phd is real...

    87. I think he's just saying if there is something to these cures why are they not pursuing some verification by the scientific method? And why should it be plausible these people figured out all these natural cures long ago not by the scientific method but through what- faith? accident?
      There is little doubt that there should be some value to plants found in this region for medicine. I doubt it has been as ignored by modern science as it's made out to be here and the whole thing sounds like a scam.

    88. This documentary may sound like a scam...that is right...doesnt mean that some of the premises states are not true...

      anyway why wouldnt pharmaceutical companies, doctors etc be all over this stuff you ask?

      well do you know how pharmaceutical companies make money and why it is important that they always reach their projected profits? better yet: do you know how the stock market works and which role the companies who fund this research play?

      do you know which ingredients/healing practices can be patented and which ones cant?
      do you know how important it is for the profit of these companies to be able to patent a certain medicine?
      do you know how scientific progress is made?

      do you know what scientific dogma entails?

      obviously to much information to give in a single reaction. If you would you would not be asking these questions.

    89. Yeah I know how all those things work and you're just asking pointless questions. It's a self refuting argument because if they make a drug that cures these diseases they sell it and laugh all the way to the bank.

    90. Is English your mother tongue? You do not exhibit the writing skills one would expect from a person with an advanced degree. I too question your claimed credentials.

    91. a_no_n

      Excellent response! I completely agree.

    92. im sorry man, but you're just blinded by the so call scientific truths...theres plenty more sea than we can reach with our eyes...for everyones sake...

      Hope can faith can make miracles...I could write for hours about the results science cannot disprove, but i think your not open to possibilities that are not known to science. And dont get me wrong, i believe in the measurable, but i know that there are things that are yet to be understood and that dont make them false...

      Dont play the judge here, because if we take history as a guide we will see that, what science claimed to be true one day, it became false on the next one... Im just glad that happens, otherwise there wouldnt be anymore evolution to be made and all the "truths" would already be known...but we all know its not like that, dont we?...

      I think that to remain open to new possibilities its the most prudent thing to do in a world yet to be understood.

    93. Don't play the judge here? That's exactly what one should do when presented with unsubstantiated claims. Your exhortation is precisely why science doesn't take what you say seriously.

    94. well, people must never have died during medieval times when hope and faith was all there was...oh wait.

    95. Look man, in medieval times, the existing science thought that the earth was the center of the universe, but it seems to me they were wrong. And in the future we'll look back to this day and discover the same exact thing, that the science we have, although more developed, is also wrong, because, as you might know as a science warrior, science's basic principle is falsifiability, and that is what underlies evolution of science itself. And, as you might know as well, before becoming "facts" science's principles were someones speculation, or in scientific language, hypothesis. That is the reason why the experimental method was even created, to test in controled conditions what people sugest as a possible solution for a problem. But you are so concerned in making others sound ridiculous that you forget science's basic principles. And if you go deep on history books you'll find that many major scientific leaps were brought about by someone that is normally called an i*iot and that sounded ridiculous. But someone has to play that role, because if we were to play safe all the time, not to sound ridiculous, many hypothesis that eventually lead to great discoveries wouldnt even be thrown, and science would be more static... How does the mind-over-matter hypothesis thrown by quantum physicists sounded(and even sounds) to you at first? Ridiculous... But still the most respected scientific awards, the Nobel prizes, awarded two quantum physicists last year. "(...)A French-American duo shared the 2012 Nobel Prize in physics for inventing methods to observe the bizarre properties of the quantum world."(...) Does the word bizarre sound scientific to you? So dont tell me, as a science warrior, that the Nobel judges are just crazy because they admited a non-verifiable science to be awarded... As i said before, there is plenty more of sea than we can reach with our eyes. And about the dumb example you have choosen to give to make me sound ridiculous: in the mediaval ages people's mind-set was rulled exclusively by fear, and there is a huuuuge diference between true positive hope and faith and the wish for god's mercy, because by then god was all there was, while today we have way more than that. When we look at a picture we should frame more than the faces in the center of the image...

    96. It appears that your argument is that since medieval man accepted something with no evidence, modern science should also accept this pap with no evidence.

    97. This is not about me man...You just dont get it, do you?

    98. You're absolutely correct. It isn't about you it's about the special pleadings you use in lieu of evidence. That I get.

    99. Do you have confidence issues?

    100. I have confidence in evidence. I have no confidence in bullsh*t. If you wish to call that an issue then do so.

    101. You are really angry...dont take things so serious...but, since you bring the evidence thing about, you didnt answer properlly, or at all, to the mind over matter and quantum physics that science for you? Is the Nobel award fair when it is handled to scientists that make unsustained but likely claims such as quantum physicists?

    102. I wouldn't have guessed that the asking of evidence was a sign of anger.

    103. What do you know about, mind over matter quantum physics? are you a proponent of Deepak Chopra? You seem to be talking about quantum woo.

