Dutch psychic Jomanda & Breastimplants: The True Story

FE30033

Column
SILICONE-GATE: BREASTIMPLANTS
SYLVIA MILLECAM: THE TRUE STORY ?
Psychic Medium Jomanda -vs- Dutch Healthinspection (IGZ):
A Jihad based on Believe-Conviction: An Example casus ?
Europe, The Netherlands, 8 november 2006 - By Frank Eeken

HISTORY
On 20 august 2001 dutch famous actress Sylvia Millecam (45) died due to sickness. During her road of suffering she had received treatment from and consulted, besides regular medicine practitioners, several alternative-medicine-practitioners (28 in total) including personal friend and Holland's most famous psychic faith-healer Jomanda.

Jomanda has been giving healings for 30 years. She's born with certain paranormal gifts which (combination) only a few people in the world possess: clairaudient, second-sighted (remote viewing), has clear-feelings (precognition), and the greater part is clear-knowing. She has healed and given (financial) aid to people around the world in many countries, such as Ireland, Sweden, Belgium, France, Poland, Switzerland, Mallorca, Madeira, Moldavia, U.S.A, Canada, Honduras, Peru, Japan, Curacao, Aruba, Israel, Saudi-Arabia, South-Africa, Ethiopia and Ghana. In some countries she is allowed on intensive cares in hospitals.

Regular medicine believed Sylvia Millecam, who in her life was very helpful and active for her fellow-humans especially the handicapped people, had breastcancer. Jomanda mentioned that cancer was not the case at first: the cause of her illness was an infection. Due to leakage of her sillicon-breasts implanted 12 years earlier, which may had lateron caused cancer. "It was the silicone which have eventually caused the cancer". Jomanda also mentioned to Sylvia that the silicone implants had to be taken out. Regulare medicine refused her this life-saving operation: "first chemotherapy, that is obligated". Sylvia did not want chemo and was left to her fate, and (alternative) choice.

HEALTH-INSPECTION
The dutch Healthcare inspection (IGZ) is a governmental organisation which job it is to maintain supervision on the performance of legal rules in healthcare. IGZ-Headinspector Herre Kingma, the most influential person in the dutch medical world (2003) and member of dutch Quackbuster organization 'Vereniging Tegen de Kwakzalverij', started a criminal like investigation against among others Jomanda: Death by guilt ? Keeping Sylvia Millecam away from life saving regular medicine treatment ? About the causing misleading negative role of the media (dutch TV-programma NOVA) cut out parts of Jomanda's words) dutch politics seemed not to doubt. From a report of a general meeting in Parliament ( 28 september 2001, balancesheet, ministry of health VWS, 2002) the government / Minister of Health answered: "The signals about Jomanda origins mainly from the media". After this first 'factual' investigation, based on the "alarming and disturbing news in the media", Jomanda was acquited of any blame (end december 2001).

JOMANDA'S MIRACLE HEALING
Against Jomanda there wasn't a single complaint filed, which mostly is a foundation on which the IGZ (re)acts. But because (mainly about Jomanda) "the alarming news kept coming and direct signals came to the attention of the IGZ". headinspector Herre Kingma decided, maybe not quit satisfied with the outcome of the first investigation, to keep on going with this alternative-Jihad, and started a second followup-investigation, with the dirived goal "can the citizins of the Netherlands use alternative-medicine safe enough". In this followup-investigation Jomanda was heard and tapes of TV-programmes, in which Jomanda had appeared, were called in and 'investigated'. During these inquiry-conversations between Jomanda and IGZ, a Jomanda conducted miracle came to word: about someone with serious back-problems (lesion) who after a Jomanda-treatment stood up out of the wheelchair. A present doctor replied: "I know you are telling the truth, because that was my patient" (newspaper 'Algemeen Dagblad', Jomanda and the death of Sylvia, 24 dec 2004, Allard Besse, translation). The second investigation was bound to head- and paperwork from behind a desk because when an investigator, at a Jomanda healing, was called by Jomanda to experience a healing treatment on one of Jomanda's healing-tables, for which most of Jomanda's visitors by manner of speech would kill for, the investigator refused. Neglecting a chance to bodily experience a Jomanda treatment. This followup-investigation eventually resulted in the IGZ-report 'The Care-granting to Sylvia Millecam - an example-casus'

PROSECUTION JOMANDA
(* book by Alje Kamphuis, biografy 'Sylvia Millecam: op gevoel', 28 jan 2006).
While two different dates (20 and 21 august) of death of Sylvia Millecama are mentioned in the report (pg. 1, 9 en 70), the report according to Herre Kingma was "made with great accuracy not for the ones involved but for the Dutch government and thus for the Dutch people" *, but being silent about Jomanda's wheelchair-miracle and in which TV-programme NOVA was quoted a few times as a 'reliable source', was presented by Herre Kingma in person on 17 february 2004 in the national media, which created great media fuss and noice (mainly about Jomanda). A curious co-incidence: "a non-anonymous internal version of the report come into the hands of Dutch most watched newsprogramme NOS-journaal" *. Just like that, Out of the sky ? The report was also put online on the internet, for the whole world to read, without informing the family members of Sylvia Millecam beforehand since the report contained medical information about Sylvia Millecam. Sylvia's mother stated in dutch newspaper Trouw (21 febr 2004, by Eveline Brandt) that "If someone has to appear in court, it is not Jomanda, but the Headinspector Herre Kingma. He should be prosecuted"

ROLE MEDIA: IMAGEFORMING
The individual behind this IGZ-report about Sylvia Millecam had concluded that Jomanda from a "guru-position" had presented her "diagnosis" in a semi-religious atmosphere as an "unimpeachable judgement". Her working method was "lifeS-threatening". With these conclusions in hand, Herre Kingma decided for the second time to carry on with this alternative-Jihad. He informed (7 october 2004) the Public-Prosecution-Ministry with the intention to criminally prosecute Jomanda. Once again good business for the media, filling their headlines. Jomanda had become known as the 'murderer' of Sylvia Millecam: her friend !

# NETHERLANDS TO CRACK DOWN ON COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
# PSYCHIC 'MISLED ACTRESS TO HOPELESS CANCER DEATH'

GROUND ZERO
While it is known in the Netherlands that a family doctor gave a medical referral / relegation to Jomanda-treatment, which is known by several political parties and the statesecretary of finance Wijn: negative imageforming of alternative-, Jomanda-medicine in an evil daylight ? Since the enormous (financial-, intangible-, public health-) damage already is suffered, prosecution of Jomanda is maybe not necessary anymore in the eyes of a few people, the Quackbuster-organizations and their believers, compared to the thousands of patients who could benefit from alternative-, Jomanda-mode of treatment. But in case of prosecution, insiders believe that then alternative jurisprudence is intentionally, willingly and knowingly, being created, since the Dutch laws still lack on alternative medicine.

This while already since the '50 one is occupied with rules for alternative medicine: Report Brutel de la Rievere, 1952. Report Commission Peters, 1965. Statecommission Medical Professionemploment , Commission de Vreeze, 1967, which in 1973 came with the proposal Law BIG and which in 1977 started under leadersship of prof. Dr. P. Muntendam the Commission Alternative Medicine (CAG) from out which a famous report followed, with recommendations to the Government, and which report after fierce receival and publication was covered up. A recommondation was "As long as there is no Law for Practicing Alternative Medicine, alternative practitioners cannot be prosecuted unless their is deceit of brought about damage by unjust action". In 1983 the vast Government Commission of Health was in favor towards social recognition of alternative medicine. Since 9 nov 1993 the Law BIG started, 20 years !! after the Commission de Vreeze. The case Millecam thus, due to slowness and lack of law what Jomanda may never be brought upon since she has been active in the Netherlands for 30 years: How to fit an apple into a pear. Shameless using Sylvia Millecam's death as a motive. Goal: a total ban of Alternative Medicine ! The Netherlands: Alternative Ground Zero !?

ERROR MEDIUM JOMANDA
If medium Jomanda had made a mistake about Sylvia Millecam's diagnosis, as the IGZ states, than that would imply, according to the same IGZ, that medium Jomanda's paranormal gifts are not-working correctly. Where is the scientific research, which Jomanda has been asking for for 30 years, from which can be rationally and justified concluded that Jomanda's paranormal gifts do not function right ? If one does not have such a research, than at first one can never make judgement that Jomanda made an error, because one can not know that because one does not know whether or not Jomanda's paranormal gifts work correctly. While for example Dr. Jessica Utts (University Californie), who worked on the US-government sponsered Stargate-project, after research (1973, 1989, between 1992 en 1994) concluded about gifts of mediums (anomalous Cognition), that "It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria". Utts also finds that "is is a waste of time, to continue this kind of reaearch, if it is only meant to find even more evidence. 'There is few expectations of continuesly handing over evidence, for those who are not willing to accept the presently available data.". Also The German biofysicus Fritz-Albert Popp has tested, with the regular biofotonen-calculation-device, whether American healer Rosalyn Bruyere was capable to let light or energy come out of her hands. All these experiments were filmed and fotographed. So documented in all thinkable form. The scientist concluded that Bruyere, in contradiction of 'commen' people, was capable to intensify the foto-emission from her hands. Bruyere's hands were sending in many tests clearly more light, on the moments that she stated sending energy through her hands.
# RESEARCH PROVES 'SIXTH SENSE'
Thus secondly, by having no research in hand about Jomanda's paranormal gifts, that implies that one (IGZ) in the Netherlands wants to prosecute people only based on a believeconviction ! The Jihad agianst Jomanda / Alternative medicine !?

# IGZ & S.M.-CASE
The IGZ (Dutch Health Care Inspectorate) is abusing the death of Sylvia Millecam to fight against alternative medicine in general

SYLVIA MILLECAM WAS NOT CRAZY !
Sylvia Millecam was not a fool. She did not take anything for granted. On 11 may 2000 the family doctor notices that a tumor in her breast has grown bigger (3-4 cm), after she had visited him on 22 september 1999 (1-1,5cm) and when she was refered to a hospital where she didn't show up. This time she is again refered to a hospital for further research. In the hospital results confirm the suspicion of breastcancer. She wanted a second opinion. Lateron in may 2000 she visited Jomanda, who she had been in contact with, also as a friend, a long time before 2000. Jomanda does not see cancer at that time, Jomanda's hand started to shake above a part of Sylvia's right breast, "there lay the cause, silicone, they have to got out", thus Jomanda. On 8 june 2000 in a hospital (second opinion) the diagnosis breastcancer is determined. The treatmentplan starts with chemotherapy.

CHEMOTHERAPY
Sylvia Millecam did not want chemo because she doubted is this would extend her life, and because her father had died of an infection which regular medicine by accident thought was cancer, and he died of the treatment. There also was another bad experience with regular medicine in the family. After this Sylvia Millecam starts to look into more towards alternative medicine, with here and there some regular medicine visits, among others due to pressure of Jomanda.

ALTERNATIVE INFORMATION
Sylvia Millecam accordingly went to look for more information about her disease and alternative medicine. Because most regular doctors only have an acedemic education they can not answer these questions carefully, because they mostly do not know anything or do not want to know anything about alternatiev medicine, while in the IGZ-report it can be read that "about 75% of the patients uses alternative medicine", thus an internal oncologist. "The Dutch Cancer foundation 'Koninklijke Wilhelmina Fonds (KWF)' in 2000 has done research among its cancerpatients in the clinic 'Daniel Hoed Kanker Kliniek' in Rotterdam. Concluded was that 85% of the patients wanted more information about alternative medicine. This research was never published", thus a cancerpatient who was admitted at that time there.

GAP BETWEEN REGULAR / ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
Jomanda has been asking for co-operation with regular medicine for 'just' 30 years. But there is a gap between regular-medicine and the needs of patients, which they should be serving. Of the Dutch people about 60% found that alternative medicine should be in the healthinsurance. This only 11% of the doctors found (Tijmstra T, Andela M. Meningen van publiek en professie met elkaar vergeleken. Medisch Contact 1992;39:1119-1124). Another research showed that 84% of consumers found that family doctors should have knowledge of homeopathy, while 80% of the doctors did not find that neccesary (Veldkamp Marktonderzoek BV. Onderzoek onder huisartsen, attitude en omgang met homeopathie 1998). Regular medicine doctors can never carefully judge and advise, other then on basis of a believeconviction, if they do not have and do not want to know anything about alternative medicine / Jomanda. Not complying with, neglecting the need of 'their' patients "The Minister of Health points out......He recognises that many people use alternative medicine, but the % of Dutch people who have visited Jomanda, is also considerable" (Dutch Parliament, nr.14 report, algemeen overleg, 12-08-2004, Geestelijke gezondheidszorg)

NO CANCER
On 5 dec 2000 Sylvia Millecam is in a private clinic with a plastic surgeon who self has been convinced that silicone implants can cause complaints with certain patients. During the IGZ-investigation the question was asked to the surgeon"if patient during the conversation was pointed on her cancer". It comes out that "the word cancer awarely is not mentioned", "Afterwards the surgeon has asked on oneself whether it should have been better to have told Sylvia Millecam that"

PLAYBOY
Sylvia Millecam died as a consequence of breastcancer, as a consequence of siliconebreastimplants, which regular medicine did not want to take out. Together with Marlou Boots of the Dutch support group for Siliconeimplant women (SVS), whom Sylvia Millecam contacted a small year before her death and sincethen had good contact, they found a good plastic surgeon (one of a few, ethical, thus Boots) who wanted to amputate her sick breast. Sylvia Millecam looked forward tot that operation, because she wanted very bad to get well. If the breast would have been amputated, then Sylvia Millecam wanted to let the wounds stiched with golden threat, Sylvia joked, and then she wanted to pose for Playboy. But unfortunately, this rescue came to late for her.

REALITY:

# FALSELY DIAGNOSING CANCERS
# FALSELY DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER & DIED OF CHEMO
# WRONG CANCER DIAGNOSE: HEALTHY BREAST REMOVED

JOMANDA-MIRACLE: CANCER CURED
( source - Tv-programme 'Barend & Witteman', 13 mei 1999, Sonja Barend ) -
[Sonja]-"In that book is a letter if a man who writes 'my brother had cancer on the throat. I have taken foto's of my brother to the healinghalle in Tiel and have also held the foto's continiously for the radio- and Tv- broadcastings of Jomanda. Endresult is that my brother has been cured of cancer of the throat'. So that is possible ? -[Jomanda]-"Yes that is possible. The energy which is released on that moment, also via the CD, or via my voice on the radio, that works thus on the person on that moment. The energy which is positive energy, and eventually when the body can handle that all, that positive energy, will attack the negative energy. And then e.g. such a person might get black stools in the toilet. Via a natural way, relief, wat for the person is an easy way, get rid of it via the toilet" -[Sonja]-"Are you also sure that that brother is cured ?" - [Jomanda]-"yes, yes, the prove is all there, of course, otherwise you would not put it in a book, those people went to the doctor, everything is checked"

JOMANDA: HOW MANY PEOPLE HEAL ?
(source - AVRO,10 LastigeVragen,2 april 2002,Pieter-Jan Hagens) "How many % does Jomanda heal ? -[Jomanda]-"I think so about 50%. Not everyone can heal. Also not with the doctor. You just can not say, if someone is dying 'I touch you and life will go on on earth', it does not work that way"

QUOTE JOMANDA: PROOF OF MIRACLES
( source - bco AVRO, Tv-programme '10 Lastige Vragen', 2 april 2002, Pieter-Jan Hagens ) [ PJH ] - Jomanda, has one of your miracles ever been confirmed or proved by regular medical researches ? [ Jomanda]-"Yes, they all lay at home. But one does not come to look at it."

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
For over a quarter of a century the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory at Princeton University has been studying the effects of human intention and emotional resonance on the behavior of random physical processes. They have amassed an immense body of empirical evidence that indicates that effects such as those described are empirically demonstrable under controlled laboratory conditions.

JOMANDA NOT PROSECUTED IN MILLECAM-CASE
The dutch Justice department has decided (4 october 2006) not to prosecute faithhealer Jomanda and 4 other alternative practitioners for the death of Sylvia Millecam. They all go scot-free. The Justice department stated this on tuesday. According to the Justice department there are insufficient indications found in her extensive investigation that due to the doing of the 5 alternative practitioners the health of Sylvia Millecam "had been caused damage or had been harmed". In contradiction of the devastating judgement of the dutch healthcare inspection IGZ in their report, evidence was also not found that the suspects had kept Sylvia Millecam away from regular medicine, which is punishable by law. According to the Justice department there is also no evidence that Sylvia Millecam's choice has been directed by investigated alternative suspects: no chemotherapy, sceptical towards regular medicine, choice treatment by alternative practitioners. For her investigation the Public Prosecution Ministry has among others heard several witnesses and has consulted different experts. Jomanda's lawyer E.R. said in a reaction that there was no proof at all against his client: "That has become very clear and confirmed after long investigating", thus the counsel. E.R said that he possibly, on behalf of Jomana, will file a request for damage-claim and -compensation. The Health inspection has also mentioned (17 october 2006) not to appeal the decision of Justice department to not prosecute the alternative practitioners and Jomanda

THE NETHERLANDS: DANGEROUSLY ILL
At the time of the information of Herre Kingma to the Justice department (7 oct 2004), the IGZ was convinced, so was 'stated', that "Jomanda was guilty of criminal FACTS". During a period of a half year in which Jomanda had been asked by the Spiritual world to be silent, to not speak, as a penance for the Netherlands, Jomanda reacted on the information in writing: "The Netherlands has many storms and evenmore teacups. I can only laugh about this and now know for even more sure why I was asked to do penance for the Netherlands: The Netherlands is critically ill" !

IGZ: QUICKSAND & MASS-HYSTERIA ?
The socalled 'facts' of the IGZ prooved in reality to have been persuasive quicksand and/or a dogmatic believeconviction from which one wanted to battle Jomanda. The by Herre Kingma / IGZ (unawarely) started alternative-Jihad has lead to anti-Jomanda mass-hysteria. In Iraq once there would be weapons of massdestruction, and see the result. Proof ? Jomanda was after the death of Sylvia Millecam and the investigations of the IGZ, besides many other very slandering remarks, called the 'murderer' of, her friend, Sylvia Millecam by actor Aarts Staartjes in Tv-programme 'Barend en van Dorp', Rtl4, 14-11-2001, and in newspaper 'Dagblad vh Noorden', 19-02-2004, about which the journalisticboard made judgement lateron in favor of Jomanda. While at the moment mass of people for example watch medium Char on television, and in town Tiel where Jomanda had healing once tens of thousands of visitors came, even with a special train organized by Dutch railcompany, the number of visitors has drasticly declined since then. It nearly destroyed Jomanda.

JOMANDA: REHABILITATION AND RECTIFICATION
Jomanda's laywer after 'acquittal' mentioned to be thinking about damageclaims. The could be done with, in contradiction of what the IGZ had but wanted to create with this case, jurisprudence in hand. On 31-11-2000 a court ruled in favor of Jomanda (case Jomanda -vs- St. Universal Church of Gods Kindom, civil cases, nr. AA8747 casenr. 132581, court Rotterdam) in which is mentioned among others: - (1) By publishing Jomanda has been described in a negative manner, and is the respect which she enjoyed with others, attacked. So far Jomanda's good name and honor has been attacked. Also the article as published by UKvGR is not the truth. This brings about that unlawful has been handled. - (2) The UKvGR has not tried in any way to verify the story, while that could have been done in an easy way and there was every motive to do so. - (3) It does not lift the obligation of UKvGR to investigate whether the information on truth and to be sure that she does not act in contradiction of its social carefullness. - (4) The court states that the UKvGR could have published the message in the story in another way, without harming Jomanda's good name. - (5) An unjust publication of facts, justifies a rectification"

FUTURE: WHO IS RESPONSIBLE ?
Formally the Minister of Health Hoogervorst is responsible for the activities of the IGZ. Dutch Parliament can call the Minister on this. Minister Hoogervorst has done very little in this case, besides stating on national television that homeopathy is just not-working water (ANP, 18 febr 2004). The National Ombudsman once (1994) had fierce criticism on the Inspection of Health in a scandal in hospital Eemland in city Amersfoort. Also a Commission (Hans Pont, 2004) had great criticism: "The internal organization of Dutch Healthcare inspection is characterized by unfitfull management, bad internal communication and little respect from managers for the lower working staff". But Minister Hoogervorst found that "careful had been acted in the investigation about Sylvia Millecam's death" (bco Brabant, 10 april 2004). Minister Hoogervorst held a speech with admireable words about chiefinspector Herre Kingma, who joined the inspection in 2000, at Kingma's departure from the Inspection in januari 2006. Herre Kingma at the moment is chairman of the board of governers of the 'Medisch Spectrum Twente'. One of the greatest non-acedemic hospitals in the Netherlands. Dutch Health Minister Hoogervorst stated (15 juli 2004) with reference to a registred letter (18 april 2004) that he "saw no ground for a damageclaim" because he "never prohibited the Dutch peoples to visit Jomanda nor did he withold the peoples information about Jomanda". The truth about Jomanda and her miracles must not have crossed his mind.

May in the future appear that Jomanda's treatment indeed is healing (as thousands of people around the world already are experiencing) including (scientific) evidence, which might come from abroad (Canada, Japan?) while the Dutch government headstrong refuses and had refused for the past 30 years to research Jomanda, then - with in mind the priciples of decent Government, article 22 Constitution 'the government takes measures to advance public health' (not just regular medicine) and with what was stated in the IGZ-report towards the alternative practitioners "according to the manual Mr. D.Hazewinkel-Surenga's study of Dutch criminal law life-offence, or agression-offence can also be perpetrated by negligence, dereliction of duty, when there is a certain care-duty" - maybe a question in mind could be for the (potential) Jomanda-visitors who decided on basis of negative imageforming not to visit Jomanda (anymore): How much does a missed (change on) healing and/or improvement of health cost, and who had been responsible and liable ?

SILICONE-GATE

THE PROBLEMS WITH SILICONE
The problems about silicone (silicone related diseases) was just slightly mentioned in the IGZ-report, despite Jomanda's 'diagnosis' (cause of illness: had to go out) Also Dutch media and politics ignored and ignore the subject. Neglecting to look at this seriously The consequences, the image of regular medicine, and paternizing alternative medicine/Jomanda, one appearently found more important: on behalf of the 'Dutch people' especially for thousands of (implant) women ?

ABOUT SILICONE BREAST IMPLANTS
( Source- article from the dutch supportgroup woman with breast implants (SVS), the SVS strives to a ban of unlimited use of silicone-gel breast implants, the promoting of research, a help program for the sick and prevention - secretary Marlou Boots, had a close relation with Sylvia Millecam from almost a year before her death)
-(1) "..Silicone litteraly take possession of your body. Marketing inventions, which greedyly are taken up by the medical science. There is then not thought that a crime is being committed on the human body...'
-(2) "...Of all women ever operated in the Netherlands 10% have meanwhile already communicated themselves at the SVS as a silicon victim. At some women immediately an extreme improvement in health steps up after removal of the implants. The largest group needs 2 up to 5 years for slightly recovery. For a small group unfortunately the 'point or no return ' has been reached and these women die a mysterious death, which is dismissed with declarations such as "the age" or other never determined sicknesses...".
-(3) "...There is a surgeon who has said rockly-hard: "If breast enlarge operations would be forbidden at five o'clock this afternoon, then I will put in my last implant at five to five". And that is now exactly the reason why almost every plastic surgeon keeps its mouth shut. Putting implants in means gold money..."
-(4) "......Women who get implants always are fortunate with them. They do not think of the possible consequences or do not want to think about it. As long as the doctors are not yet punished, they continue to deny that those small pockets will eventualy leak in the long run and as a result problems can arise. It is than not strange that a woman does not realise inwhich she starts ? Although the complete medical science are aware, informed of all these matters and the use of silicon in America has even been forbidden since 1992, the lords doktors cover themselves in silence..."

# HOROR OF BOOB OP VICTIMS: SUN exposes Breast Implant Scandal
STAR WITNESSES CELEBRITY WOMEN - Pamela Anderson, Cher, Sharron Davies, Paula Yates, Demi Moore, Brigitte Nielson, Anna Nicole Smith, Dannii Minoque, Ivana Trump, Joan Rivers, Dolly Parton, Nikki Diamond, Britt Ekland, Daryl Hannah, Tori Spelling, Heather Locklear, Sophia Loren, Victoria Principal, Kate O'Mara and Melinda Messenger.
# CHRONOLOGIC: SILICONE BREAST IMPLANTS
# SILICONE HOLOCAUST
# THE TRUTH BEHIND BREAST IMPLANTS
# CHEMIST FIRED AFTER CALLING BREAST IMPLANT UNSAFE
# THE PROOF: BREAST IMPLANTS INTOXICATING HUMAN BEINGS
Largest manufacturer of Breast Implants Dow Corning' secret documents: Trial Exhibit-list
# BREAST IMPLANTS: MANIPULATION PUBLIC OPINION & MEDIA
October 14, 1991 outlining Dow's public relations efforts prior to anticipated FDA hearings on the safety of breast implants
# STUDY: 1 IN 7 BREAST IMPLANTS RUPTURE
# SCIENTISTS TIE BREASTIMPLANT TO CANCER
# COMPOUND FROM IMPLANTS LINKED TO CANCER
# BREAST IMPLANT CANCERLINK
# BREAST IMPLANT LINKED TO LUNG-, BRAINCANCER
# STUDY: NO LONG TERM HEALTHEFFECTS FROM BREASTIMPLANT
# WOMEN ARE SOLD MYTH THAT DISEASE IS NORMAL
Authorities accused of failing to tackle CAUSES of Breast Cancer
# WHISTLEBLOWER "DEFECTS IN SILICONE IMPLANTS"
# BREAST IMPLANTS AGAIN LINKED TO SUICIDE RISK
# WHISTLEBLOWERS "IMPLANT MANUFACTURERS COVER-UP"
# 3 INDEPENDENT STUDIES: SAFETY CONCERNS BREAST IMPLANT
# SENATORS: "INVESTIGATE WHISTLEBLOWER CLAIMS IMPLANTS"
2006
# CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION: BREAST IMPLANTS
# THE FDA "A CRIMINAL ORGANIZATION"

MORE INFO ABOUT BREAST IMPLANTS
# DIANA ZUCKERMAN , Ph.D., President, National Research Center for Women & Families
# ILENA ROSENTHAL, Director, The Humantics Foundation for Women, San Diego, CA , Ilena has and leads the largest breastimplant supportgroup in the world. She daily has contact with thousands of women whoms life and health have been destroyed by faulty not approved FDA breastimplants.

REGULAR MEDICINE: PERILOUSLY & HATING WOMEN ?
"A oncologist and breastcancerspecialist refused Sylvia Millecam an operation to remove her breastimplant, he wanted chemotherapy first, which Sylvia did not want, he treated Sylvia as a toddler, Sylvia was furious about that" (19 june 2000), thus Marlou Boots. Regular medicine thus wanted chemo, while leaking silicone was floating around in Sylvia's body ? A 'lifeSthreathening' combination, according to Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D. and Ilena Rosenthal. Regular medicine have left Sylvia to her fate and the sent her (freedom of choice) on her matter road, to next (let others) blame others of neglect and Sylvia' death ? Why ? Their own image and status (humanity -vs- marketing) ? Protecting a commercial woman-hating industry ** ?

( ** Global Sisterhood Network, 'When Dismissal Amounts to Scandal: The Medical Response to Silicone Implant related Disorders', PHD, M Sc 1995, Dr. Lynette J. Dumble, former professor of surgery at the University of Texas in Houston )

# CANCER THERAPIES: CENTRAL ISSUE COURT BATTLE
# FORCING CHEMO-THERAPY ON 12 YEAR OLD CHILDREN
"We didn't know that when we took our child to the hospital that that we would lose our right to decide what is best for our child", Parker Jensen: "They're trying to kill me with chemicals
# FORCING CHEMO ON CHILD: CHILD DIES: Dominik: The True Story
# STATE-SPONSERED MEDICAL TERRORISM
Kidnapping 13-YEAR OLD and forcing chemotherapy against her will

PROF. PIET BORST: ENERGISED WATER
Also member of dutch Quackbuster organization 'Vereniging Tegen de Kwakzalverij' Prof Piet 'what I do not get, does not exist' Borst, director research molecular biology of the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NKI), made a promise bet on national television to which he attached e 45.000, because he was so confident of himself, in the tv-programme VARA 'Het Zwarte Schaap' ( 12 August 2000 ) with Jomanda to research her energised water. Another Quackbuster organization 'Skepsis' stated (false hope) on their website at that time that "Jomanda did not dare to take on Borst' research". But, in reality, Prof. Piet Borst had given false hop, because one and Jomanda has never heard from him again. Nothing but silence from the man who 'claims' to be a quackbuster, which he in this case could have done with a, in his own words, simple water-test" (newspaper NRC-Handelsblad column 'Jomanda', 6 march 2004). According to law: not coming to terms with an oral agreement !

Besides all the titels 'atheist' and anti-Jomanda propagandist Borst counts himself rich he was a 'ROYAL SOCIETY Foreign Member (1986)': " Everything now rests with The ROYAl SOCIETY (UK's national academy of science ) abandoning their 17th century pact with THE VATICAN never to make a study of forces in the universe that are beyond our five physical senses - so-called spiritual matters"

# THE SECULAR SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF SURVIVAL AFTER DEATH
"A separate mind and brain. The study of the normally invisible part of the universe - subatomic physics - provides a rational explanation for so-called "paranormal". The alternative to all the supernatural religions, invented by priests who knew nothing about cosmology"
# THE AFTERLIFE: IRREFUTABLE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE
# SCIENTIST CLAIMS PROOF OF AFTERLIFE
# HOW DIFFERENT RELIGIONS VIEW THE AFTERLIFE
# FOCUS ON ISLAM: LIFE AFTER DEATH

QUACKBUSTERS: QUICKSAND
Prof. Piet Borst called doctor-biologist Drs. E.V. (also from the IGZ-report S.M.) in newspaper 'Leidsch Dagblad, 7 febr. 2003' a quack. In 'Leidsch Dagblad' of 24 february 2003 E.V. reacted. He challanged Borst for a debate on national television to show that Borst' words are based on quicksand. Also with this Borst never complied. The chairman of quackbuster foundation 'Skepsis', Rob Nanninga, and its members, have been invited twice by Jomanda for a private healing so that research could take place or been discussed. Jomanda has also never herad again from Rob Nanning, who also claimed (false hope) that Jomanda did not dare to take on the 'Skepsis' tests, but reality, a letter from Jomanda (24 januari 1995) to Rob Nanninga, published in the magazine of Skepsis (Skepter, jr 8, nr.1, march 1995, pg. 42-43), shows quit the opposite. Conclusion: stating, claiming, claiming, stating, gving false hope, but proving their words.....never. Reality simply shows that Jomanda's treatment does work and heal. There, while one 'claims' to be evidence-based, is simply no evidence that Jomanda's treatments do not-work. At least, not in this / the real world !

# THE QUACKBUSTER CONSPIRACY
The Battle Between "Health" and "Medicine"
# QUACKBUSTER CONSPIRACY: HARMING PATIENTS
# QUACKBUSTER CONSPIRACY: LEADING TO DEATHS

STORY SYLVIA MILLECAM NOT ON IT'S OWN
SYLVIA MILLECAM DIED THE SILICONE-DEATH !
( SOURCE - Dutch magazine 'De stille kracht' from Dutch supportgroup Women with Silicone implant (SVS), Secretary Marlou Boots, Sept. 2003, Nr.3 )
The story of Sylvia Millecam does not stand on it's own. More than 5.000 women have meanwhile put there medical complaints at the support group SVS. Dozens are decaying in the terminal phase. We also have in our records about 120 young children of whom the mother had gotten implants once. Also these children have several fysical complaints. That was already known in 1975. In our country each week about 40 women get silicone breasts. Within a timespan of 5 years, 1 on 4 have serious complaints, most of the times ending into the so-called 'silicone-disease' (Silicone related Disease). This is a disease that attacks the immuun system of the body. Women suffer many times of mussle- and joint, articular pains, fatique-attacks, memory loss, back pains, neurological complaints, skin thickening, allergies. All functions can be disturbed.'
BREASTCANCE CHECK USELESS
'Doctors are at a loss, looking: these a-typical complaints, never to be tracked and thus not treatable. The only thing doctors know for sure is that the complaints are not due to silicone. But we know better. Silicone bags leak or spread the mess (like strong glue particles) around into the body. It must make people think, because silicone implants are prohibited in America, while one in the Netherlands continues with them. And what do you think about normal breastcancer research. Due to the implants, that research can not be done and possible suspicious spots can not be discovered in an early stage.'
BOOK: THE TRUTH ABOUT SILICONE BREAST IMPLANTS
Sylvia Millecam had always trusted but was very afraid of just that, what people now are saying.She wanted so badly to bring, carry out word, a message. Choosing for yourself. Not be lead by remarks which make you uncertain by which you will do things which later you will regret. Many years have passed after her death and still The Truth concerning Sylvia Millecam has still not come out in the open. Sylvia Millecam found that women should be warned about the risks of silicone implants. She wanted to write a book about it. Unfortunately, it has never come to that.

---

FEMALE PARTISAN: MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT AGNES KANT
On name of its leader Jan Marijnissen, The Socialistic Party (SP) is also member of Dutch Quackbuster organization 'Vereniging Tegen de Kwakzalverij'. A foundation where on their yearly symposium in 2002, while Herra Kingma was presence, a comparison was made between homoepathy with the medical practices of the concentration camps in nazi-Germany, afterwhich applaud sounded from the audience. Despite the presence of journalists (amont others newspaper Trouw): no 'alarming and disturbing media-coverage' ? SP-Member of Parliament Agnes Kant, maybe the next Dutch Minister of Health after the elections in november 2006, has preached misleading untrue facts about Jomanda in the Dutch Parliament (28 sept 2001, health balancesheet, 20 march 2002, proposal changing Law-BIG ). Misleading (media) imageforming as 'carefull' input for evenso carefull political administration ?? "Many times has been spoken with Member of Parliament Agnes Kant of the Socialistic Party (SP), the correct political questions were asked, but the answers........ all doctors, some exceptions, who are dealing with the problematic nature of silicone are lyars, LIE-POLITICS ! The oath of Hippocrates ? The oath of Hypocriticus, one must mean, they act as if there nose is bleeding, as if they know of nothing", thus Marlou Boots in a reaction in 2006. If there was nothing wrong than Dow Corning (US manufacturer of silicone) would not have payed anything, but Dow Corning has already payed 4,7 billion to women in damageclaims.

DUTCH POLITICS: VALUES
Reaction politicians in case one self, the ego could be on the line, with 'difficult' subjects such as Jomanda/Millecam: "Have no opinion...", "Have no task...", "Not meaningfull to discuss....", "See no reason for... ", "Can mean little for you...", "Subject is outside of my territory... ", "No role for me ..", "We wil send it forward..." !


"Watch out, you bring about a wasps', hornets'nest:
Then I think: Rather a wasps'nest, than play the Ostrich "
( Sylvia Millecam )

ISAW

FE30033 wrote:

ERROR MEDIUM JOMANDA
If medium Jomanda had made a mistake about Sylvia Millecam's diagnosis, as the IGZ states, than that would imply, according to the same IGZ, that medium Jomanda's paranormal gifts are not-working correctly. Where is the scientific research, which Jomanda has been asking for for 30 years, from which can be rationally and justified concluded that Jomanda's paranormal gifts do not function right ? If one does not have such a research, than at first one can never make judgement that Jomanda made an error, because one can not know that because one does not know whether or not Jomanda's paranormal gifts work correctly.

c.f. Proving a negative.

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
For over a quarter of a century the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory at Princeton University has been studying the effects of human intention and emotional resonance on the behavior of random physical processes. They have amassed an immense body of empirical evidence that indicates that effects such as those described are empirically demonstrable under controlled laboratory conditions.

Note the tilda!- thats a "~" . It is usually a standard notation for "this isnt from this sites actual establishment but is a personal page."

Pear reference 38 downloadable papers
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html
Far from an Immense body" only THREE reference this field. AFAIK
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Complementarity.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/finalcap.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/phys.heal.pdf

None mention "human intention and emotional resonance on the behavior of random physical process" in the title. If you claim that they have evidence to support that then care to please cite the earlier work which backs up your claim?
As regards pear:
http://skepdic.com/pear.html
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm

For a discussion about this above "press release" see also
http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17251

I particularly like

OK, one thing that stood out from the post, though: there "is simply no evidence that Jomanda's treatments do not-work". I know how she feels: I've spent years devising my being-kicked-reapeatedly-in-bollucks therapy. While the government refuses funding for the treatment, Tony Blair - despite repeated requests - has failed to volunteer as a subject to prove that it doesn't work. I think I ought to sue.

here is an exchange with the OP:
http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/index.php?topic=606.msg8126

The dutch Justice department has decided (4 october 2006) not to prosecute faithhealer Jomanda and 4 other alternative practitioners for the death of Sylvia Millecam.

Civil suit pending???

FE30033

ISAW wrote:

c.f. Proving a negative.
Note the tilda!- thats a "~" . It is usually a standard notation for "this isnt from this sites actual establishment but is a personal page."

Pear reference 38 downloadable papers
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/publications.html
Far from an Immense body" only THREE reference this field. AFAIK
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/Complementarity.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/finalcap.pdf
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/pdfs/phys.heal.pdf

None mention "human intention and emotional resonance on the behavior of random physical process" in the title. If you claim that they have evidence to support that then care to please cite the earlier work which backs up your claim?
As regards pear:
http://skepdic.com/pear.html
http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm

For a discussion about this above "press release" see also
http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17251

I particularly like

here is an exchange with the OP:
http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/index.php?topic=606.msg8126


Civil suit pending???

And ? You proof nothing. You just 'state' a negative. You just disagree: Your believeconviction by which you do not belief other people (e.g. PEAR). The positive claims (PEAR, Jomanda) is and/or can be proven, and which are experienced by thousands of people, which you probably also (without prove) do not believe. Denying your fellowhumans. If you are so very sure of what you are 'saying', maybe you should contact PEAR, and ask them or what you 'believe' is true, cause at a (safe) distance anyone can call out anything, but if that is according to reality is a second thing.

Note your priority: out of the whole story, you pick out these points. In stead e.g. of noting or being troubled by the fact that thousands of women with implants are walking the planet, in stead of e.g. the fact that peoples are manipulated by negative imageforming, in stead of e.g. the fact that Jomanda could save millions in suffering and euro's in healthcare if only serious interest and research into her miracles would take place. But the points you 'mentioned' must be more and very very important to you (in life).

davros

I don't understand what the OP expects us to deduce from this. To summarise, a woman was diagnosed with cancer, was offered standard medical treatment and refused it because she believed there was an alternative. She died.

The psychic healer mentioned here was acquitted of murder (i.e. of preventing the woman from receiving proper medical treatment).

We have had cases like this in Ireland too. This is exactly the reason the Irish Skeptics Society exists. Alternative medicine (or psychic healing) is not harmless. Not only is it not effective, it creates a false belief that conventional medicine is unnecessary and people die as a result. The case above underlines the danger.

Zombrex

FE30033 wrote:

And ? You proof nothing.

No, actually it is you who prove nothing. There is no proof that Jomanda actually has the ability to heal people with her mind, and lots of reasons to think she doesn't.

It is actually very easy to trick people into thinking they are being healed. It is called the placebo effect, and it is quite common.

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

FE30033 wrote:

being troubled by the fact that thousands of women with implants are walking the planet

Millions actually, but then that doesn't prove, or even support the idea that Jomanda can actually heal people with her mind. She can't.

FE30033 wrote:

the fact that Jomanda could save millions in suffering and euro's in healthcare if only serious interest and research into her miracles would take place.

Actually she can't, because her "miracles" aren't real.

ISAW

FE30033 wrote:

And ? You proof nothing. You just 'state' a negative.

i dont think you understand my point. The claim is that there is not proof she is NOT performing a miracle and someone has to show she is NOT is asking someone to prove a negative.

You just disagree:

I do mpre than that! I say if you make a claim than provide evidence.

Your believeconviction by which you do not belief other people (e.g. PEAR). The positive claims (PEAR, Jomanda) is and/or can be proven, and which are experienced by thousands of people, which you probably also (without prove) do not believe. Denying your fellowhumans.

Actually my point was I dont see ANYHWHERE where PEAR supports wht you claim. Especially about Jomanda! Where did PEAR do ANY research on Jomanda. YOU claim it so it is for YOU to support it!

If you are so very sure of what you are 'saying', maybe you should contact PEAR, and ask them or what you 'believe' is true,

This is called "shifting the burden" YOU made claims that PEAR proved something related to Jomanda. But you fail to show exactly what PEAR confirmed! Where did they?

cause at a (safe) distance anyone can call out anything, but if that is according to reality is a second thing.

Exactly what I was stating! You can make all the claims about Jomanda you want. where is the evidence? You claimed PEAR was evidence. Where exactly do PEAR confirm your claims?

Note your priority: out of the whole story, you pick out these points.

I scanned through it and picked out the first things that seemed odd. It isnt any use for you to doubt my moticves in pointing out problems if they are problems. But if you want to point out to me all the other errors and problems in your diatribe then feel free to fdo so

In stead e.g. of noting or being troubled by the fact that thousands of women with implants are walking the planet, in stead of e.g. the fact that peoples are manipulated by negative imageforming, in stead of e.g. the fact that Jomanda could save millions in suffering and euro's in healthcare if only serious interest and research into her miracles would take place.

This may well be true. And Hitler may have been a good painter and had a lot to say about art appreciation. But most people prefer to concentrate on Hitler's damage to society rather than his eye for art.

But the points you 'mentioned' must be more and very very important to you (in life).

Look. Just try answer the questions and dont try to make a personal attack on the movives of the questioner. I cant help oit if you dont like the message but dont try to shoot the messenger.

Myksyk

The original post is so rambling and incoherent that it is impossible even to know where to start engaging with it.

bonkey

FE30033 wrote:

And ? You proof nothing. You just 'state' a negative.

No, he states that its impossible to prove a negative (which is true). Furthermore, he was alluding to the fact that science / skepticism doesn't take an opening stance of "Innocent till proven guilty".

It starts from assuming that the claim of supernatural powers doesn't hold up until it is proven that it does.

The positive claims (PEAR, Jomanda) is and/or can be proven,

Which is it now? They are proven, or you assert that they can be, but have not yet been?

If they have been proven, incidentally, then why has Jomanda not collected her one million dollars from James Randi?

If you are so very sure of what you are 'saying', maybe you should contact PEAR, and ask them or what you 'believe' is true

The poster you're responding to has already supplied links to show that PEAR may not be the most reliable source to be referencing for an answer to such questions in the first place.