    104. Look man, i am no proponent of Deepak Chopra, i havent even read a thing by him. Regarding authors my main references are Dean Radin, who wrote Councious Universe and Entangled minds, among others, and Robertr Lanza author of the Biocentric theory. But to tell you the truth, im an ignorant as far as quantum physics is concerned, meaning that i can only (if i can) grasp the undelying principles of such a complex universe of theory. What i was trying to do here with my arguments was just to evaluate the coherence of such criticism against something so full of hope for mankind as the therapeutic possibilities shown in this doc. Because, to my mind, it is important to be coherent when we assume a radical prespective about things that are still to be understood. And my point when i asked yellowmattercustard about is opinion regarding the mind-over-matter issue was: we cannot deny that there is a possibility for the psyche as whole (the conscious, the unconscious and the subconscious) to play a major role in the healing process, and label that possibility as non-scientific bullshit, and yet consider scientific the mind-over-matter issue as a valid possibility, when it is theorized by a science that, despite being recently awarded with a Nobel prize, it is still deeply theoretical and lacking undeniable evidence.

      But the bottom line here can be represented by Plato's Allegory of the Cave, meaning that we might all just be cognitive prisioners and inherently mistaken as to what is reality.

    105. watch the latest doc on TDF, The Simulation may appreciate.

    106. =) Incredibly, i started watching it yesterday at 2:26 a.m...2 minutes after your suggestion=) Although i only read your comment now, "oQ". And i really liked it!!
      Thank you!

    107. i see...So the people that were pious enough to build the Vatican, the Haijia Sophia, St pauls Cathedral etc, and were faithful enough to go halfway across the world and kill in the name of God, still weren't as genuinely faithful as you...sure thing buddy. Of course they weren't lol

    108. "And in the future we'll look back to this day and discover the same exact thing, that the science we have, although more developed, is also wrong, "

      The future will certainly hold more knowledge but it won't be arrived at by faith or mumbo jumbo... and that doesn't mean today's knowledge is wrong, just incomplete. What you seem to be implying is that in reference to to the mistaken hypothesis held by consensus prior to the Heliocentric hypothesis of Copernicus, we should grasp any fringe pseudosceience as possible just because it has yet to be proven.
      While it's healthy to keep open minds about it there's no reason to take them too seriously until they are proven.

    109. your koolaid certainly won't cure cancer

    110. Ohh you have a lot to learn about the world. I agree, false hope is nonsense, but wow you really do not have a clue how medicine works.

    111. i'm sorry was that supposed to be an argument?

      perhaps rather than just blowing smoke you could explain to me HOW i'm wrong.

    112. Pharmaceutical lobby would be one of the answers... The herbs for curing all sorts of illnesses do exist... they are just not allowed to be explored properly as this would undermine the sale of drugs... That's the bottom line of it in my view

    113. except of couyrse for all of those herbs that are used in regular medicine.

      you know what we call alternative medecine that has been proved to work? medicine.

      Granted the pharmaceutical lobby in America is a nightmare manifest...but that's what you get with unrestrained capitalism.

    114. I meant no disrespect towards what you said a_no_n, I hope you do realize that. It was just that I have my own questions on this issue. I am certain that the traditional medicine failed many times but it is also true for the modern medicine. In many instances, even where the drugs are effective in treating the primary illness, they have a lot of side effects, sometimes serious ones and quite dangerous for some other body organs. I wish the modern medicine would invest more energy in working on the healing properties of medicinal plants that have been used for thousands of years.

    115. well if you're looking for a magic pill that can do all that then best of luck to you...chances of it existing are slim to none though.

      considering we are living twice as long to the point where overpopulation is on the verge of becoming a serious issue I fail to see quite how modern medicine has failed anything.

    116. With all due respect how do I tell the true claims from the false ones? Without peer reviewed, demonstrable and falsifiable evidence there is no backing for such a claim. These "cures" rely on no more evidence than Bigfoot,alien abduction, homeopathy or heaven forbid Burzynski (the lying pos).

      The heads of "big pharm" and the scientists involved die of disease as well. Why would they deny these cures if their lives (or the lives of their family) depended upon it?

    117. No problem, I haven't stated any of the above as an undeniable fact, just "my view". The thing is that I have a personal experience with the healing properties of tomatoe where penicilin didn't help.... Recommended by my illiterate grandma born in 1919. I am sure that the peer reviewed papers on the healing properties of tomatoes must exist and I would be thankful if you could provide me with some links if they cross your path. Thanks in advance and greetings

    118. I remember reading a study linking an exstract from tomatoes and lowering cardiovascular issues. I do not have the study at hand and work is crazy right now. if i find it or another relevant study I will provide a link

    119. WTC7 I agree with most of what you say, if fact, I haven't found anything I would fundamentally disagree on - except the "tomato" thing (either it lost its "s" or it needs its "e" chopped off) (:-)

    120. :-)))), sorry about that! Just chop the -e :-)