Even were that not the case, the onus is still not on the skeptic to prove your claim false until you have met your own burden of proof to make a compelling case that your claims are true. All you've done so far is insist they are because people believe.

, cause at a (safe) distance anyone can call out anything, but if that is according to reality is a second thing.

Can you prove that this is not what you are doing?

Or will you instead now realise that asking for proof of a negative (as you've already done) is unreasonable.

Note your priority: out of the whole story, you pick out these points.

If the points criticised are not important, then they shouldn't be in the story. If they are important, then successfully challenging them is sufficient to undermine the overall veracity of your claims.

the fact that peoples are manipulated by negative imageforming,

Would you agree that people are being menipulated by the negative image that you're portraying of mainstream medicine, the Duth authorities, and anyone who thus far has disagreed with you?

e.g. the fact that Jomanda could save millions in suffering and euro's in healthcare

Thats not a fact. Its an assertion. More accurately, its an unproven assertion.

I believe we would differ as to why it is unproven.

if only serious interest and research into her miracles would take place.

James Randi has offered her (or anyone else who will take his challenge) a million dollars if her claims can stand up to a suitable double-blind test.

She only has to agree to participate and - assuming you are correct - she can make headlines, reap a fortune, have her claims proven and subsequently offer the world all the benefits you claim are being denied with the force of rigorous scientific testing behind her.

Cost to Jomanda : participation.

Why does she refuse to take this challenge?

Given her refusal to take this challenge, why do you blame others, rather than her, for not wishing to establish via serious research whether or not she's a charlatan?

But the points you 'mentioned' must be more and very very important to you (in life).

They must also be important to you, else you would simply remove them from the original story and allow the remainder to stand on its own.\

Instead, you try to deflect the criticism whilst refusing to abandon the specific points that are criticised.

FE30033

davros wrote:

I don't understand what the OP expects us to deduce from this. To summarise, a woman was diagnosed with cancer, was offered standard medical treatment and refused it because she believed there was an alternative. She died.

She was not offered any choice in 2000. The only option offered was chemotherapy. She did not want that. And because she did not want that she refused. Then she started, due to lack of regular medicine options and the fact she was treated as a toddler bij an oncologist, to look around more into alternatieve medicine. Jomanda she already visited long before 2000. Sylvia Millecam died as a single case in comparison to thousands of cases in regular medicine.

davros wrote:

The psychic healer mentioned here was acquitted of murder (i.e. of preventing the woman from receiving proper medical treatment).

JOMANDA NOT PROSECUTED IN MILLECAM-CASE
After extensive investigation in which several witnesses were heard and different experts wer consulted, there were accoring to the Justice Department insufficient / no indications that Jomanda / the alternative practitioners have:
(!) kept Sylvia Millecam away from regular medicine.
(2) acted intentionally or in neglect by which Sylvia Millecam's health was harmed or damaged.
(3) influenced Sylvia Millecam's choice (no chemo, sceptical towards regular medicine, a choice for alternative medicine)

davros wrote:

We have had cases like this in Ireland too. This is exactly the reason the Irish Skeptics Society exists. Alternative medicine (or psychic healing) is not harmless. Not only is it not effective, it creates a false belief that conventional medicine is unnecessary and people die as a result. The case above underlines the danger.

I do not see the evidence on which you base your conclusion 'not effective'. In reality, I do not think thousands of patients would visit AM if it were not effective, and also I do not think that many RM practitioners would be into AM if it were not effective. So I guess, it is a false belief (no evidence) that AM is not effective, as it is also the presumption that coneventional medicine is not necessary. Jomanda e.g. wants to co-operate with RM. And/And. Not or AM / or RM. But both. Your presumptiveness (without evidence) underlines the danger of a believe-conviction, cauxe reality simply shows effectiveness of AM. That one does not research, does not say anything at all about the effectiveness.

If regular medicine worked, there would be no alternative practitioners in the hospitals. In UK healers are commited to hospitals. Hospitals/Surgeries/Hospices where NFSH members are known to practise healing. http://www.nfsh.org.uk/content/view/54/61/1/5/
Spirituality and Clinical Care
BMJ 21 dec 2002;325:1434-1435
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7378/1434
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7378/1434
Obstacles to research in complementary and alternative medicine
In most countries, CAM research funding is on a very small scale. For instance, only 0.08% of the British National Health Service research budget goes towards CAM research.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_06_150903/ern10442_fm-1.html
0.08% OF TOTAL RESEARCH BUDGET: ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/320/7228/188/a

FE30033

Wicknight wrote:

No, actually it is you who prove nothing. There is no proof that Jomanda actually has the ability to heal people with her mind, and lots of reasons to think she doesn't. It is actually very easy to trick people into thinking they are being healed. It is called the placebo effect, and it is quite common.

Actually and really it is you who do not believe people. But your belief does not say anything about reality or healing. Because there is proof that Jomanda can heal, as confirmed e.g. by RM-practitioners (e.g. healthinspection doctor - see firstposting).

Do you really actually 'believe' that Jomanda would put in her book that someone was cured from throatcancer (see first posting) if it were untrue, while she at the same time knows that the whole of the Netherlands is watching her very very carefully, every step she makes, and trying to bring her down on the slightest mistake, and while knowing the impact of such a claim ?

Placebo is a non-issue, used only to ward off reality, because it also applies to regular medicine in the very same way and order. And evenso if I undergo a regular medicine treatment, it is also possible that someone in Africa is praying for me at that time.

Wicknight wrote:

Millions actually, but then that doesn't prove, or even support the idea that Jomanda can actually heal people with her mind. She can't. Actually she can't, because her "miracles" aren't real.

On what do you base your 'thought' that Jomanda heals people with her mind ?
On what do you base your claim that Jomanda cannot heal ?
On what do you base your claim that Jomanda's miracles are not real ?

If you have no answers to these questions you and I will know it is your believe-conviction which can trick one very easy from not believing reality.

FE30033

ISAW wrote:

i dont think you understand my point. The claim is that there is not proof she is NOT performing a miracle and someone has to show she is NOT is asking someone to prove a negative. I do mpre than that! I say if you make a claim than provide evidence.

Yeah, yeah. I have heard it all. Trickery with words, while reality should really matter.
Stupid Skeptic Tricks
Quackery or Cure Debate Forum
http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=566626
Debunking Skeptical Arguments of Paranormal
http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm

Fiercely holding on to your the only straw you have. But you seem to forget that you claim miracles do not take place. You do not believe Jomanda. You do not believe thousands of peoples (Jomanda-visitors). You do not believe regular-medicine doctors who provide Jomanda-testimonials. If you are not up to taking responsibilty for your own believes and rejection of fellow-humans and their reality, I can understand why you claim that others.... pointing the finger at others... But it is YOU who really is responsible not others and not evidence.

ISAW wrote:

Actually my point was I dont see ANYHWHERE where PEAR supports wht you claim. Especially about Jomanda! Where did PEAR do ANY research on Jomanda. YOU claim it so it is for YOU to support it! This is called "shifting the burden" YOU made claims that PEAR proved something related to Jomanda. But you fail to show exactly what PEAR confirmed! Where did they? Exactly what I was stating! You can make all the claims about Jomanda you want. where is the evidence? You claimed PEAR was evidence. Where exactly do PEAR confirm your claims ?

Maybe on PEAR's website ? Maybe an email might help ?
# See Princeton University/PEAR (see also quote first posting)
QUOTE BRENDA DUNNE (PEAR Laboratory Manager) 4 mei 2005 15:36:15 - "The collective scientific evidence supporting phenomena such as those demonstrated by Jomanda and others is sufficiently robust that the term "paranormal" is now inappropriate. Only when we ourselves accept them as "normal" will we succeed in communicating their relevance to others who are more skeptical"

# See US dr.Jessica Utts (see also quote first posting)
QUOTE JESSICA UTTS (Sun, 21 Oct 2001 12:22:02 0700) - "The skeptics are desperately trying to hold on to a worldview that is quickly disappearing. The more evidence that accumulates to show they are wrong, the harder they will fight to dispute that evidence. In addition to the direct scientific evidence for distant healing, there is strong evidence for two related phenomena that help support the case. FIRST, I don't think many people question anymore the evidence that emotions affect health. Angry people are more likely to have heart attacks. Depressed people are less likely to recover from life-threatening illnesses. These facts are established. SECOND, there is strong evidence that people are able to acquire information not available to their five senses. This is the area of research on which I have published, and many others have written about the evidence as well. This is the area in which the skeptics are having the hardest time, because it really shakes their view of separateness. But, the data are very convincing. Combining these two phenomena makes it possible that a healer could influence the emotions of someone who is ill, which in turn could influence that person's health. That's just one possible way in which distant healing could work.

There are many references in respected journals showing that distant healing is likely to be possible. One reference that contains many others is a review article by John Astin (Aston, John A., E. Harkness and E. Ernst, 2000. "The efficacy of 'distant healing': a systematic review of randomized trials," Annals of Internal Medicine, 132, 903-910.) However, the skeptics are not taking their position based on scientific evidence, as much as they might claim that they are, so don't expect to convince them with scientific evidence. Here are some websites with more information: http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/research.html gives links to articles on a variety of related topics. My website: http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts has some of the articles I have published showing the evidence for remote viewing and related phenomena.

ISAW wrote:

Look. Just try answer the questions and dont try to make a personal attack on the movives of the questioner. I cant help oit if you dont like the message but dont try to shoot the messenger.

Look. Trying to shift the blame to other people will not help you and is of no use to me. I do answer the question or at least try to, make an effort. That my answer might not be up to your belief, I can't help. You seem to forget that without any proof and only with your straw as a kind of sword, you personally attack people by not believing them while reality shows miracles and healing. So it is a bit naief to think people might not react in their way to your orginal attack. I cant help it if you dont like the message but dont try to shoot the messenger

FE30033

bonkey wrote:

If they have been proven, incidentally, then why has Jomanda not collected her one million dollars from James Randi ?

$1 MILLION CHALLENGE TO DISPROVE EVIDENCE LIFE AFTER DEATH
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html
Do you actually believe that James Randi holds the only truth to this world and reality ? The world according to James Randi as some kind of sect-leader ? Do you put your 'belief' in James Randi as if he were some kind of God ? Well, reality can somethimes be different:

ON JAMES RANDI:

RANDI'S AMAZING ROLE IN PSI MEDIA-CIRCUS
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/nicholls.html
THE PROBLEM WITH RANDI AND HIS FOUNDATION
http://www.lasvegasweekly.com/2006/01/26/awsi3.html
SKEPTIC DESCENDS TO DEEPEST LEVEL OF IDIOCY
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/response.html
RANDI'S CHALLENGE: A HOAX
His Foundation: FRAUD AND SCAMMING
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/letters/2002/2002-07-04_mr2sg.html
He's NEVER done any repeatable experiments
ON RANDI'S ALLEGED $1m OFFER - UTTER RUBBISH !
http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/warningtopsychics.htm
RANDI'S PUBLIC OFFERS OF MONEY ARE A HOAX
His conditions are so outrageous that he will never have to part with any money !
This FRAUD was EXPOSED by Garry Bushell of The Sun:
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/letters/1991/1991-08-22_gb2mr/1991-08-22_gb2mr.html
http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/background/scientificproof/scientificproof3.html
RANDI: THE ULTIMATE PSYCHIC CON !
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/ultimatepsychiccon.html

All the Skeptics put their belief in James Randi, exactly as other people might do in other beliefs or religions. Reality can sometimes be hard for some people to cope with which can be a motivation for these people to desperately hold on to there only straw: James Randi. But I guess if James Randi could have handled all that pressure he wouldn't have had a heartattack.

bonkey wrote:

Would you agree that people are being menipulated by the negative image that you're portraying of mainstream medicine, the Duth authorities, and anyone who thus far has disagreed with you ?

bonkey wrote:

James Randi has offered her (or anyone else who will take his challenge) a million dollars if her claims can stand up to a suitable double-blind test. Why does she refuse to take this challenge? She only has to agree to participate and - assuming you are correct - she can make headlines, reap a fortune, have her claims proven and subsequently offer the world all the benefits you claim are being denied with the force of rigorous scientific testing behind her. Given her refusal to take this challenge, why do you blame others, rather than her, for not wishing to establish via serious research whether or not she's a charlatan?

Would you agree that you are not able to distinguish reality/facts from your fantasy ?
Where do you base your belief on that Jomanda at all has ever heard from James Randi and/or his test ? Consequently, where do you base your claim on that Jomanda refuses his challange ?

If you can not answer these questions, You and I will know it is your fantasy. In reality, Jomanda did agree to be tested by Prof. Piet Borst (see first posting) on national television. Prof. Piet Borst (member of dutch quackbuster organisation) has uptill now refused to comply with this oral agreement. Funny, or maybe not, you do not mention this

Given your mixing up fantasy and facts, why do you blame others, rather than yourself, for 'claiming' without any proof that Jomanda is a charlatan ? While in the meantime evenmore funny you ask of others to proof what they claim, while you yourself are standing emptyhanded, desperately holding on to a straw called James Randi and/or to trickery woth words (Stupid Sketic Tricks). That is called a huge (innerself) contradiction, as you must surely be aware of. And in that case it is always easier to try to shift the blame to others.... That should really make the world a better place.

QUACKBUSTERS CRUSHED BY SUPREME COURT
(Friday, November 24th, 2006)
I don't know how the "quackbusters" can even come out in public any more. Their constant humiliation in the US Court system has got to be incredibly embarrassing. I don't know how they can withstand the solid stream of laughter from the general public....

Yesterday, November 20th, 2006, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously (all seven Justices) to slap down the latest "quackbuster" attempt to use, and abuse, the US Court system to silence their critics. The case, originally known as Barrett v. Clark, then for the appeals process renamed Barrett v. Rosenthal, began over five years ago when three individuals decided to sue "a room full of people..."
http://www.bolenreport.net/

bonkey

FE30033 wrote:

Do you actually believe that James Randi holds the only truth to this world and reality ?

No, I don't. However, I think he's posed a very effective challenge. If an effect is real, then it is testable. If it is not testable, then there is no real effect.

If anyone claims to be able to positively alter outcomes on more than a random level of success, then they should be able to empirically show that claim to be true. A double-blind test is the most effective method known, as it removes the ability of either subject or scrutineer to influence the test-process.

The world according to James Randi as some kind of sect-leader ? Do you put your 'belief' in James Randi as if he were some kind of God ? Well, reality can somethimes be different:

Ad Hominem attacks on Mr. Randi do not diminish the effectiveness of his test.

All the Skeptics put their belief in James Randi, exactly as other people might do in other beliefs or religions.

I don't believe in Mr. Randi at all. I have faith in the quality of the test he has proposed.

Reality can sometimes be hard for some people to cope with which can be a motivation for these people to desperately hold on to there only straw:
James Randi. But I guess if James Randi could have handled all that pressure he wouldn't have had a heartattack.
Would you agree that you are not able to distinguish reality/facts from your fantasy ?

More ad hominem on Randi and indirectly also on myself.

Where do you base your belief on that Jomanda at all has ever heard from James Randi and/or his test ?

Consequently, where do you base your claim on that Jomanda refuses his challange ?

Well, I base it on logic.

You clearly support her case, wish that more people would believe/accept the reallity of her abilities.
Jandi has posed a reasonable test of any such claims, one that you show admirable familiarity with.
Therefore, I can only conclude that either there is some reason that you haven't contacted Jomanda to share the good news with her about how she can win millions of followers to her side by proving her abilities exist, or that she knows about the challenge.

So, I asked you about it to see whether you would explain the flaw in the test process, or explain why you otherwise hadn't informed her, or why she knew about the test but refused on other grounds (which I'd also assume you'd be able to clarify, given how familiar with her work you are).

Instead, I get one ad hominem after another, both against Randi and myself. Given that all I have done to earn these attacks is take a skeptical position, I now also feel reasonably confident that any explanation you'll give why Randi's test shouldn't be taken will also revolve around ad hominem 'arguments' rather than an critique of the testing mechanism itself.

This is hardly encouraging.

If you can not answer these questions, You and I will know it is your fantasy.

Well, I have just answered those questions, so I think we can both agree I'm not fantasizing here.

In reality, Jomanda did agree to be tested by Prof. Piet Borst (see first posting) on national television. Prof. Piet Borst (member of dutch quackbuster organisation) has uptill now refused to comply with this oral agreement. Funny, or maybe not, you do not mention this

I didn't mention it because so far, the only references I've found in english are all on bulletin boards, and generally the topic is brought up with the same text-content, suggesting its all been copied and pasted from a single source.

Interestingly, while checking that up, I did find posts on other boards with users who had remarkably similar usernames to yours here. Very often, they've been using the exact same base content in their posts.

If we are to assume its you, then I'd ask a number of questions:

1) Why do you think you'll get any better results starting your thread here than you did on SFN?
or on cfi?
2) What purpose are you trying to achieve, posting the exact same texts on skeptic forum after skeptic forum? You're getting the same answers time after time, and dishing the ad hominems out in return, accompanied by the same links site after site.
3) Are there any sites findable by google which are in English, mention Pietr Borst and Jomanda which aren't posts in forums by yourself?
4) Is there any point in anyone continuing this discussion with you, when we can simply go over to one of the other sites and see what you've already said, given that you've already shown a propensity to repeat the same arguments forum after forum?

If, on the other hand, you assert that FrankE and FE666 on those other sites are not you, would you care to comment instead on why you're plagiarising their work?

Given your mixing up fantasy and facts, why do you blame others, rather than yourself, for 'claiming' without any proof that Jomanda is a charlatan ?

You've had this question answered by other skeptics on other fora. My answer is no different. What makes you think it would be?

While in the meantime evenmore funny you ask of others to proof what they claim, while you yourself are standing emptyhanded, desperately holding on to a straw called James Randi and/or to trickery woth words (Stupid Sketic Tricks). That is called a huge (innerself) contradiction, as you must surely be aware of.

QUACKBUSTERS CRUSHED BY SUPREME COURT

[/QUOTE]
I thought you wanted to discuss Jomanda? This has nothing to do with her.

jc

FE30033

Bonkey,

Your claim 'Jomanda refused James Randi' was fantasy. Not according to facts because you did and do not know them. You do not 'know', you pressumed. Twisting the blame or trying to shift the spotlight, will not change that. Anyway, Rationally, why would anyone volunteer to be tested by 'the ultimate psychic con' ?

I presented 'Sylvia Millecam/Jomanda: The True Story' as a matter of discussion. What do you think about Prof. Piet Borst refusing to come to terms with his own agreement to test Jomanda's energised water ? A bet on which he put e 45.000,- because he was so-called very very sure that.... ? Nobody has heard anything from this man who 'claims' to be a quackbuster. Do you think this refusal is quackery itsself ?

robindch

FE30033 -

Consider yourself on a first warning for posting ad-hominems here.

- robin (moderator).

ISAW

FE30033 wrote:

Actually and really it is you who do not believe people. But your belief does not say anything about reality or healing. Because there is proof that Jomanda can heal, as confirmed e.g. by RM-practitioners (e.g. healthinspection doctor - see firstposting).

This isnt good enough! The post is long. please recite the particular confirmation that Jomanda can heal. where did a doctor supply actual evidence? Or was it just an opinion? I dont know. Care to please repost the particular part that you claim is evidence of a miraclous healing?

Do you really actually 'believe' that Jomanda would put in her book that someone was cured from throatcancer (see first posting) if it were untrue,

this is wholly beside the point. whatever the reason. she may be a fake and a liar . she may really believe she is curing people. She may even have paranormal powers. whatever she believes or says is BESIDE the point of any evidence for her curing cancer.

Where is the evidence?

Placebo is a non-issue, used only to ward off reality, because it also applies to regular medicine in the very same way and order. And evenso if I undergo a regular medicine treatment, it is also possible that someone in Africa is praying for me at that time.

This again is subscribing to proving a negative. Look say if I test a drug and in 100 people with headaches the headaches "mysteriously" vanish but with 100 people taking placebo only 10 of the headaches vanish. Now of course you can claim that people elsewher were praying for the people to be "cured" of a headache. that is not provable! You cant prove they were not doing that i.e. someone somewhere was praying only for the medicine taking group !

But
How do you explain that for the placebo group the prayer somehow didnt get through and it only got through to the group actually taking the medicine?

On what do you base your claim that Jomanda cannot heal ?
On what do you base your claim that Jomanda's miracles are not real ?

this again is "shifting the burden" AND "proving a negative"

YOU claim it it is for YOU to produce evidence and NOT for others to show something is NOT true. If that was the case I can claim there are Unicorns on my lawn and insist you acceopt that until you show ther are NOT unicorns there!

If you have no answers to these questions you and I will know it is your believe-conviction which can trick one very easy from not believing reality.

He doesnt have to prove any negatives or disprove your position. YOU have to produce evidence to support you position. where is it?

ISAW

FE30033 wrote:

But you seem to forget that you claim miracles do not take place.

Now this is more like it. a claim! My answer is NO I DONT!

Where did I claim miracles do not take place?

You do not believe Jomanda.

What I personally believe is beside the point! YOU are claiming Jomanda can perform miracles. where is the evidence?

You do not believe thousands of peoples (Jomanda-visitors).

I have not met these thousands of people who have been cured of cancer. Can you provide names and addresses and statements from ten of them?
and a list of the other 900 odd witnessess of miracles would be handy as well.

In the absence of such evidence I will assume it isnt shown to be the case so there is no evidence of thousands of people witnessing miracles.

You do not believe regular-medicine doctors who provide Jomanda-testimonials.

You see medicine isnt about whether you believe or not. witch doctory may be. But medicine is about testable evidence for performing a cure. Sure, a doctors opinion is a start. I have not seen one yet. could you provide it?
after that we can go on to actual testable and verifable objective evidence.

If you are not up to taking responsibilty for your own believes and rejection of fellow-humans and their reality, I can understand why you claim that others.... pointing the finger at others... But it is YOU who really is responsible not others and not evidence.

Sorry but you are WRONG! Again! It is YOU who claim miracles are happening. It is YOU who have to support your claim. I can just as easily claim you are rejecting the reality of Unicorns on my lawn. Now are you going to show NO unicorns or are you going to claim I should produce evidence of unicorns?

Maybe on PEAR's website ? Maybe an email might help ?

Maybe you could provide an actual citation form wher PEAR confirms Jomanda? It isnt for me to contact them. YOU made the claim you provide the evidence

]"The collective scientific evidence supporting phenomena such as...

You attribute these quotes to PEAR. Care to please show WHERE in PEAR research these quotes come from?

http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/research.html gives links to articles on a variety of related topics. My website: http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts has some of the articles I have published showing the evidence for remote viewing and related phenomena.[/i]

I asked you specifically for research about Jomanda. Where is it? Please dont go off opn a tanget into other paranormal stuff. If you want to discuss remote viewing start a different discussion.

Look. Trying to shift the blame to other people will not help you and is of no use to me. I do answer the question or at least try to, make an effort.

Great. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Now can you make an effort by providing actual EVIDENCE to support YOUR claims?

That my answer might not be up to your belief, I can't help.

what I believe or not makes no difference. I am prepared to accept that if something is verified by evidence then it is worth publicising. If it stands up to verfiable evidence and is repeatable under test conditions then I would be very very interested in it.

You seem to forget that without any proof and only with your straw as a kind of sword, you personally attack people by not believing them while reality shows miracles and healing.

Look I didnt personally attack anyone! In fact that is against the rules of this forum! Also as i have pointed ou whether I believe you or not has NOTHING to do with the issue. EVIDENCE is what matters! Nor does YOUR belief that miracles are happening make any difference to that! Can you provide EVIDENCE? that is what matters.

So it is a bit naief to think people might not react in their way to your orginal attack. I cant help it if you dont like the message but dont try to shoot the messenger

I expressed NO OPINION about liking or disliking what you stated. where did I? If i did it has NO BEARING on the issue. Nor did I attempt to attack you in person. I attacked your argument. Now care to please supply evidence to support you claims of miracles or just admit you havent any?

ISAW

robindch wrote:

FE30033 -

Consider yourself on a first warning for posting ad-hominems here.

- robin (moderator).

FE30033

You dont seem to understand "shifting the burden" or "proving a negative" so please forgive me for explaining "ad hominem"

Ad hominem means attacking the person and not the argument.

You have claimed that I personally attacked you. You may feel that way but go and look at what I actually wrote! I DID NOT attack you. I attacked your argument! Your CLAIM that Jomanda was performing miracles! I asked you for EVIDENCE to support your CLAIM.

Now what you are doing is passing comments on people and not on what the people CLAIM. that IS a personal attack. If you persist in doing that you will not be adding to the debate you will just be attacking people and you will be banned from this forum.

I doont know who you are and your personal beliefs make no difference to me. However when you come here and CLAIM that the paranormal is true then you have to support that claim. with EVIDENCE.

Claiming someone said somewhere in PEAR or somewhere else isnt evidence. you must cite exactly where in PEAR or wherever else. a snip from an e mail is not a citation.

I hope you can understand this and will not result in getting yourself banned.

Zombrex

FE30033 wrote:

Actually and really it is you who do not believe people.

You are right I don't believe her or you. With good reason.

FE30033 wrote:

Because there is proof that Jomanda can heal

No there isn't. What you have quoted is not proof. Again, see the placebo effect, and the great lengths that scientists go to eliminate it in proper scientific studies.

FE30033 wrote:

Do you really actually 'believe' that Jomanda would put in her book that someone was cured from throatcancer (see first posting) if it were untrue

Yes, of course she would.

FE30033 wrote:

Placebo is a non-issue

No, it is in fact the most important issue.

FE30033 wrote:

On what do you base your 'thought' that Jomanda heals people with her mind ?

She doesn't, that is the point.

FE30033 wrote:

On what do you base your claim that Jomanda cannot heal ?

On the laws and foundations of reality. It isn't possible, therefore she doesn't do it.

FE30033 wrote:

On what do you base your claim that Jomanda's miracles are not real ?

On the bases that they aren't real.

FE30033 wrote:

If you have no answers to these questions you and I will know it is your believe-conviction which can trick one very easy from not believing reality.

The reality is that what Jomanda claims she is able to do is not possible. If she thinks she is actually healing people she is mistaken in what she thinks is happening.

bonkey

FE30033 wrote:

Bonkey,

Your claim 'Jomanda refused James Randi' was fantasy.

Its no more fantasy than your claim that she can heal.

Both are acking in empirical evidence.

I have offered reasoning for why and how I arrrived at my conclusion. If you would prefer, I will accept your implication that she hasn't refused the challenge, and that my logic was flawed.

This, however, leaves only the possibility that she is not aware of the challenge.

In this case, I would ask why you are complaining about the lack of mainstream acceptance and the costs/difficulties of obtaining same when you are clearly aware of an option available to her which you choose not to inform her about.

Twisting the blame or trying to shift the spotlight, will not change that.

Just as all of your articles & arguments will not change the fact that Jomanda's claims are not accepted by skeptics, mainstream science, mainstream medicine, etc. because they have not been properly and rigorously tested.

You can twist your interpretation of reality all you like, but the bar of respectability won't be lowered for your hero because you think its the right thing to do.

Anyway, Rationally, why would anyone volunteer to be tested by 'the ultimate psychic con' ?

And once more you attack the man rather than the challenge.

Rationally, why would anyone who believed in their abilities not want their abilities empirically tested and proven?

I presented 'Sylvia Millecam/Jomanda: The True Story' as a matter of discussion.

Why? Why post it on skeptics' forum after skeptics' forum? Skepticism is a well-defined approach - you're not gonna find that some skeptic sites will suddenly stop asking the same questions the others have asked.

You know in advance what the responses will be. This is further evidenced by your repeated use of the same stock material in various responses and not just in the thread-starting.

If discussion is your objective, then why not discuss rather than launching the same ad hominems and taking the same stances as you've done site after site? Why not discuss Randi's test rather than just giving us the same old character assassination routine? Do you seriously think his having had a heart attack is so valid a comment on the integrity of the test he proposed that its worth mentioning on multiple sites? Do you honestly think its a meaningful part of the discussion about the validiity of double-blind testing with respect to Jomanda and her claims?

What do you think about Prof. Piet Borst refusing to come to terms with his own agreement to test Jomanda's energised water ?

I've already pointed out that the only English references I can find on this appear to be forum articles remarkably similar to each other.

Given that you've been rebranding whatever suits you as "fantasy" because they're not based on solid fact, I find it beyond credulity that you are now asking me to comment on something where I have already drawn reference to the lack of fact available to me.

Regardless of the truth behind Borst's actions, I fail to see the significance. Because one person allegedly refused to carry out on their offer to perform a test does not suggest anything other than that one person refused to carry out their offer to perform a test. It may signify any number of things, and there is no reason to believe one possibility over the other.

Perhaps Borst was afraid he couldn't do the test. Perhaps he realised that it wasn't as simple as he made it out to be. Perhaps he's had enough dealing with such claims and has decided to get on with other things in his life. Perhaps he now believes Jomanda is the real deal but doesn't want to help her gain more widespread acceptance. The list goes on, but to choose any reason over the others based on the information available would be - to borrow your language once more - indulging in fantasy.

Nobody has heard anything from this man who 'claims' to be a quackbuster. Do you think this refusal is quackery itsself ?

I don't find his refusal to be anything other than worthy of questions.

I can find no record (in English) of quack-busting exploits by the man, no references to his successes in this field, no comments anywhere about his continuing in this line of work despite having ducked a challenge. And, as I've pointed out more than once, I can find no reference in English about his dealings with Jomanda at all which don't appear to have originated from a single source, which is either you yourself, or the source you have copied this material from.

His claim to be a quackbuster could indeed be quackery - I most certainly don't rule that out. But if thats the case, then so what? If I tell you I can build an atomic bomb, but then refuse to do so....what does that say about atomic bombs? Nothing at all, except that it hints that I cannot build one. It doesn't suggest at all that one cannot be built.

Borst said he could easily test her claims, and hasn't. Lets assume that he's run away like a scared little boy, cause he knows he can't actually live up to his claims. That still doesn't mean that Jomanda's claims are untestable, nor that they would pass any test. It simply means that Borst cannot think of a suitable test which he is willing to subject them to.

Equally - you stated PEAR/Jomands's can be / have been proven. You've yet to offer this proof, or explain how it can be obtained. Should we take your silence on the matter as you would have us take Borst's? Or should I take your as I take Borsts, which is that there's insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion, and even if there were, it would be a conclusion about the person making the claim (Borst or yourself) rather than the subject of the claim itself.

Zombrex

Quick question FE30033

How much money does Jomanda make each year from her amazing healing ability?

ISAW

http://www.jomanda.nl/en/booschappenGW.html

jomanda on Todlers and telephones wrote:

Don't let todlers answer the phone because they are more likely to be harmed by the radiation emanating from them.

Harmful Radiation "emanating" from phones! spooky

She also is against massage for children under ten. But i believe medicine does support that massage can be beneficial! Jomanda strikes out again!

A CD with songs by Martin Drennan has been specially recorded for JOMANDA'S WORLD CHILDREN. Together with Martin, Jomanda set up the foundation in Ireland

Great . where is it? Or does she not follow through on her promises?

then ther is the "Maria Vrede" cash cow with allusiuons to Christianity and marianism. In fact I can find no evidence that Jomanda followes orthoxox or mainstream christianity in any way. while the popular idea of "miracles" and Mary is alluded to, there is no mention of Christ (remember him the actual person Mary gave birth to?)

During her absence miracles also occur, something which makes one stop and think.

Yes it surely does. It makes me think that either NO miracles are happening or that if they are they occur in Jomanda's absence so she isnt the cause!

not alone that Jomanda claims to heal from a picture. Here is a test. Ten photographs. some have a problem some dont. Can she determine who has and can she heal them? Even one in fifty photos?

ISAW

Where is this Foundation Jomanda claims to have set up in Ireland? Who is the mysterious singer martin Drennan? could he be the Bishop of Galway? going by property prices in Ireland Jomanda must have a pile of money for this foundation. Will she open her bank accounts to scrutiny? I think it might be a miracle if all of these questions are answered.

FE30033

FE30033 wrote:

Actually and really it is you who do not believe people. But your belief does not say anything about reality or healing. Because there is proof that Jomanda can heal, as confirmed e.g. by RM-practitioners (e.g. healthinspection doctor - see firstposting).

ISAW wrote:

This isnt good enough!

That's your problem. Something should be better than nothing. You blame others for your own high expectations of others (fellowhumans), put on others in and out of your own responsibility, because you are well, very well aware, that the scientific evidence what you are asking for is in fact an unreality, a fantasy, as e.g. in the UK only 0,08% of the total NHS budget is for alternative medicine and in the Netherlands I guess it is even less, and in case of Jomanda zero. Thus really and actually you are asking people to perform miracles in which you do not believe. That is a contradiction.

FE30033 wrote:

Do you really actually 'believe' that Jomanda would put in her book that someone was cured from throatcancer (see first posting) if it were untrue,

ISAW wrote:

this is wholly beside the point. whatever the reason. she may be a fake and a liar . she may really believe she is curing people. She may even have paranormal powers. whatever she believes or says is BESIDE the point of any evidence for her curing cancer. Where is the evidence?

#(1)# Do you really actually 'believe' that Jomanda would put in her book that someone was cured from throatcancer (see first posting) if it were untrue ? Yes or no ?
#(2)# Would YOU put in a book that someone got cured from throatcancer while knowing that the whole of the Netherlands (media, politicians, quackbusters, regular medicine, milllions of people) are breathing down you neck to take you down at the slightest mistake ? Yes or no ?
By not answering, I assume you 'know' the answer but do not want to give it and obviously rather shift the burden put on you by this questions.
Where's the evidence ?
- [Sonja]-"Are you also sure that that brother is cured ?" - [Jomanda]-"yes, yes, the prove is all there, of course, otherwise you would not put it in a book, those people went to the doctor, everything is checked"
- [Jomanda]-"Yes, but I can back it up, but for that you do need the co-operation of the doctors and from the people themselves[/u]"
- JOMANDA: PROOF OF MIRACLES - ( source - bco AVRO, Tv-programme '10 Lastige Vragen', 2 april 2002, Pieter-Jan Hagens ) [ PJH ] - Jomanda, has one of your miracles ever been confirmed or proved by regular medical researches ? [ Jomanda]-"Yes, they all lay at home. But one does not come to look at it."

ISAW wrote:

How do you explain that for the placebo group the prayer somehow didnt get through and it only got through to the group actually taking the medicine?

Where's the evidence ?
REGULAR TREATMENT NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY I
( source - magazine Vruchtbare Aarde,nr.5/6, 2000 ) - "An American surgeon found out that he could just as well restrict routine knee operations of painful kneejoints to fake operations, with only a small cut. Such a placebo operation appeared to have the same positive effect as the usual intervention. He who believes in the doctor believes, has already been healed half way. A considerable part of the effect of medicines is not caused by their contents but by the conviction that they work. With anti-depressant drugs it is possibly about 60-85% of their effect, says doctor writer Ivan Wolffers. He has a beautiful word for it. He does not speak of medicine, but of healingart. A component of it exists of spending sufficient time and quality in the relation with the patient. People who can this well, we find both under regular doctors (how little they want to be reminded of this) and under alternative practitioners. They are their own medecine"

TREATMENT NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY II
( source - Trimbos institution http://www.trimbos.nl/default37.html , Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction ) - Pressrelease Trimbos institution - "Utrecht, 13 june 2001, Treatment of depression not always necessary. That was made clear from the Nemesis research of the Trimbos institution, in which 7000 adults were examined on the prevention of depression, the impact of treatment with or without, and the change in the situation after a year. After a year 85% of the people who were not treated had no more depression. The results of treatment with antidepressants were disappointing: after a year only 35% of this group had no more depression" [Results from the Netherlands Mental Health survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia 2001, 103, pp 19-24]

PROZAC MOST OFTEN UNNECESSARY MEDICINE
(source - dutch Tv-programme NOVA, bco NPS, 25 juni 2005) -
"In the Netherlands 760.000 people swallow antidepressants. In by Far most cases that is unnecessary, the French psychiatrist David Servan-Schreiber says ","the effect of Anti-depressants is smaller than placebo-effect"
http://www.novatv.nl/index.cfm?ln=nl&fuseaction=videoaudio.details&reportage_id=3534

ISAW wrote:

this again is "shifting the burden" AND "proving a negative" YOU claim it it is for YOU to produce evidence and NOT for others to show something is NOT true. If that was the case I can claim there are Unicorns on my lawn and insist you acceopt that until you show ther are NOT unicorns there!

Where is the evidence (that I am shifting the burden) ? I do not see it, so according to your own arguments, I must not believe you. Anyhow, wrong ! You make yourself and what you claim dependent on others. You link yourself to others. You hide behind others to make your point, to make your claim "Jomanda does not work'. But you have a own responsibilty for your own actions, deeds, words and claims. Seperately ! I agree Jomanda has her burden of proof, but as you do also have a burden of proof (according to your own arguments !) for your own claims.
#(3)# On what do you base your claim that Jomanda cannot heal ?
#(4)# On what do you base your claim that Jomanda's miracles are not real ?
By not answering, I assume you 'know' the answer but do not want to give it and obviously rather shift the burden put on you by this questions.

ISAW wrote:

He doesnt have to prove any negatives or disprove your position. YOU have to produce evidence to support you position. where is it?

Once again, you shift away, ran away, flee from own responsibility. Indeed, he doesn't have to proof 'others', my position. He has to proof what he himself claims, his own burden of proof, his own responsibility, as I agree that I have to produce evidence to support my. Two sides, at least that is according to you arguments 'proof what uou claim', and that rule should apply to all people, including especially to the ones who target others with it. Or one should (out of high expectations of others) want to apply rules to others, which will not apply for themselves. I find that unreal.

In Tiel where Jomanda once held her healings, sometimes 12.000 people visited her on a day.
#(5)# Do you really and actually 'believe' that your reality (with no scientific proof, and no contact with Jomanda) is worth more that the reality of thousands of Jomanda-visitors (with no scientific proof, but with personal proof/medical records, and in contact with Jomanda) ?

#(6)# Do you actually and really belief that your 'testimonial' (Jomanda does not work, without scientific proof and without contact with Jomanda), is worth more, than the 'testimonials' of thousands of Jomanda-visitors (with no scientific proof, but with personal proof/medical records, and in contact with Jomanda) ?

#(7)# If yes, Based on what ?
#(8)# If no, than it is all a matter of 'Who is believed' ?, believeconviction: thus you actually and really are proving a point of my story: A Jihad based on Believe-Conviction: An Example casus ? Because the intention was to prosecute Jomanda, and the big difference is that you and your belief is not on trial !

#(9)# Do you find that equality of people and their believe-convictions are an important input for democracy ?

FE30033

robindch wrote:

FE30033 -

Consider yourself on a first warning for posting ad-hominems here.

- robin (moderator).

Do you mean that ad-hominems attacks on Jomanda (cause) is allowed, and a reaction/posting (effect) to these attacks is not ?

FE30033

ISAW wrote:

Now this is more like it. a claim! My answer is NO I DONT!
Where did I claim miracles do not take place?

If you did not claim that Jomanda's miracles did not take place, I assume (correct me if I am wrong) you mean to say that Jomanda's miracles can take place under certain conditions brought and thought up by you by which you measure a fellowhuman performace.

ISAW wrote:

What I personally believe is beside the point! YOU are claiming Jomanda can perform miracles. where is the evidence?

That really does really matter (or you might not have an opinion) as I stated in my very first posting:
A Jihad based on Believe-Conviction: An Example casus ?
As you are very-well aware, the scientific evidence is not present, as others refuse to research Jomanda (e.g. Prof. Piet Borst). Asking others for miracles, is like asking a poor child in Africa who can not afford to buy rice, to hand over a million dollars as a condition before she is believed. I you feel happy about that, if that way of reasoning makes you feel good and happy...who am I to contradict you. But I have a different way of dealing with people. No scientific evidence, but proof is present (medical records: or you might not believe doctors and medical records) which can, could be, and should be scientificly researched, as Jomanda has been asking for for 30 years !

ISAW wrote:

I have not met these thousands of people who have been cured of cancer. Can you provide names and addresses and statements from ten of them? and a list of the other 900 odd witnessess of miracles would be handy as well.

Thus you say, you might believe them, under certain conditions. Thus you say you might believe Jomanda. That is a better start than many people (media, politcians) in Holland produce. But also as before, you ask others to perform miracles, in which you 'might' not believe. Strange.

FE wrote:

You do not believe regular-medicine doctors who provide Jomanda-testimonials.

ISAW wrote:

You see medicine isnt about whether you believe or not. witch doctory may be. But medicine is about testable evidence for performing a cure. Sure, a doctors opinion is a start. I have not seen one yet. could you provide it? after that we can go on to actual testable and verifable objective evidence.

#(1)# Do you believe regular-medicine doctors who provide Jomanda-testimonials ?

ISAW wrote:

Maybe you could provide an actual citation form wher PEAR confirms Jomanda? It isnt for me to contact them. YOU made the claim you provide the evidence.

Read the quote (Jomanda even in blue). If you do not want to contact them. Fine, but I'll guess than in that case that if I should give you 900 witnesses of Jomanda's miracles, you will not contact them also. so why bother asking anyway ? PEAR is at least something compared to nothing..

ISAW wrote:

You attribute these quotes to PEAR. Care to please show WHERE in PEAR research these quotes come from? http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/research.html gives links to articles on a variety of related topics. My website: http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts has some of the articles I have published showing the evidence for remote viewing and related phenomena.

In reality I did not attribute. You did. It does say 'Utts' in the link.

ISAW wrote:

I asked you specifically for research about Jomanda. Where is it ?

I told (my very first posting) you specifically that no scientific research has been done on Jomanda, while Jomanda has been asking for it for 30 years, so seen and understanding that reality it muest be very clear to you that what you are asking for is fantasy, a miracle, but still you headstrong ask for it. Why is that ? But anyhow, speaking of the devil:

JOMANDA: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
( source - Tv-programme '5 Uur show', bco RTL4, 11 dec 1995) - [ Presentator ] - "Who now says town Tiel, right away says Jomanda, because weekly hundreds of people from all over Holland come to Tiel, to visit her healings. And for the first time scientific research has been done... [ P. - K.W., you have done study into the mental impact of Jomanda. Conclusion ?] -[KW]- "What I personally belief does in fact not matter, if you do objective research, if you ask me personal, than I say 'yes', I believe in that, and the results speak for themselves, I have given many people the word in my research, have let many peole talk, I always find that when people say 'It is this and this, I am felling this and this', who am I to say 'No, it is not like that with you', so when someone is feeling badly, than someone is felling badly, and if someone is felling happy, happy, and that is very important, the deeds of Jomanda, I do assume that Jomanda is a psychic medium, and I believe also that these kind of things happen, but an explanation.., that we can all do never..." -...." [ P.-How many people have you researched ? ] [KW]- "332 people effectively"

Let me guess your answer: "not good enough"

ISAW wrote:

Now can you make an effort by providing actual EVIDENCE to support YOUR claims?

Keep on going. Headstrong. When you continue like this, I might even think you believe in the toothferry.

ISAW wrote:

what I believe or not makes no difference. what I believe or not makes no difference. I am prepared to accept that if something is verified by evidence then it is worth publicising. If it stands up to verfiable evidence and is repeatable under test conditions then I would be very very interested in it.

#(2)# Do you really actually 'believe' that Jomanda would publish in her book that someone was cured from throatcancer (see first posting) if it were untrue, while she at the same time knows that the whole of the Netherlands is watching her very very carefully, every step she makes, and trying to bring her down on the slightest mistake, and while knowing the impact of such a claim ?
Verfiable evidence can be found in medical records.

VERIFIABLE EVIVIDEN:

ISAW wrote:

EVIDENCE is what matters! Nor does YOUR belief that miracles are happening make any difference to that! Can you provide EVIDENCE? that is what matters.

# Bitter pill: The big business of Big Pharma
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2006/February/opinion_February33.xml&section=opinion&col=
# Big Bucks, Big Pharma
Marketing Disease & Pushing Drugs
http://www.mediaed.org/videos/MediaAndHealth/BigBucksBigPharma
# Government Of, By and For The Pharmaceutical Industry
http://www.smmirror.com/MainPages/DisplayArticleDetails.asp?eid=2423
# Fake Research Puts Medical Journals Under Microscope
http://www.forbes.com/lifestyle/health/feeds/hscout/2006/01/26/hscout5 30580.html
# Scientists study scientific secrecy
http://www.physorg.com/news10257.html
# Doctor Who Faked Cancer Study Admits More Fraud
http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/11194
# Cancer researchers fall victim to fraudulent study
http://www.utmb.edu/imh/announcements.asp?id=108
# Will Another Vioxx Critic be Silenced ?
http://www.mercola.com/2006/jan/5/will_another_vioxx_critic_be_silence d.htm
# The Prostitution of Science
When you hear the words "scientific authority," check to be sure your wallet is still there and hold onto it tightly. Prostitution of science is using its good name for base purposes: falsifying data, and misinterpreting statistics to support a new theory, with the objective of gaining personal fame and fortune. Recent publicity about such debased conduct should have two consequences: (1) people ought to become more skeptical about new scientific pronouncements, and, as they do, (2) they ought to become more aware that the supposedly sharp dichotomy between scientific certainty and metaphysical inquiry is SIMPLY AN ILLUSION
http://www.michnews.com/artman/publish/article_11072.shtml
# Rent-a-Researcher
http://www.slate.com/id/2133061/
# Global Trend: More Science, More Fraud
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543824/posts
# Widespread Drug Marketing Violations Occurred
http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2101
# How Big Pharma influences the FDA's drug approval process at the expense of public safety ? http://www.newstarget.com/015741.html
# 42 U.S. Senators hold Stock in Pharma
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=58052
# Doctor: Merck tried to influence article in highly respected medical journal
http://www.beasleyallen.com/news/2005/dec/04/article/486/
# Doctor accuses drugs giant of 'unethical' secrecy over a study of a disease that AFFECTS MILLIONS OF WOMEN
http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,11381,1657395,00.html
# Drug firms enlist patients as allies
http://www.smh.com.au/news/health/drug-firms-enlist-patients-as-allies/2005/11/27/1133026350317.html
# Clinical trials: Private tests a risky business
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2002608440_dr ugtesting07.html
# Drug Industry Human Testing Masks Death
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=specialreport&sid=aspHJ_sFen1s& refer=news
# Corporate Corruption of Science
http://www.ijoeh.com/pfds/IJOEH_1104_Egilman.pdf at http://www.ijoeh.com/
# 70% Drug Panels Rigged with Pharma-Money / financial links
http://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/profilenews.cfm?pagecode=PMSTLN&areacode=mh_strategies_treatments_news&id=8709
# A cheat's guide to clinical trials
15 tricks pharma companies use to get the right results
http://pharmawatch.blogspot.com/2005/10/cheats-guide-to-clinical-trials-15.html
# Drug Firm accused of manipulating drug data
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12692
# Hard Sell: The Evolution of a Viagra Salesman
Interview with former Viagra sales rep. - "The focus of the book is how everything in pharmaceutical sales works. How you can make it look like you're working when you're not working", "I think there are some drugs that are definitely over-prescribed, like antibiotics and antidepressants" http://www.newstarget.com/012253.html
# The truth about medical journals
Drug companies exert heavy influence over published scientific articles
http://www.newstarget.com/012119.html
# The FDA Exposed: Interview with the Vioxx Whistleblower
http://www.newstarget.com/011401.html
# Most scientific papers are probably wrong
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915
# Health Agency Tightens Rules Governing Federal Scientists
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/33/13640
# Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
# Many NIH Scientists Worked for Drug Industry
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=27450
# Allegations Of Fake Medical Research Hit New High
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/169347/allegations_of_fake_resear ch_hit_new_high/
# How the pharmaceutical industry gets its way in Washington
http://publicintegrity.org/rx/report.aspx?aid=723&sid=200
# Former Medical Journal Editor Outlines Conflicts of Interest
http://www.medicalconsumers.org/pages/FormerMedicalJournalEditorSpeaksOutAboutConflictsOfInterest.html
# Medical Journals: Extension of Marketing Arm of Pharma
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138
# The Science Scandal that rocked the Hospital for Sick Children
http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679310846&vie w=excerpt
# Drug companies suppressing data on clinical trials for decades
http://www.newstarget.com/003185.html
# Study says medical journals allowed conflicts
http://www.cspinet.org/new/200407123.html
# Massive medical fraud exposed: sham clinical trials
http://www.newstarget.com/001298.html

ISAW wrote:

Look I didnt personally attack anyone!

#(3)# How do you feel if I say "I do not believe you" "show me the evidence of what you claim (I did not attack anynone) ?

ISAW wrote:

EVIDENCE is what matters! Nor does YOUR belief that miracles are happening make any difference to that! Can you provide EVIDENCE? that is what matters.

Column
FAIRYTALE "CANDY, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE & EVOLUTION"

It is sometimes difficult in real life to talk to people who will ask for evidence for everything that is said or claimed, which will slow down conversation, which all presume is not the real intention while some people find that debate is the core of forwardpushed, innovative and modern fast democracy and society. At some point in life, mostly during adulthood or consciousness, people have to learn to trust (a matter of feelings) each other without pointing the telling and accusational finger of Divine made father '(scientific) evidence' at the other to say that his or her reality is wrong or not accepted because of not complying with what one has read somewhere in e.g. a library.

# Son - " Dad, can I have a candybar, I want one ?"
# Father - "Can you proof it and show evidence that you really want one ?"
# Son - " I'am very hungry "
# Father - "Proof it. Show me the evidence"
# Son - " Well, my stumach is turning and making noises "
# Father - "From where I am standing, that does not proof anything...."
# Son - " How can I proof it than, when others do not do research, I can not proof" ?
# Father - " Then you have to take initiative to do research...."
# Son - " But I am no researcher and I do not get so much spending-money every week from you to finance such research...?"
# Father - " That is your problem, thus are the rules of scientific life"
# Son - " My present daily life is that I would like a candybar"
# Father - "You claim, so you must proof, if you cannot proof, you cannot claim"
# Son - "Well, maybe if you could take the trouble to just put your ear on my stumach, you can ascertain for yourself..."
# Father - "I could, but it would presumptively still not proof anything, it could be coincidence"
# Son - "Would it help if my little sister and mother would also like a candybar ?"
# Father - "No, anecdotes are not proof and no evidence according to my view"
# Son - "Well, maybe your view on my reality is twisted"
# Father - "No it is not, but you are being a fool, not real, and a pain in the ass, get lost, go somewhere else with you pathetic fantasy"
# Son - "Well excuse me, who sais you can order and kick me around like that"
# Father (irritated) - "Listen son, little one, at all times you must listen to me and believe me, because I have studied a very long time and afterall I am your supervisor and dad"
# Son (irritated) - "Proof it. Show me the evidence"
# Father (loud voice) - "Maybe I should throw you out of the house and disinherit you"

Not a happy end -
In reference to a to the eye simple earthly question, after two weeks of discussion and conversation the son did not get his candybar. The son, being an individual part of the peoples, was unable to proof and show evidence of his sweet desire, which he thought was quit normal and real because many other kids around him at school ask for the same desire. But a desire which the father could not recognise because it was different from the desires he had as a child in his youth. The son's desire was different from what the father presumed as normal because his library did not contain books which described research into this desire. The library did not contain books in which clinical trials described these kinds of desires from these kinds of people, or in which references stood to highly recommended medical journals in which such desires were reviewed.

The son died of hunger. And the father said: "Is wasn't me. It was the lack of evidence". A death, due to the desire of the son ? Or, while the oath of parenthood taken with the hand on the human heart sais to look after the health of one's children, due to father's lack of being an up-to-date librarian for whom fellow-humanity, a fellow-human's desire and daily reality was not a greater goal in daily life than (by him) Divine made evidence ? So much, for evolution of mankind ?

In whom is 'believed' ?
Fellow-humanity or (by a man made) Divineness ?

ISAW wrote:

What I personally believe is beside the point!

FE30033

Wicknight wrote:

You are right I don't believe her or you. With good reason.

I do not believe you. Where's the evidence / reason (of what you claim 'do not believe based on good reason') ?

FE wrote:

Because there is proof that Jomanda can heal

Wicknight wrote:

No there isn't. What you have quoted is not proof. Again, see the placebo effect, and the great lengths that scientists go to eliminate it in proper scientific studies.

I do not believe you. Where's the evidence / reason (of what you claim 'no proof of Jomanda') ?
#(1)# Do you not find medical records proof ? What do you find about medical records ? Do you think tehy lie ? A cancer-tumor is gone or is not gone ? How much more proof do you want ?
#(2)# If some went to a doctor, where a heartattack is observed, and a second appointment is made for a second research, and after this another person goes to a healing of Jomanda (note - also for Sylvia Millecam people went in her place to Jomanda), and after this the person goes to the second appointment, where research shows "no more sign of a heartattack". Conclusion ?

FE wrote:

Do you really actually 'believe' that Jomanda would put in her book that someone was cured from throatcancer (see first posting) if it were untrue

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, of course she would.

I do not believe you. Where's the evidence / reason (of what you claim 'Jomanda would put lies in a book') ?

FE wrote:

Placebo is a non-issue

Wicknight wrote:

No, it is in fact the most important issue

I do not believe you. Where's the evidence / reason (of what you claim 'important issue') ?

FE wrote:

On what do you base your 'thought' that Jomanda heals people with her mind ?

Wicknight wrote:

She doesn't, that is the point.

The point is that that is your fantasy, cause I do not believe you. Where's the evidence / reason (of what you claim 'she doesn't') ?

FE wrote:

On what do you base your claim that Jomanda cannot heal ?

Wicknight wrote:

On the laws and foundations of reality. It isn't possible, therefore she doesn't do it.

It is possible, see Jessica Utts, PEAR. You just do not believe them. Thus, as I believe myself, I do not believe you. Where's the evidence / reason (of what you claim 'not possible') ?

For each scientific research worker it seems obvious to reject everything what has to do with outer-sense observations ( telepathie, clairvoyance, cognition) as unexistable. Why ? Because such phenomena, if they would exist already, be contrary with the ounce and accepted nature laws. We must however wonder ourselves which laws that would be. Stange enough those laws appear not to be found htttp://www.survivalafterdeath.org/articles/other/framework.htm

FE wrote:

On what do you base your claim that Jomanda's miracles are not real ?

Wicknight wrote:

On the bases that they aren't real

The are real to thousands of people, and real to medical records and doctors. You do not believe them. I do not believe you. Where's the evidence / reason (of what you claim 'not real') ?

FE wrote:

If you have no answers to these questions you and I will know it is your believe-conviction which can trick one very easy from not believing reality

Wicknight wrote:

The reality is that what Jomanda claims she is able to do is not possible. If she thinks she is actually healing people she is mistaken in what she thinks is happening.

The Jomanda visitors claim, medical records claim, doctors claim. I do not believe you. Where's the evidence / reason (of what you claim 'not real') ?

WHOLISTIC HEALING: DANIEL J. BENOR, MD
Wholistic Healing really works ! Distant Healing-review the scientific evidence for healing and complementary / alternative therapies. Significant effects of distant healing are demonstrated randomized controlled trials in humans, animals, plants, bacteria, yeasts, cells in the laboratory, and DNA. Fascinating new insights about energy medicine and integrative care are suggested by these studies. Noteworthy are 120 further randomized controlled studies of healing given with the healers' hands held on or near the body, again with many of these demonstrating highly significant effects. While distant healing appears to contradict our ordinary sense of reality and the laws defined by conventional science, there are several theoretical paradigms that suggest explanations for healing.... http://www.WholisticHealingResearch.com

PRAYER, HEALING, HANDLAYING - DR. M. KRUCHOFF
Senior staff Interventional Cardiologist at Duke University Medical Center. Information and Inspiration for Optimum Health of Body and Soul.... http://www.healingmoves.com

ALTERNATIVE THERAPIES: LARRY DOSSEY, MD
American specialist for internal diseases Larry Dossey M.D and executive editor of Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine and author of nine books on the role of consciousness and spirituality in medicine. Dossey has a web page that describes some of the recent medical studies that have been strongly indicating that distant healing is definitely taking place when people are prayed for. http:/ www.dosseydossey.com/larry/default.html

PRAYER & HEALING: HERBERT BENSON, MD
( source - magazine 'Tijdschrift Vruchtbare Aarde', 2001/1 )
[ Benson is the founding President of the Mind/Body Medical Institute and the Mind/Body Medical Institute Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School - http://www.mbmi.org/home/ ]
"One of the most ambitious researches which on the Harvard-meetings were discussed was a long-term experimen under the guidance of dr. Herbert Benson of the Mind Body medical Institute of the New England Deaconess Hospital in Boston. Benson enjoys in America reputation because of his study into 'local' impact of meditation and prayer - into the way on which one's body reacts to relaxation. Now he examines possible non-local impacts. His research stretches from up to 1200 patienten, which have undergone a bypass-operation. Alone the fact that under the auspicien of 'Harvard-research' is done into the effect of non-local healing, speak greatly. The fact that this type of research nowadays is performed at top institutes, under the guidance of respected scientists, has contributed in America much to removing the psychological and scientific capacitance"

You do not enter into content, you deny content by just saying, waving off, warding off, claiming 'it is not so'. I do not think that is a way of rational and 'Skeptical' reasoning, because you show no evidence / reasoning of what you claim, which you do ask from others ?

DublinEvents

This is always what happens. The authorities always try to cover up any miracles or ground breaking treatments that might pose a threat to the lucrative regular medicine world. The medical care industry is a huge business that generates billions every year. They are not about to admit that it's prone to misdiagnosis. Also, if they had accepted silicone to be the culprit, most women would have had second thoughts about getting implants and consequently this implanting business would have suffered severely. These governments are run by humans and just like any human, they are prone to greed and malice. Unfortunately, that's what most humans do when they reach a position of power.

FE30033

FE wrote:

Your claim 'Jomanda refused James Randi' was fantasy

bonkey wrote:

Its no more fantasy than your claim that she can heal

Thus you agree it was your fantasy. Linking it to / behind others does not make it less of a fantasy.

bonkey wrote:

In this case, I would ask why you are complaining about the lack of mainstream acceptance and the costs/difficulties of obtaining same when you are clearly aware of an option available to her which you choose not to inform her about

James Randi is not a reliable option which would provide reliable scientific evidence, according to some people.

bonkey wrote:

Just as all of your articles & arguments will not change the fact that Jomanda's claims are not accepted by skeptics, mainstream science, mainstream medicine, etc. because they have not been properly and rigorously tested. You can twist your interpretation of reality all you like, but the bar of respectability won't be lowered for your hero because you think its the right thing to do.

a point made in my very first posting: "Jomanda has been asking for testing for 30 years" !

bonkey wrote:

Rationally, why would anyone who believed in their abilities not want their abilities empirically tested and proven?

Jomanda agreed to be tested by Prof. Piet Borst.

FE wrote:

I presented 'Sylvia Millecam/Jomanda: The True Story' as a matter of discussion

bonkey wrote:

Why? Why post it on skeptics' forum after skeptics' forum? Skepticism is a well-defined approach - you're not gonna find that some skeptic sites will suddenly stop asking the same questions the others have asked. You know in advance what the responses will be. This is further evidenced by your repeated use of the same stock material in various responses and not just in the thread-starting.
If discussion is your objective, then why not discuss rather than launching the same ad hominems and taking the same stances as you've done site after site? Why not discuss Randi's test rather than just giving us the same old character assassination routine? Do you seriously think his having had a heart attack is so valid a comment on the integrity of the test he proposed that its worth mentioning on multiple sites? Do you honestly think its a meaningful part of the discussion about the validiity of double-blind testing with respect to Jomanda and her claims?

Speaking of ad hominems, questioning the person and not the claim (S.M. Case), why and all other question, does not matter, because it will not change the content of the presented 'Sylvia Millecam/Jomanda: The True Story' as a matter of discussion.

FE wrote:

What do you think about Prof. Piet Borst refusing to come to terms with his own agreement to test Jomanda's energised water ?

bonkey wrote:

Regardless of the truth behind Borst's actions, I fail to see the significance. I've already pointed out that the only English references I can find on this appear to be forum articles remarkably similar to each other. Given that you've been rebranding whatever suits you as "fantasy" because they're not based on solid fact, I find it beyond credulity that you are now asking me to comment on something where I have already drawn reference to the lack of fact available to me. Regardless of the truth behind Borst's actions, I fail to see the significance. Because one person allegedly refused to carry out on their offer to perform a test does not suggest anything other than that one person refused to carry out their offer to perform a test. It may signify any number of things, and there is no reason to believe one possibility over the other. Perhaps Borst was afraid he couldn't do the test. Perhaps he realised that it wasn't as simple as he made it out to be. Perhaps he's had enough dealing with such claims and has decided to get on with other things in his life. Perhaps he now believes Jomanda is the real deal but doesn't want to help her gain more widespread acceptance. The list goes on, but to choose any reason over the others based on the information available would be - to borrow your language once more - indulging in fantasy.

It would help if he as a start would contact Jomanda about it, because sometimes speakinng about things to others might help to clear things up before getting tangled up in mindthoughts what could or could not, because in that case one could also ask himself e.g. whether or not aliens have purple dresses. Legal significance: not coming to terms with an oral agreement. Moral significance: a quuackbuster who does not really want to quackbust. Significance of showing how quackbusters seem to operate ? Claiming but not proving, preaching only hot air ?:

color=red]DUTCH QUCKBUSTER FOUNDATION SKEPSIS[/color]
The foundation Skepsis claims to submit extraordinary statements from the paranormal to critical research. Since 1988 Skepsis publishes the trimester magazine 'Skepter'. Former chairman Rob Nanninga, is now head editor of 'Skepter'.

[ Note - One of the elements of Jomanda's treatment is her energised water, for internal or external use, and by which many people have claimed to be cured from different kinds of affections or diseases. The medium of Jomanda is the instrument by which the water is energised. The energised water is owned by the Divine World]

SKEPSIS IN ACTION: 3 TESTS FOR JOMANDA
(source - Skepsis magazine 'Spekter', dec 1994) -
All media have massively thrown themselves on the medium Jomanda. What can we as skeptical research workers of the paranormal still add to this discussion ?... Jomanda insists on scientific research, but unfortunately science does not have the equipment with which Jomanda's immaterial helpers (from the Other World) can be registered. She is the only one who can observe them. One could examine to what extent the patienten profit from Jomanda's treatment, but such a research demands much time, money and medical knowledge... By means of the tests mentioned below Jomanda however is able to show in a simple manner that she has particular gifts.
# (1) At the first test, Jomanda gets 10 numbered bottles of spa water, of which 5 already have been energised by her beforehand. If Jomanda succeeds to distinguish one type from the other, she will make a statistic significant result. If she requires she can drink from the bottles.
# (2) At the second test, 10 human guineapigs in wheelchairs are driven up to Jomanda. They are each covered with sheets, so that they are not visible. 5 of them have serious sickness, whereas the remaining 5 are medically very healthy. Can Jomanda determine using the Divine World which 5 persons have the need for urgent treatment ?
# (3) At the third test, 10 spiritual operation tables are screened off with curtains. On 5 of the tables lay a patient, which have been choosen by Jomanda beforehand. Is it possible that Jomanda can see to which her spiritual helpers, -doctors will go and can she in that way establish on which tables the patienst lie ?
If Jomanda claims she can do everything she states, than above tests should not be a big problem for her. We hope that she will want to venture an attempt. to show her paranormal gifts under checked circumstances.
Rob Nanninga, Skepsis

SKEPSIS-TESTS EXPOSED: REACTION JOMANDA
(source - Skepsis magazine 'Skepter', year 8, nr.1, march 1995, page 42-43)
Tiel, 24 january 1995
Dear Sir Nanninga,
In the previous months I with rising astonishment have taken knowledge of the comments which you give, or one of your skeptical fellow board members such as the well-known Bart koene, about the things that happen during the the so-called Healing Service Gatherings. It seems to me that - by lack of better - nearly every calling themselves journalists inktcoolie can gratefully knock on the door of your foundation and then can sign up very firm the same comment. That comment is provided with splendid figures from "scientific justified research" that sir Bart Koene has produced on a sunday afternoon.

Still apart from the fact that this research is in my opinion in its whole not representative for what there in reality is taking place, moreover it being quit considerably dated with the years expiring, I continued to astonish myself concerning your firm conviction that you would have requested me several times to co-operate with a few tests, research from you. Well, these requests have never reached me in writing nor orally. Is also logical, because they have never been made, but ofcourse for your foundation it was a superb statement to be freed from it all. It seems to me however that on a certain moment when the massive call to harden your statements for once, was the reason for you to finally in reality make a request to me, with the result of me looking desireing forward to the daily mail, in order to read your written request with well-willing attention to maybe develop a protocol with your organisation in order to do a justified attempt to place the happenings during the healing gatherings in a scientific framework. That seemed to me a total real point.

But whatever happened, how many letters and postcards by the post-office employees were delivered, no-where I could find a letter from your foundation. Up to that memorable day in the still early beginning of 1995. Then I discoverd among the late new year wishes your foundation magazine Skepter. Eager, I took away the cover to be able to determine asking myself what unmistakables this time would be printed again concerning many paranormal phenomena. That ' something ' would be in the magazine concerning me seemed clear because your foundation magazine I only get sent when one of your faithful scribblers again wants to blow the horn.

After only having opened some pages, my eyes were the first to process these absurd proposals. First you do not believe it because even the greatest fool would not have produced them. There it was, the requests ! Without consultation, without knowledge, without invitation. There one had published the tests with thereby the request to comply. A memorable number, it will become a collectersitem because the way in which your research workers work borders to the unbelievable. Never in the history there were 'people' whom - apart from the content of the 'tests'- have brought a justified research this way in the publicity without in advance informing the person it is related to. It is an excellent manner to get rid of alot of sorrow because be fair, you cannot proof your statements towards the inktcoolies with convincing evidence. It has been published and Jomanda did not go into it. Therefore gentlemen of the press, draw your conclusions.

Because sir Nanninga you meanwhile will understand that I absolutely do not cooperate with the researches presented by you. Apart from the fact that I find it low to have me receive these requests in such an impersonal manner, it is in addition completely absurd to ee 'tests' as convincing and scientifically. Possibly that these tests in the middle ages or something later still by the allchemisten, whitches and other derogatory personages were experienced as 'particularly interesting', annex 1995, you can imagine that the mental development of people would make him able to develop more acceptable tests.

What I can do I do with full conviction. I know that you have objections concerning what there can take place but to let me carry out your tests as a type of village fair attraction, is a bridge to far. Therefore the things I may do, is too dear to me. I do not let me get mocked. I absolutely cannot bring that, in agreement with my conscience. I am not frightened. I have nothing to hide and I want gladly to cooperate with researches but I have absolute no sense to go into such third degree proposals. That you took the effort undoubtedly with many to consider these 'tests' and to subsequently wanted to formulate them, is for me the persuading proof that your club does not have to be taken absolutely seriously.

When you would have taken the effort to once attend a healing gathering with your members, that perhaps still would lead to developing less naief research proposals. I suspect however that many of you have enormous fear to experience what can be experienced there. We have already earlier - three years ago - made the proposal to keep a healing gathering especially for your foundation members. That does not need to be in town Tiel but can as a manner of speech also take place in a farmers barn in Ureterp. I do not need to dress in a 'vestment', to me I do not care, you may give me a gunny sack. What may happen, happens everywhere and under all circumstances because time nor space exists for what there by means of me can pass through.

Sir Nanninga, I would urgently advise you to visit a healing gathering or in the future abandon giving comments. You and many with you get really understand nothing of what happens by means of me, nor can happen and has happened. That you reduce yourself to the level of highschool schoolboys on a rainy afternoon honestly makes me a bit sad. But happyly I find comfort in the fact that now three scientists are very busy with developing a considerable protocol for in-depth justified is scientific study into what by means may happen. Research which is supported by several faculty's of two universities. When the results of this research will be known, we will not hesitate to make it available to your organisation. Perhaps nice for a higher standing article in your club magazine Skepter and undoubtedly also nice for a comment and a retrospection on the so-called by Bart koene manufactured research.
Despite all this, I send you and the yours, much love, light and strength.
Jomanda
[ Note - the university research about which wrote Jomanda, has never come of the ground ]

bonkey wrote:

Borst said he could easily test her claims, and hasn't

Even better. Borst could have performed his tests without Jomanda, because the energised water of Jomanda can also be obtained by TV, radio, CD, or telephone: Jomanda's voice.

bonkey wrote:

It simply means that Borst cannot think of a suitable test which he is willing to subject them to.

Borst himself spoke in his column in Dutch newspaper 'NRCHandelsblad about a "simple test".(6 March 2004)

bonkey wrote:

Equally - you stated PEAR/Jomands's can be / have been proven. You've yet to offer this proof, or explain how it can be obtained.

See also post ISAW
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/
- Information, Consciousness, and Health - http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/JahnATpages.pdf
- Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations - http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/m5.pdf
# QUOTE BRENDA DUNNE[/b] (PEAR Laboratory Manager) 4 mei 2005 15:36:15 - "The collective scientific evidence supporting phenomena such as those demonstrated by Jomanda and others is sufficiently robust that the term "paranormal" is now inappropriate. Only when we ourselves accept them as "normal" will we succeed in communicating their relevance to others who are more skeptical"
# PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
For over a quarter of a century the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory at Princeton University has been studying the effects of human intention and emotional resonance on the behavior of random physical processes. They have amassed an immense body of empirical evidence that indicates that effects such as those described are empirically demonstrable under controlled laboratory conditions.
Don't forget Jessica Utts.

FE30033

Wicknight wrote:

Quick question FE30033

How much money does Jomanda make each year from her amazing healing ability?

Speaking of questioning the person/messenger and not the message:

JOMANDA - HC INSURANCE FUND
(source - Tv-programme 'Mark Klein Essink & Co.', bco RTL4, 29 mei 1995) -
"[MKE]-"Must Jomanda be in the health insurance funds ? - [Cancer patient]-"Yes, I have already asked that, I think so"-[woman]-"I agree, if people must get the possibility to visit Jomanda, then I think that that possibility must be there"-[Jomanda ] - "yes, in fact I find it important, but, I can call out what I want, I simply find with such an unique event in the Netherlands that the State / Government must exploit such a healing-hall in town Tiel and then everyone by me may be allowed in free of charge, so that everyone can make use of it"

JOMANDA: FABULOUSLY RICH
(source - Tv-programme 'Hier en Nu', bco NCRV, 28 dec 1992) - [Jomanda]-" Look, if we wanted, than we would already have been God knows where and we would have been fabulously rich within a few weeks. There are people, also wellknown famous people, who just offer 50.000 gildens for a private-treatment. Then I say: 'You come in your Rolls Royce to the healinghall in Tiel, and get in line, for 10 gildens"

JOMANDA: FINANCIAL BENEFIT
(source - Tv-programme 'Barend & Witteman', 13 mei 1999, Sonja Barend ) - [Sonja]-"Ten gildens times 2,5 million visitors is 25 million" - [Jomanda]-"Yes, but where do you get a piece of healing, among other things, for 10 gildens. That you get no where. No where else"


HOW MUCH MONEY JOMANDA MAKES ?
- CONFIRMED IN COURT OF LAW: SILICONE BREASTIMPLANTS HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED ON HUMAN-BEINGS !
- THE SAFETY OF SILICONE BREASTIMPLANTS HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN BY THE MANUFACTURERS
- FROM US-STUDIES ON MICE AND DOGS IT WAS SHOWN SILICONEIMPLANTS CAUSE CANCER
- THOUSANDS OF WOMEN AS GUINEAPIGS !?

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE !!!: EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE A FAIRYTALE ?

FE30033

ISAW wrote:

Great . where is it? Or does she not follow through on her promises?

then ther is the "Maria Vrede" cash cow with allusiuons to Christianity and marianism. In fact I can find no evidence that Jomanda followes orthoxox or mainstream christianity in any way. while the popular idea of "miracles" and Mary is alluded to, there is no mention of Christ (remember him the actual person Mary gave birth to?)

ISAW wrote:

Where is this Foundation Jomanda claims to have set up in Ireland? Who is the mysterious singer martin Drennan? could he be the Bishop of Galway? going by property prices in Ireland Jomanda must have a pile of money for this foundation. Will she open her bank accounts to scrutiny? I think it might be a miracle if all of these questions are answered.

If you truely want your questions to be answered, and not just trying to find a stick to beat the dog, you could contact Jomanda, as these things are on her website, and which seem to trouble you and make you wunder a bit. I just present the S.M.case, as a matter of discussion.

ISAW wrote:

Yes it surely does. It makes me think that either NO miracles are happening or that if they are they occur in Jomanda's absence so she isnt the cause! not alone that Jomanda claims to heal from a picture. Here is a test. Ten photographs. some have a problem some dont. Can she determine who has and can she heal them? Even one in fifty photos?

Where's the evidence of what you claim 'no miracles happen' while in the meantime doctors have confirmed e.g. a miracle like this ? Do you not believe doctors ? See example miracle troathcancer (earlier posting):
[Sonja]-"In that book is a letter if a man who writes 'my brother had cancer on the throat. I have taken foto's of my brother to the healinghalle in Tiel and have also held the foto's continiously for the radio- and Tv- broadcastings of Jomanda. Endresult is that my brother has been cured of cancer of the throat'. So that is possible........[Jomanda]-" yes, yes, the prove is all there, of course, otherwise you would not put it in a book, those people went to the doctor, everything is checked"
A tumor is gone or it is not.

bonkey

FE30033 wrote:

Thus you agree it was your fantasy.

I said it was no more fantasy than your claims that she can heal, given that both can be argued to have an equivalent amount of fact behind them.

If you think this means I agree my assertion was fantasy, you implicitly accept that your healing claims also are.

If you think your healing claims are not fantasy, despite the lack of evidence, then your argument about my claims being fantasy due to their lack of support is either farcical or hypocritical.

As for your links about claims...PEAR are not a suitable authority to offer "proof" of their own beliefs.

James Randi is not a reliable option, which would provide reliable scientific evidence, according to some people

Why not?

The only reason he seems unreliable to me is that he's refuted claim after claim after claim. Obviously claimants will see this as unreliability - they believe they're genuine, so they will be of the opinion that he must be cheating or wilfully setting them up to knock them down.

Of course, they aren't qualified to act as neutral judges in the matter. A bit like one shouldn't trust believers in paranormal activity (e.g. PEAR) to act as their own judge and jury when it comes to asserting that they've proven the existence of certain abilities typically classed as paranormal. They're neither indepdant nor unbiased.

However, Randi's reliability is still only a smoke-screen from my perspective. Its still a criticism of the man rather than of his challenge. The legally binding conditions of the challenge are publically available. Whether Randi is personally reliable or not should therefore no longer be an issue as his methodology in the case of this test is hard to fault, hasn't been faulted by yourself and is legally binding. The only details to be negotiated "post acceptance" are the specifics of the double-blind test.

Why is this so unacceptable? All you've done is comment on Randi, not on the test he's offered. Indeed, why not encourage Jomanda to accept Randi's test on the proviso that Randi himself is not involved in any step of the process.

Jomanda has been asking for testing for 30 years

Randi is offering it. You suggest that Jomanda doesn't even know that Randi is offering it (as you maintain that the suggestion she's refused his offer is fantasy) which begs the question as to just how hard she's really trying to be tested.

Its also noteworthy that despite being able to fund quite an impressive amount of stuff, she can't afford to pay for a simple double-blind test by an independant, respected third party herself.

Sure, one can argue that the onus isn't on her to prove her own claims, but the reality is that it is.

If you, as a drug company, claim to have a new super-drug, you don't get to hand it over to someone else and say "test that for me". You don't get to sell the drug on the open market on the grounds that you've asked others to test it and they've refused, but you believe its good so thats ok. Instead, you fund your own testing, carry it out in accordance with strict, controllable, verifiable standards, and then when you've met the standard of proof your claims are accepted as valid in the absence of someone else choosing to do their research to challenge your claim. Failing that, you strike a business deal with someone to fund your testing in exchange for a cut of the profits.

Thats how the system works.

You seem to be suggesting that in the case of Jomanda, it should work otherwise - that she should be accepted, or that someone else should pay for the testing and that this someone else has to be someone who meets trustworthy by your (unclarified) standards. And in the absence of someone trustworthy offering to do your testing at their cost, then we go back to the alternate option of "we should take her at her word".

You can decry the system all you want, but Jomanda is being treated no differently to the latest miracle-drug. It doesn't work until its proven to work, and work safely, in accordance with predefined standards of testing, carried out at the expense of the claimant or someone supporting their cause. Treating Jomanda equally in this way is only perfectly fair.

Ragarding Borst, you say : It would help if he as a start would contact Jomanda about it. I agree. It would help. However, his not contacting her is irrelevant to the question of verification. Borst has not been elected the world's voice on matters scientific, so his silence has absolutely no impact on anything in this regard. Arguing that it is significant is like saying a broken clock suggests our theory of time is wrong.

Borst himself spoke in his column in Dutch newspaper 'NRCHandelsblad about a "simple test".(6 March 2004)

And?

I can say "I have a simple test to prove the existence of God", but it doesn't actually mean anything.

If Borst didn't outline the details of this test, so that it can be independantly verified, then the possibility remains that he has no such test. If he did outline the details of the test, then that is what is important, not this sound-bite claim.

See - this is how skepticism works. I'm as skeptical of Borst's claims as I am of Jomandas. Just because you say he's a quackbuster doesn't mean that he is, nor does it say anything about his quality as one. I'm not going to back him because he's allegedly "on my side" in this affair.

Furthermore, researching Borst does not provide a wealth of information about his successful quackbusting. In fact, I can find no references anywhere about same. Has he ever actually done any? Or does he simply make media pronouncements about people being quacks?

Its not critical to my argument, for even were he the best in the world, his silence still wouldn't be conclusive and thus - by your own line of reasoning and wording - drawing conclusions as to why he is silent would be fantasy. However, the less competent he is as a quackbuster, the less significant his refusal to carry out on his own challenges are.

What is noteworthy, however, is that you've made it quite clear that you don't hold Borst in any high regard, but believe that he would be a worthy tester, where Randi wouldn't because you don't hold him in high regard.

jc

bonkey

FE30033 wrote:

Speaking of questioning the person/messenger and not the message:

...

HOW MUCH MONEY JOMANDA MAKES ?
- CONFIRMED IN COURT OF LAW: SILICONE BREASTIMPLANTS HAVE NEVER BEEN TESTED ON HUMAN-BEINGS !
- THE SAFETY OF SILICONE BREASTIMPLANTS HAS NEVER BEEN SHOWN BY THE MANUFACTURERS
- FROM US-STUDIES ON MICE AND DOGS IT WAS SHOWN SILICONEIMPLANTS CAUSE CANCER
- THOUSANDS OF WOMEN AS GUINEAPIGS !?

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE !!!: EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE A FAIRYTALE ?

How are those points are relevant to the question bolded above it?

6th

FE30033 wrote:

I told you specifically that no scientific research has been done on Jomanda

And yet you post it in the Skeptics Forum? That, imo, is asking for trouble. Here they deal with research, facts and science. I think maybe you should have posted it in Spirituality or Paranormal.

So can I just check something? This chick has been asking for someone to research and validate her claims for 30 years? Why, if she claims such a high sucess rate, would people not want to do research on her?

ISAW

FE30033 wrote:

That's your problem.

sorry but it isnt! YOU claimed that the evidence whas ther and when asked for it you dont show where it is!

Loook frank, let us say I claim 500 people are killed a year on Dutch roads and that the Dutch department of transport Annual report says that is true. Say you ask me "that isnt good enough where is the reopet and where in the report doe sit say that" . It isnt good enough for me to say "It is in the report"

so where does it say Jomanda has paranormal powers? What doctors? what research specifically says that?

because you are well, very well aware, that the scientific evidence what you are asking for is in fact an unreality, a fantasy,

I am not aware of any claims being verified if you havent backed them up! YOU claimed Jomanda had powers and that scientists e.g. PEAR had confirmed that.
So WHERE does PEAR confirm that?

#(1)# Do you really actually 'believe' that Jomanda would put in her book that someone was cured from throatcancer (see first posting) if it were untrue ? Yes or no ?

what I believe does not matter. I am not making the claims about her. You are! And putting a claim in a book is not proof of whether it happened or not. It is just argument from assumed authority. Even if she has paranormal poewers putting it in a book does not make it true and even if everyone in the world believes she has powers does not mean she has them.
Where is the EVIDENCE for her powers?

#(2)# Would YOU put in a book that someone got cured from throatcancer while knowing that the whole of the Netherlands (media, politicians, quackbusters, regular medicine, milllions of people) are breathing down you neck to take you down at the slightest mistake ? Yes or no ?

what I would do is beside the point. But if you mean would "one" do it it is clear that in the past this is exactly what charalatans have done! As I stated putting it in a book or stating it in public has no bearing on whether it is true or not! where is the evidence you claim to have?

- [Sonja]-"Are you also sure that that brother is cured ?" - [Jomanda]-"yes, yes, the prove is all there, of course, otherwise you would not put it in a book, those people went to the doctor, everything is checked"

what is the source of this exchange (which in itself is opinion and not evidence) ?

- [Jomanda]-"Yes, but I can back it up, but for that you do need the co-operation of the doctors and from the people themselves[/u]"
- JOMANDA: PROOF OF MIRACLES - ( source - bco AVRO, Tv-programme '10 Lastige Vragen', 2 april 2002, Pieter-Jan Hagens )

I have no idea this programme ever existed. Can you show anything from the TV channels web site?
Can you produce three prople (who do not believe Jomanda has powers) who will attest that the programme was aired on that date?

As regards being evidence this is just someone claiming thhat they have powers. It isnt any sort of proof. "i saw it on TV" isn't really proof is it? I saw the statue of Liberty disappear on TV. Do you believe it really happened? Millions of people saw it happening. dont you believe them?

[ PJH ] - Jomanda, has one of your miracles ever been confirmed or proved by regular medical researches ? [ Jomanda]-"Yes, they all lay at home. But one does not come to look at it."

this isnt evidence at all! It is just someone claiming that evidence exists. the same as you have done! where is the actual confirmed medical evidence Jomanda claims which shows she has curative powers?

Where's the evidence ?
REGULAR TREATMENT NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY I
( source - magazine Vruchtbare Aarde,nr.5/6, 2000 ) - "An American surgeon ...snip

How is the above any evidence of Jomanda curing anything?

TREATMENT NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY II
( source - Trimbos institution http://www.trimbos.nl/default37.html , Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction ) - Pressrelease

A PRESS RELEASE in not evidence. I could release any hokum to the press tomorrow!

...7000 adults were examined on the prevention of depression, the impact of treatment with or without, and the change in the situation after a year. After a year 85% of the people who were not treated had no more depression.

what has this to do with Jomanda?

Results from the Netherlands Mental Health survey and Incidence Study (NEMESIS). Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia 2001, 103, pp 19-24]

where can one get this survey? have you actually read it or did you just cut and paste it and accept the claims of a press release?

PROZAC MOST OFTEN UNNECESSARY MEDICINE
(source - dutch Tv-programme NOVA, bco NPS, 25 juni 2005) -

So what? the fact that people may overmedicate has NOTHING to do with evisdence for Jomanda having the powers you claim. What next "asprin not needed for headaches to stop!" Is that proof of Jomanda having curative powers?

Where is the evidence (that I am shifting the burden) ? I do not see it, so according to your own arguments, I must not believe you.

Please look up "shifting the burden" and "logical fallacy" . If YOU make a claim it is for YOU to support it! It is not for me to show how your claim is wrong.

SAy you are in court and being accused causing someone to die. do you think it is fair for someone to say "show you did not kill her"? Or is it fairer to say the person being accused is assumed innocent and the person claiming she is guilty must prove that she is guilty?
Well then if someone claiming she is guilty has to prove guilt based on evidence so also must you prove your claim of paranormal powers based on evidence.

...to make your claim "Jomanda does not work'.

that is the negative claim! I dint make it. you made the positive claim i.e. you claimed jomanda had powers. I asked "prove it"! Saying "prove she doesnt!" is just shifting the burden and asking someone to prove a negative. Logical fallacies.
Please look them up.

I agree Jomanda has her burden of proof,

Great! where is it!

#(3)# On what do you base your claim that Jomanda cannot heal ?

3.1 Where did I make such a claim?

#(4)# On what do you base your claim that Jomanda's miracles are not real ?

4.1 where did I make such a claim?

I agree that I have to produce evidence to support my.[claims]

Great! Where is the evidence?

In Tiel where Jomanda once held her healings, sometimes 12.000 people visited her on a day.

where is the evience that 12,000 people visited?

#(5)# Do you really and actually 'believe' that your reality (with no scientific proof, and no contact with Jomanda) is worth more that the reality of thousands of Jomanda-visitors (with no scientific proof, but with personal proof/medical records, and in contact with Jomanda) ?

I never met Blackstone, or Blaine, but I believe in my reality there is no verifable evidence that he actually levitated people. I didnt meed David Copperfield either but I do not believe he made the Statue of Liberty disappear! personal endoersements are notoriously nbad objective scientific evidence.

#(6)# Do you actually and really belief that your 'testimonial' (Jomanda does not work, without scientific proof and without contact with Jomanda), is worth more, than the 'testimonials' of thousands of Jomanda-visitors

do you actually believe I ever stated "Jomanda does not work?"
6.1 Where did I state that?
You are WRONG! again. I didnt!

#(7)# If yes, Based on what ?

7.1 dont try to shift the burden onto me! How can I answer yes to a question about something I never stated?

#(8)# If no, than it is all a matter of 'Who is believed' ?,

8.1 dont try to shift the burden onto me! How can I answer no to a question about something I never stated?

#(9)# Do you find that equality of people and their believe-convictions are an important input for democracy ?

I can tell you that if the vast majority of people believed that Pi is equal to three they would still not be equal to three. Numbers of believers is not argument about something being true! Indeed it is a very weak arguement on your part. since Jomanda would probably not be acceptable to Orthodox christians the Roman Catholic Russian Greek and Anglican churches - thats about 1,500 MILLION people! Do you find that the belief convictions of Christians (which I would suggest are in opposition to Jomanda) are important?

ISAW

FE30033 wrote:

If you did not claim that Jomanda's miracles did not take place, I assume (correct me if I am wrong) you mean to say that Jomanda's miracles can take place under certain conditions brought and thought up by you by which you measure a fellowhuman performace.

WRONG! AGAIN!

You stated: "you [ISAW] claim miracles do not take place."

Now I never made any such claim. where did I?
Please dont start your usual prove a negative bullsh1the anout me having to show where I did NOT make such a claim!
Where did I state "miracles do not take place."? I didnt! admit that I didnt!
Admit you are WRONG about this!

That really does really matter

No it doesnt! what I believe has nothing to do with YOUR claim that Jomanda has powers. Wher is you evidence for YOUR claim. Dont try to wriggle out of it.

As you are very-well aware, the scientific evidence is not present, as others refuse to research Jomanda

I am not aware of it. That is why I am asking you! Now you admit that YOU claimed that Jomanda had powers and that ther was scientific evidence to support this. You claimed PEAR and other research supported YOUR claims. You posted a long list of claimed support. It turns out that when asked wher PEAr for example actually supports your contention the Jomanda has powers that you admit that not alone PEAR doesnt support your claim but there is no scientific evidence at all.

Asking others for miracles, is like asking a poor child in Africa who can not afford to buy rice, to hand over a million dollars as a condition before she is believed. I[f] you feel happy about that, if that way of reasoning makes you feel good and happy...who am I to contradict you.

this is just an illogical appeal to pathos. How is asking you to show scientific evidence for YOUR claim that Jomanda has powers in any waylike asking a starving person for a million dollars?

But I have a different way of dealing with people.

that seems obvious. It is called "shifting the burden".

No scientific evidence, but proof is present (medical records: or you might not believe doctors and medical records) which can, could be, and should be scientificly researched, as Jomanda has been asking for for 30 years !

AHA! So you now madmit that ther is not evidence but Jomanda is prepared to submit to testing! So why doesnt Jomanda do the Randi Challenge or some similar objective scientific test? And wher is the record of Jomanda contacting scientific researchers over the last 30 years and asking them to test her claims? Where is your evidence of that? wher in 1976 did Jomanda ask someone to scientifically verify her "powers"?

Thus you say, you might believe them, under certain conditions. Thus you say you might believe Jomanda. That is a better start than many people (media, politcians) in Holland produce. But also as before, you ask others to perform miracles, in which you 'might' not believe. Strange.

I suggest you look up the work "skeptic". you are posting to a skeptic group. You really should know what a scientific skeptic is.

#(1)# Do you believe regular-medicine doctors who provide Jomanda-testimonials ?

What are the names of these doctors? what are their qualifications? Where are the copies of the testimonials?

Read the quote (Jomanda even in blue). If you do not want to contact them. Fine, but I'll guess than in that case that if I should give you 900 witnesses of Jomanda's miracles, you will not contact them also. so why bother asking anyway ?

Because you CLAIMED something to be true! You should be able to support this! If you cant you should admit it and withdraw the claim!

PEAR is at least something compared to nothing..

where does PEAR support you claim about Jomanda having powers?

In reality I did not attribute. You did. It does say 'Utts' in the link.

In your first post in a section related to curing cancer you state the following

...the effects of human intention and emotional resonance on the behavior of random physical processes. They have amassed an immense body of empirical evidence that indicates that effects such as those described are empirically demonstrable under controlled laboratory conditions.

You gave the PEAR link there. Wher does PEAR suppoer you claim that Jomanda can cure cancer?

I told (my very first posting) you specifically that no scientific research has been done on Jomanda,

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52324010&postcount=1
Your first post contains phrases and headings like :"Dutch psychic" "Miracle healing" "NO CANCER"
you quote the following from jessica Utts:

While for example Dr. Jessica Utts (University Californie), who worked on the US-government sponsered Stargate-project, after research (1973, 1989, between 1992 en 1994) concluded about gifts of mediums (anomalous Cognition), that "It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria".

Under "Cancer Cured" you attribute the following quote to jomanda

The energy which is released on that moment, also via the CD, or via my voice on the radio, that works thus on the person on that moment. The energy which is positive energy, and eventually when the body can handle that all, that positive energy, will attack the negative energy.

where is there ANY evidence for such "energy" or that Jomanda cured anyone?

Let me be clear
1. Where is the evidence any cure of anyone ever happened?
2. what is the mechanism
3. what measurable paranormal powers does Jomanda have?

JOMANDA: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
...How many people have you researched ? ] [KW]- "332 people effectively[/u]"[/i]

Let me guess your answer: "not good enough"

where is the published research on the 332 people you claim?

#(2)# Do you really actually 'believe' that ...

2.1. already answered

Verfiable evidence can be found in medical records.

Care to please produce them then? You are beginning to sound like a UFO and space alien believer.

VERIFIABLE EVIVIDEN:

Addinf bolding and colour doesnt make it evidence

snip big list


Please show in each of these links exacely the part of that link which shows "verifiable evidence " of Jomanda having psychic powers.

It just seems like a list of unrelated articles on alternative medicine.

http://www.mercola.com/2006/jan/5/will_another_vioxx_critic_be_silence d.htm
# The Prostitution of Science
When you hear the words "scientific authority," check to be sure your wallet is still there and hold onto it tightly. Prostitution of science is using its good name for base purposes: falsifying data, and misinterpreting statistics to support a new theory, with the objective of gaining personal fame and fortune. Recent publicity about such debased conduct should have two consequences: (1) people ought to become more skeptical about new scientific pronouncements, and, as they do, (2) they ought to become more aware that the supposedly sharp dichotomy between scientific certainty and metaphysical inquiry is SIMPLY AN ILLUSION

i agree with this quotee (the only one you actually quoted from) but it has nothing to do with Jomanda having powers.

#(3)# How do you feel if I say "I do not believe you" "show me the evidence of what you claim (I did not attack anynone) ?

3.1 already answered. It is called shifting the burden! I didnt walk into a naive situation wher I say I believe the opposite and you ask me to prove that. I never CALIMED the opposite and you continuing to claim that I did is lying about me!

However I feel you cant call me a liar and get away with it if I chose to complain about it. It isnt for you to decide whether you personally attacked anyone. The moderators will decide that. If you continue to repost cut and paste claims with no support or personally attack people and other posters complain about that you will be BANNED form this group and people will not get to see you postings here. Whether or not you believe that i is true. I suggest you read the above discussion thread about the group Charter.


Column
FAIRYTALE "CANDY, SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE & EVOLUTION"

It is sometimes difficult in real life to talk to people who will ask for evidence for everything that is said or claimed, which will slow down conversation,
... snip the rest
[/quote]

This is a SKEPTIC group! that is what this group is for! Please read the charter!

# Son (irritated) - "Proof it. Show me the evidence"
# Father (loud voice) - "Maybe I should throw you out of the house and disinherit you"

Not a happy end -

Indeed and if you ignore the rules of a skeptic group e.g. No personal attacks and if you make claims you must support them or withdraw them they you will be "thrown out and disinherited"

...snip

The son died of hunger. And the father said: "Is wasn't me. It was the lack of evidence".

And people will not be hungry for your arguments when you are kicked out either and cant post her any more.

If you make claims SUPPORT them or go away!

Zombrex

FE30033 wrote:

I do not believe you. Where's the evidence / reason (of what you claim 'do not believe based on good reason') ?

About 500 years of medicine. And about 500 years of physics.

How does Jomanda heal these people? In scientific terms what does she actually do? How the atoms from her head influence the atoms in the persons throat, or hand, or leg?

I doubt you know.

FE30033 wrote:

#(1)# Do you not find medical records proof ?

No, of course not.

If I drive my mother to the doctor for a broken leg, and a week later her medical records show that her leg is healing, can I claim that those medical records are proof that I healed my mother? No, of course not that would be nonsense.

FE30033 wrote:

A cancer-tumor is gone or is not gone ?

As soon as you can explain what exactly Jomanda actually did to make the cancer-tumor go away I will be impressed.

How does she heal these people? What does she do? What actually happens.

In detail please.

FE30033 wrote:

Conclusion ?

Inconclusive. That is not proof that Jomanda healed the person, any more than saying that the coffee she had for breakfast healed her.

The only reason you think Jomanda healed the person is because she claimed she did. That is not proof she did, or even reason to believe her.

Imagine if someone else had claimed to have healed the person at the same time? Now you have 2 people claiming that in the week between doctors appointments they healed the patient? Without having any clue what either of these people actually did how do you know if either of them is telling the truth.

I could claim that over the years I have, by remote viewing, managed to healed all the people that Jomanda has claimed to heal, that it was really me, not Jomanda.

Prove I didn't, prove to me now that it wasn't me

FE30033 wrote:

Speaking of questioning the person/messenger and not the message:

How much money does Jomanda make by claiming that she heals people?

ISAW

FE30033 wrote:

Where's the evidence of what you claim 'no miracles happen'

You are at it again! Asking me to prove a negative and shifting the burden

Please alearn some logic. Above doen not say "no miracles happen"

It says EITHER "no miracles" happen OR " <a list of other things>

If I say either I am male OR I am female that is NOT a claim I am male is it?

while in the meantime doctors have confirmed e.g. a miracle like this ? Do you not believe doctors ?

i believe medical doctors exist yes. But I suggest while you are looking up "logical fallacy" you also look up "argument from authority"

See example miracle troathcancer (earlier posting):
[Sonja]-"In that book is a letter if a man who writes 'my brother had cancer on the throat. ...

Also see "argument from analogy" and "anecdotal evidence"

6th

I actually healed all those people, and another 3,781 people besides. I am also currently stopping it from raining over Dublin city.

ISAW

DublinEvents wrote:

This is always what happens. The authorities always try to cover up any miracles or ground breaking treatments that might pose a threat to the lucrative regular medicine world. The medical care industry is a huge business that generates billions every year. They are not about to admit that it's prone to misdiagnosis. Also, if they had accepted silicone to be the culprit, most women would have had second thoughts about getting implants and consequently this implanting business would have suffered severely. These governments are run by humans and just like any human, they are prone to greed and malice. Unfortunately, that's what most humans do when they reach a position of power.

this is another fallacy. You cant have "proof by association". Ley us assume the whole world pharmachemical industry is ion a big conspiracy to make profit. that on NO WAY proves jamanda is doing miracles does it?

Put it another way. suppose Hitler owned (or painted) some really good paintings. suppose I say "but we all know hitler was racist. how can you trust his judgement on what was good art?" It just doesnt stand up! Even the most evel man in the world can have an ability to paint. You cant associate a good painting with the fact that the owner was evil. Nor can you say "pharmachem is evil therefore Jomanda must be doing miracles since pharmachem oppoded her".

By the way, in any case, whether or not they make profit, pharmaceuticals have been scientifically shown to work and are stringently controlled.

ISAW

DublinEvents wrote:

This is always what happens. The authorities always try to cover up any miracles or ground breaking treatments that might pose a threat to the lucrative regular medicine world. The medical care industry is a huge business that generates billions every year. They are not about to admit that it's prone to misdiagnosis. Also, if they had accepted silicone to be the culprit, most women would have had second thoughts about getting implants and consequently this implanting business would have suffered severely. These governments are run by humans and just like any human, they are prone to greed and malice. Unfortunately, that's what most humans do when they reach a position of power.

this is another fallacy. You cant have "proof by association". Ley us assume the whole world pharmachemical industry is ion a big conspiracy to make profit. that on NO WAY proves jamanda is doing miracles does it?

Put it another way. suppose Hitler owned (or painted) some really good paintings. suppose I say "but we all know hitler was racist. how can you trust his judgement on what was good art?" It just doesnt stand up! Even the most evel man in the world can have an ability to paint. You cant associate a good painting with the fact that the owner was evil. Nor can you say "pharmachem is evil therefore Jomanda must be doing miracles since pharmachem oppoded her".

By the way, in any case, whether or not they make profit, pharmaceuticals have been scientifically shown to work and are stringently controlled. Un like Jomanda.

humanji

6th wrote:

I actually healed all those people, and another 3,781 people besides. I am also currently stopping it from raining over Dublin city.

Nice one!

6th

humanji wrote:

Nice one!

I am actually being serious, note it is still not raining in Dublin City. I may chnage that soon, then again ... I may not.

FE30033

bonkey wrote:

I said it was no more fantasy than your claims that she can heal, given that both can be argued to have an equivalent amount of fact behind them. If you think this means I agree my assertion was fantasy, you implicitly accept that your healing claims also are. If you think your healing claims are not fantasy, despite the lack of evidence, then your argument about my claims being fantasy due to their lack of support is either farcical or hypocritical

Not farcical or hypocritical (speaking of ad-hominems), but realistic and 'skeptical'. I see your fantasy apart from the one, supposed by you, Jomanda has. Trying to hide/link it behind others (fantasies) does not make it less of a fantasy.

bonkey wrote:

PEAR are not a suitable authority to offer "proof" of their own beliefs.

I do not believe you. Where is the evidence of your claim/belief 'not suitable'?

FE wrote:

James Randi is not a reliable option, which would provide reliable scientific evidence, according to some people

bonkey wrote:

Why not ?

bonkey wrote:

I thought you wanted to discuss Jomanda? This has nothing to do with her

See the earlier presented evidence to support this belief: 'Randi is in my opinion not a reliable option' Others are, in my opinion. Randi was some kind of magician. Prof. Piet Borst e.g. is a wellknown highly respected researcher. If you really (not just find a stick to hit the dog) want to know how Jomanda feels about it, contact her. I really do not know and I do not care, as I presented 'S.M. The True Story' as a matter of discussion. James Randi linked to Jomanda is hot air, fantasy, shifting and drifting the burden. Prof. Piet Borst linked to Jomanda is a reality, as mentioned in 'S.M. The True Story'

bonkey wrote:

A bit like one shouldn't trust believers in paranormal activity (e.g. PEAR) to act as their own judge and jury when it comes to asserting that they've proven the existence of certain abilities typically classed as paranormal. They're neither indepdant nor unbiased

It seems to me that everybody and everything that does not match you believeconviction is warded off. Maybe you (to protect your belief) even belief the Chinese-government is crazy.
China Accepts The Paranormal: amazing Powers of New Children
"Since 1974 the Chinese government has discovered over 100.000 children who have extraordinary psychic powers. These children, when blindfolded, can "see" with either their ears, nose, mouth, tongue, armpits, hands or feet. The "New Children" have come to Earth with a clear purpose. These kids know who they are and why they are here. They carry a new vibration and have come to transform the consciousness of humanity"
http://www.linkgrinder.com/articles/Super_Psychic_Kids_Amazing_Powers_of_New_Children_1714_0_article.html

bonkey wrote:

Its also noteworthy that despite being able to fund quite an impressive amount of stuff, Jomanda can't afford to pay for a simple double-blind test by an independant, respected third party herself.

You can use your fantasy all you want. I do not know. And if you 'really' (not just find a fantasy-stick to hit the dog) want to know contact Jomanda. I present 'S.M. The True Story' as a matter of discussion.

bonkey wrote:

If you, as a drug company, claim to have a new super-drug, you don't get to hand it over to someone else and say "test that for me". You don't get to sell the drug on the open market on the grounds that you've asked others to test it and they've refused, but you believe its good so thats ok. Instead, you fund your own testing, carry it out in accordance with strict, controllable, verifiable standards, and then when you've met the standard of proof your claims are accepted as valid in the absence of someone else choosing to do their research to challenge your claim. Failing that, you strike a business deal with someone to fund your testing in exchange for a cut of the profits. Thats how the system works....You seem to be suggesting that in the case of Jomanda, it should work otherwise

Maybe so in some cases or in fantasy. In other cases reality seems different and reality proves that people in some cases are not willing to research and only able to act in cases which are complying with own beliefs. Sadly, because when Jomanda had healings in Tiel, sometimes 12.000 visitors cam a day !

DUTCH MINISTRY HEALTHCARE (VWS)
http://www.minvws.nl/en/
( source - letter, 2 February 2004, director Innovatie, professions and ethics, drs. N.C. O.) -
"For the judgement, appraisal of treatment methods in the Netherlands there have been certain agencies and fixed procedures set up. With respect to scientific research the minister of Healthcare (VWS) lets himself be supported by external agencies, such as the Council for Health Research (RGO) http://www.rgo.nl/ , the Health Council (GR) and Care Research the Netherlands / Medical Sciences (ZonMw). Your request for public hearing both sides in the case of Jomanda cannot be fullfilled. It is not the task of the minister of Health, Welfare and Sport to get mixed up in such discussions. This obstructive attitude you do not need to see as a rejection of alternative medicine in my part. The ministry wants not to discourage use of alternative treatments, nor does it want to promote it and adopts a neutral position. What counts is, if a treatment method after tests has shown to be effective, whether the method is alternative or not"

DUTCH HEALTH COUNCIL (GR)
http://www.gr.nl/index.php?phpLang=en
( source - letter, 16 April 2004, Dr. M. v. L., general secretary) - "The Health Council advises the government concerning the standing of science with respect to questions in the area of public health. The Council bases itself thereby on results of good set up scientific research, published in international profession illustrated magazines which put on very strict standards with respect to the methodological quality of the research workers. The scientific data then are weighed within the Health Council and interpreted by commissions of top-experts. The minister of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS) has not asked the Health Council recommendation, advice concerning the matter Jomanda, and the Health Council is also not intending to give such a recommendation on own initiative. There is thus no Health point of view in this matter"

CARE RESEARCH NETHERLANDS (ZONMW) I
http://www.zonmw.nl/en/home.html ( source - letter, 26 april 2004, H.J.S. director ) -
"Concerning the by Jomanda applied treatment ZONMW has the point of view that all new treatments thoroughly must be examined on their effectiveness, before applying these on patients and to link health-claims to them. This research has to take place according to the standards in the scientific world in an independent and controllable manner and must also be repeatable"

CARE RESEARCH NETHERLANDS (ZONMW) II
( source - letter 19 may 2004, director H.J.S)
- "Thus ZonMW has gotten in the period 1996-1999 FROM THE DUTCH MINISTRY OF HEALTH (VWS) the assignment to give support to alternative practitioners and professiongroups with literature-studies and for working out research-proposals"
- "The Dutch Ministry of Health has RECENTLY given ZonMW the assignment to write a plan of handling in which will be adressed how research in the area of complenmentary treatment in the Netherlands should look like and a format can be given to earlier mentioned intensive guidance. Since there are many kinds of therapies among complementary medicine, the DUTCH MINISTRY OF HEALTH has stated that we in line of this assignment ARE TO LIMIT OURSELVES TO DCOTORS who practition acupuncture, homeopaths and naturemedicine"

DUTCH MINISTER OF HEALTH HOOGERVORST
( source- 15 july 2004, ouf of name, director Innovation, drs.N.O.)
- "In my opinion it is to the practitioners themselves to show effectiveness of their methods. For this they can apply researchproposals with the organisations mentioned earlier in my letter from 2 february 2004 (RGO, GR, ZonMw)"
- "To support alternative doctors by solving methodological problems I HAVE RECENTLY GIVEN ZONMW THE ASSIGNMENT to make a plan of dealing with reference to research into complementary medicine that is FOCUSED ON: the development of just reserachmethods, and the education of reseachers, and clearing the path for existing researchquestions for regular-financing"

DUTCH GOVERNEMT: PVDA PARTY
Sent: friday 17 september 2004
RE: - KNMG (as everybody) is silent concerning Jomanda
"I do not ignore your letters, nor what you put in your letter. Sentences as 'the murderer of Millecam' you will not hear from my mouth and with you I believe that everyone is entitled to show what he or has to offer. The public governing board then tries consequently also to watch the public interest a bit. I think honestly that we do not differ about that from opinion. To not hear again that it does not interest politics at all, I propose to you the following. After the coming busy months of budget handling The Hague I want gladly to visit Jomanda a time with you of hear from you both which form of research you concretely suggest.
Kind regards,
X.X.
Member PVDA-party

Nothing was heard ever again from PVDA on this matter. Claiming....words...but deeds....

bonkey wrote:

You can decry the system all you want, but Jomanda is being treated no differently to the latest miracle-drug

# The Case of Royal Raymond Rife
Royal Raymond Rife was the inventor of the Universal Microscope which he presented to the world in 1933. The scientist who discovered that the unique electronic 'signature' of each specific disease can be modified to eliminate nearly every affliction known to man
- Why is the pharmaceutical industry afraid of this man ?
Then why not get FDA approval for this therapy ? - Primarily because bringing a product to market through FDA approval costs about $359 million dollars for each use approved. That's only about 3 days of earnings for the prescription drug industry, but beyond the reach of others. And the FDA only approves devices which are substantially similar to devices it has already approved. So unless you can shell out 359 million dollars for FDA approval for each medical use, the rules are rigged to maintain the drug industry's monopoly on health care.
http://www.cdromcsc.com/rife.htm
Obstacles to research in complementary and alternative medicine
In most countries, CAM research funding is on a very small scale. For instance, only 0.08% of the British National Health Service research budget goes towards CAM research.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/179_06_150903/ern10442_fm-1.html
Complementary medicine in Europe
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/309/6947/107

bonkey wrote:

Borst has not been elected the world's voice on matters scientific, so his silence has absolutely no impact on anything in this regard

Drifting and shifting the burden as a world's voice on matters scientific was not the matter at hand. And it has no impact, when you think unlawfull handling is okay.
DUTCH CODE OF LAW: ORAL AGREEMENT
- (1) BW 6:4 Article 1375 - "To which agreements link - not only to that which is explicitly expressed, but also to everything that, to the nature of the agreement, is progressed by fairness, the use, or the law"
- (2) BW 6:4: Article 1385 "Doubt - in case of doubt, an agreement is explained at the disadvantage of the one who stipulated something (Piet Borst), and in the advantage who has joined, bound to the agreement (Jomanda)".

PROF. PIET BORST & HEALTHCARE GAMBLING
Prof. Piet Borst took on a bet, on national television (12 August 2000), in the tv programme 'The Black Sheep' of bco VARA, with Jomanda, to research Jomanda's energised water with the following words: - [Piet Borst]-"..May I make a proposal, a proposal that you (Jomanda) energise 1000 bottles of water, and that we then take a 1000 bottles which are not energised, and that we look, if there is any difference..." -[Jomanda ] - "Gladly" -[Piet Borst]-"I would not mind putting 100,000, gildens on that, that if I energise, that that works just as well, than if Jomanda energises, that means that there is no difference" - [Jomanda ] - " Yes, I will very gladly participate to the testing of prof. Borst, why not.."....-[Jomanda ] - "..You want proof. With that I am very happy because I think that afterwards the bridge can be made between the Divine World and your world.." -[Piet Borst] -"I do not think so, because I think there is no difference"

QUACKBUSTER FOUNDATION SKEPSIS: THE BLACK SHEEP
10 augusts 2000. - In a retransmission of VARA's 'The Black Sheep' Jomanda debated with Piet Borst, Karin Spaink, Marcel Moring (all known from the jubilee congress of Skepsis), an expert [ prof. W. of Hoorn ] whom had readr the book of Ewald Vervaet about Jomanda, and Prof. B. Smalhout. Skeptics saw purely beating around the bush and Jomanda and believers saw how she wrapped up her opponents. Piet Borst presented really that Jomanda would do the Skepsis - tests, with a controled research with 1000 bottles instead of 10 (see magazine 'Skepter', December 1994 and March 1995). Piet Borst dared to commit 100,000 dutch gildens on the outcome. Jomanda did not dare, and has also afterwards never let anything heard from her http://www.skepsis.nl/sdp-2000.html

Quackbuster organization Skepis twist and turn the facts. Because in reality Jomanda did and does dare, but Prof. Piet Borst chickened out. It does have impact when one 'claims' to be a quackbuster, which in reality one is obviously not in this case. Put up or shut up, is a well heard statement by the quackbusters.

bonkey wrote:

What is noteworthy, however, is that you've made it quite clear that you don't hold Borst in any high regard, but believe that he would be a worthy tester, where Randi wouldn't because you don't hold him in high regard.

Shifting and liking the world together does not make it more clear and especially not more true. What is noteworthy, however, is that you seem to walk over the facts presented in 'S.M. The True Story' as a matter of discussion: Silicone-Gate, A Jihad based on Believe-Conviction: An Example casus ?

Or maybe that is just my fantasy.

FE30033

bonkey wrote:

How are those points are relevant to the question bolded above it?

isaw wrote:

Ad hominem means attacking the person and not the argument

Some people seem to be more troubled and worried about how much money a person earns, that thousands and thousands of women including Sylvia Millecam: the matter/claim/argument at hand.

FE30033

6th wrote:

And yet you post it in the Skeptics Forum? That, imo, is asking for trouble. Here they deal with research, facts and science. I think maybe you should have posted it in Spirituality or Paranormal. So can I check something ?

Scientific evidence is a believe-conviction (see earlier posting 'fraud'-links etc), and very not objective: one moment alchohol is good for me according to 'evidence' while another moment another studies proves alchohol gives me cancer according to 'evidence'. Who is 'believe'd ?

Scientific evidence was part of the matter of discussion I presented. Asking for scientific evidence is in this Jomanda case asking for miracles, which you must be aware of, but still headstrong you ask for .... like asking a poor child in Africa who has even no money to buy rice, to hand over a million dollars, as a condition (posed on by you, your responsibility) to whether or not she is accepted into your world and your reality. If your world and your reality only exists out of scientific evidence (see 'Fairytale) I guess I will not have any fun with you at a party.

#(1)# Do you mean to say, that something is or could only be true if you are able to check it ? What if something is true but you are not able to check it ? In Iraq there once were weapons of mass-destruction: did you believe that ? Did you ckeck it ?

Following your line of reasoning, everything you say, I cannot check. Your 'testimonial' is as good or as worthless as mine.

#(2)# Do you really and actually 'believe' that your reality (with no scientific proof, and no contact with Jomanda) is worth more that the reality of thousands of Jomanda-visitors (with no scientific proof, but with personal proof/medical records, and in contact with Jomanda) ?

#(3)# Do you actually and really belief that your 'testimonial' (Jomanda does not work, without scientific proof and without contact with Jomanda), is worth more, than the 'testimonials' of thousands of Jomanda-visitors (with no scientific proof, but with personal proof/medical records, and in contact with Jomanda) ?

#(4)# If yes, Based on what ?

#(5)# If no, than it is all a matter of 'Who is believed' ?, believeconviction: thus you actually and really are proving a point of my story: A Jihad based on Believe-Conviction: An Example casus ? Because the intention was to prosecute Jomanda, and the big difference is that you and your belief was not intended to be on trial !

#(6)# Do you find that equality of people and their believe-convictions are an important input for democracy ?

#(7)# If someone goes to a doctor, and being refered to a hospital, where a heartattack is being ascertained, and a appointment is made for a second research later, and a person goes to a healing of Jomanda in the place of that sick-person (note - also for Sylvia Millecam people went to healings), and the sick-person after that goes to the second appointment in another hospital, and there after research it shows that 'nothing can be seen anymore of a heartattack', conclusion despite scientific evidence ?

FE30033

FE30033 wrote:

Actually and really it is you who do not believe people. But your belief does not say anything about reality or healing. Because there is proof that Jomanda can heal, as confirmed e.g. by RM-practitioners (e.g. healthinspection doctor - see firstposting).

ISAW wrote:

This isnt good enough !

FE wrote:

That's your problem. Something should be better than nothing. You blame others for your own high expectations of others..

ISAW wrote:

sorry but it isnt ! YOU claimed that the evidence whas ther and when asked for it you dont show where it is!

Sorry, but is is. That 'something' (medical records, testiomonials) is not good enough for you (as you stated) has to do with you, and only you. Thus your problem. Shifting and drifting (it behind others) will not make ir less of a problem. It might look that way, but in reality... I claim that 'something' was/is there which could and should be scientifically researched, as mentioned in the presented S.M. case.

#(1)# In daily life, when you e.g. take medicine, do you also check the 'evidence' whether or not it has been proven effective ? Do you ask your prescribing doctor to 'show you where it is' ?

ISAW wrote:

Loook frank, let us say I claim 500 people are killed a year on Dutch roads and that the Dutch department of transport Annual report says that is true. Say you ask me "that isnt good enough where is the reopet and where in the report doe sit say that" . It isnt good enough for me to say "It is in the report"

You seem to forget that what you are saying, is exactly a point of me, in my very first posting. Your believeconviction - VS- Jomanda, mine, thousands of Jomanda-visitors. But your belief is not supported by nothing (only fantasy, which could be right, but because you have nothing in hand, no research, no evidence), while the believeconviction of Jomanda, me and thousands of Jomanda-visitors is supported by proof (medical records, testiomonials, doctors/visitors) which could and should be investigated so that scientific evidence can be obtained, because only then, and only then you are and should be able to draw a conclusion Jomanda does or does not work. Not presumptively assume, based on nothing, Jomanda does not work. The conclusion Jomanda does work is already clear to Jomanda, me, thousands of Jomanda-visitors and testimonial-doctors with or without scientific evidence. A cancertumor is gone or it is not. Simple as that.

ISAW wrote:

so where does it say Jomanda has paranormal powers?

So where does it not say ? Jomanda claims, see her website, her books. Thousands of Jomanda visitors, testimonial-doctors etc experience personally these powers. When you presumptively assume she does not have these powers, at a distance without having personally experienced Jomanda, maybe you have 'psychic powers'. So where does it say....

#(2)# What do you think and claim about paranormal powers in general ?

FE wrote:

because you are well, very well aware, that the scientific evidence what you are asking for is in fact an unreality, a fantasy,

Shifting and drifting.....

ISAW wrote:

I am not aware of any claims being verified if you havent backed them up! YOU claimed Jomanda had powers and that scientists e.g. PEAR had confirmed that. So WHERE does PEAR confirm that?

PEAR confirmed (see earlier postings) that phenomena such as those demonstrated by Jomanda is supported by collective scientific evidence. e.g.
- Information, Consciousness, and Health - http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/JahnATpages.pdf
- Modular Model of Mind/Matter Manifestations - http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/m5.pdf
Jessica Utts confirmed.....etc etc. If you really (and not just want to find a stick in your mind to think you are able to hit the dog with) want to know (more) 'where', contact PEAR, Jessica Utts. If you do not like the message, do not shoot the messenger.

#(3)# Do you think, claim that you know it better than PEAR ?
#(4)# Are you aware, that the scientific evidence you are asking for in Jomanda's case is in fact an unreality, a fantasy ?
#(5)# Or do you believe there is scientific evidence / research done into Jomanda ?
- If yes, how do you know ? Where is it ?
- If no, why do you ask for it, if you know it is not there ?

FE wrote:

Do you really actually 'believe' that Jomanda would put in her book that someone was cured from throatcancer (see first posting) if it were untrue ? Yes or no ?

ISAW wrote:

what I believe does not matter. I am not making the claims about her...

Well, in reality the book is, the medical record is, the doctor is, the Jomanda-visitor is. If you do not like the message do not shoot the messenger.

#(6) Would you put in a book for the whole world to read that you have performed a miracle if you knew it were untrue, while also very very awarely knowing the whole of the country is breathing down you neck and trying to bring you down on the slightest mistake ?

ISAW wrote:

[Jomanda] yes, yes, the prove is all there, of course, otherwise you would not put it in a book, those people went to the doctor, everything is checked" ... what is the source of this exchange (which in itself is opinion and not evidence) ?

I am not responsible for your bad sight or lack in reading. Source is mentioned earlier.

ISAW wrote:

I have no idea this programme ever existed. Can you show anything from the TV channels web site? Can you produce three prople (who do not believe Jomanda has powers) who will attest that the programme was aired on that date?

#(5)# Why is that relevant to you ? What will it show you ?

ISAW wrote:

It isnt any sort of proof. "i saw it on TV" isn't really proof is it? I saw the statue of Liberty disappear on TV. Do you believe it really happened? Millions of people saw it happening. dont you believe them?

#(6)# Why should I belief any word you say ?
#(7)# Do you mean to say that if I presumptively should not belief you, you might as well not say anything at alll ?
I present 'S.M. The True story' as a matter of dicsussion.

ISAW wrote:

this isnt evidence at all!

If you are so very good at saying e.g. things are wrong, not true, not real, what you did not say, what can not happen and what is not possible, you surely must have a very good expert opinion about things which are right, true, real, waht you did say, what can happen and what is possible.
#(7)# What is to your opinion real evidence made out off ?
#(8)# What will satisfy you ? What will be 'good enough for you' ? What do you need , what will it take so that you will belief Jomanda. so that you will belief a fellowhuman ?

FE wrote:

REGULAR TREATMENT NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY I
( source - magazine Vruchtbare Aarde,nr.5/6, 2000 )

ISAW wrote:

How is the above any evidence of Jomanda curing anything?

#(10)# Where did I say that was evidence of Jomanda curing anything ?

ISAW wrote:

A PRESS RELEASE in not evidence

Do humans breath air ? Geeeeh, I guess I must have been wrong all the time.

FE wrote:

7000 adults were examined on the prevention of depression, the impact of treatment with or without, and the change in the situation after a year. After a year 85% of the people who were not treated had no more depression

ISAW wrote:

what has this to do with Jomanda?

#(10)# Where did I say it had to do with Jomanda ?
Shifting and drifting, both statements were a reply to your question, reality:

ISAW wrote:

How do you explain that for the placebo group the prayer somehow didnt get through and it only got through to the group actually taking the medicine?

FE wrote:

PROZAC MOST OFTEN UNNECESSARY MEDICINE

ISAW wrote:

So what? the fact that people may overmedicate has NOTHING to do with evisdence for Jomanda having the powers you claim. What next "asprin not needed for headaches to stop!" Is that proof of Jomanda having curative powers?

You (A) spoke of, put a question out on placebo. Prozac seems to be a placebo, according to that statement, my answer (AA). Prozac indeed has nothing to do with Jomanda. That is your fantasy-link: drifting and shifting to (B) instead of (AAA)

ISAW wrote:

SAy you are in court and being accused causing someone to die. do you think it is fair for someone to say "show you did not kill her"? Or is it fairer to say the person being accused is assumed innocent and the person claiming she is guilty must prove that she is guilty?

ISAW wrote:

I never met Blackstone, or Blaine, but I believe in my reality there is no verifable evidence that he actually levitated people. I didnt meed David Copperfield either but I do not believe he made the Statue of Liberty disappear! personal endoersements are notoriously nbad objective scientific evidence.

ISAW wrote:

I can tell you that if the vast majority of people believed that Pi is equal to three they would still not be equal to three. Numbers of believers is not argument about something being true! Indeed it is a very weak arguement on your part. since Jomanda would probably not be acceptable to Orthodox christians the Roman Catholic Russian Greek and Anglican churches - thats about 1,500 MILLION people! Do you find that the belief convictions of Christians (which I would suggest are in opposition to Jomanda) are important?

I presented the 'S.M.-case' as a matter of discussion and look where you end up. I like to stick to the point presented initially. The matter at hand. I do not like shifting and drifting away in fantasy, before you know it it will be 'two weeks later' (see Fairytale), and before I'll know it a UFO might even land.

ISAW wrote:

Do you actually believe I ever stated "Jomanda does not work?"

ISAW wrote:

what I believe does not matter

You do not belief people and maybe even belief anything, as you state continuesly, unless certain conditions are full-filled which are 'good enough for you'. Since all I have heard from you is, what is wrong, not true, not real, what you did not say, what can not happen and what is not possible, the only logical conclusion could be that you really might mean, claim/state Jomanda does not work, because if you would believe Jomanda did work, you wouldn't constantly ask for evidence.

#(11)# If this conclusion is wrong, do you mean to say (based on what you have read) Jomanda does work or could work ?

Not speaking out, not making a claim, not taking a stand, not answering questions, drifting and shifting, can speak, claim, answer lots and lots of things on itsself.

I presented 'S.M. The True Story' as a matter of discussion. If you do not believe it and/or all you can say/claim is 'where is the evidence' (see Fairytale), good for you, if that makes you feel very happy and good about yourself, who am I to contradict you. I did not present this case to convince you, if you should think that. The only one who can convince you, is you, yourself ! Not others ! Not evidence !

sceptre

FE30033 wrote:

#(1)# In daily life, when you e.g. take medicine, do you also check the 'evidence' whether or not it has been proven effective ?

I frequently do.

Do you ask your prescribing doctor to 'show you where it is' ?

Depending on what it is, I might well go and seek the double-blind test results for myself. If they're not available I'd happily go back to any prescribing physician and ask him/her to 'show me where it is'. My doctor is quite a reasonable sort and pretty sharp, I don't see that she'd have a problem telling me.

FE30033

ISAW wrote:

You stated: "you [ISAW] claim miracles do not take place."

FE wrote:

If you did not claim that Jomanda's miracles did not take place, I assume (correct me if I am wrong) you mean to say that Jomanda's miracles can take place...

ISAW wrote:

Where did I state "miracles do not take place." ?

#(1)# Do or do you not think Jomanda miracles can take place ?
According to your own way of reasoning, if you do not answer this question, I will just as easily assume (based on what I have read from you) you realy claim 'Jomanda miracles do not take place'. I can and will only be able to change my mind, see that my assumption is wrong, if you provide, your own argument: 'the evidence' of that assumption being wrong.

ISAW wrote:

How is asking you to show scientific evidence for YOUR claim that Jomanda has powers in any waylike asking a starving person for a million dollars?

Both are unrealistic.

ISAW wrote:

AHA! So you now madmit that ther is not evidence but Jomanda is prepared to submit to testing! So why doesnt Jomanda do the Randi Challenge or some similar objective scientific test? And wher is the record of Jomanda contacting scientific researchers over the last 30 years and asking them to test her claims? Where is your evidence of that? wher in 1976 did Jomanda ask someone to scientifically verify her "powers"?

Scientific evidence, that's what Jomanda has been asking for 30 years, as stated in my very first posting, while proof (but not scientific) of miracles is present (e.g. confirmation by a Dutch Healthcare Inspcetion doctor). When you want to know why Jomanda..... contact Jomanda. I do not know. I am not responsible for your bad sight or lack of reading or selective way of reading in earlier postings one scientific studie has been performed (332 cases), another was planned (letter Jomanda), and another Jomanda agreed to (Prof Piet Borst).

#(2)# You seem to be able to tell very well what is not, what is wrong, so I assume you must clearly know what can be or what is right - so what do you think Jomanda should do to get her powers verified ? What kind of concrete plan should she follow, according to you ? Who should she contact ?

ISAW wrote:

What are the names of these doctors? what are their qualifications? Where are the copies of the testimonials?

FE wrote:

Read the quote about PEAR (Jomanda even in blue). If you do not want to contact them. Fine, but I'll guess than in that case that if I should give you 900 witnesses of Jomanda's miracles, you will not contact them also. so why bother asking anyway ?

If you really, and not just trying to find a stick with which you think in fantasy you can hit the dog with, want to know contact Jomanda for names of doctors and their qualifications.

JOMANDA: PROOF OF MIRACLES
( source - bco AVRO, Tv-programme '10 Lastige Vragen', 2 april 2002, Pieter-Jan Hagens ) [ PJH ] - Jomanda, has one of your miracles ever been confirmed or proved by regular medical researches ? [ Jomanda]-"Yes, they all lay at home. But one does not come to look at it."

Why not publish ? Some have been published (including names/qualifications), and guess what happened.... no-one seemed to be actually 'really' interested after all. E.g.

---

BOOK JOMANDA'S MIRACULOUS HEALINGS (1999)

mr. H. E. (pg.61) - "Dear Jomanda,... I am a heart patient, who had to be in the academic hospital in Maastricht on Wednesday at 9 o'clock on an empty stomach There was to be a bridge placement give the heart the right rhythm again...... A woman from Sliedrecht asked me, if she could put a written 'wish' for me in the bucket in your healing hall at a healing. I supported her entirely. It is a two hours drive to Tiel where the healing was.... What came to our surprise ? I was on the operation table in Maastricht and the doctor whom had prepared me for the treatment, told me that it did not look so bad. The films of last time were called in. My specialist who was busy with appointments upstairs, had to come down to be convinced. He looked at the monitor, and then at me: ' Sir, I have never experienced this in my entire 17 years of practice. A miracle has happened"

Ms T.S. (p. 51) - " Dear Jomanda, in St.Lucas Andreas hospital in Amsterdam, I had a second opinion-research for my painful shoulder. The ortopedic surgeon there, doctor V., told me that I had to undergo a serious operation to my shoulder. I had to stay about 7 days in the hospital and probably one and a half month in a nursing home to recover. Thus I found it worth it to bring you a visit. Thus I came 20 November 1994 with my daughter for the first time in Tiel... In January 1995 went to the general practitioner to discuss to postpone the operation. From both sides questions. Fortunately: a serious approach. In May I had an appointment again at doctor V. I almost did not have any pain anymore, could comn my hair, dry myself and dress. Not to believe. Also doctor V. took me seriously. Because of this I had the courage to ask him if he wanted to cooperate with the book of Jomanda. That's why this letter, from a very grateful and still wundered human child, and the letter of doctor V.
[ DR. P.G. V., Ortopedic surgeon. - "...Dear Ms S., also until now I am astonished about what Jomanda has achieved concerning your shoulder. There are things between heaven and earth which we can not explain medically"

mr. E.W.B. (pg. 24) -"diabetic patient.... since my impatience increased concerning the closing of the wound, I tried in last resort to put your energised water on my foot. The remarkable result of it was, which within three days the wound had closed. This result I communicated with doctor of the AZU, who reacted cool: " I have heard something of the phenomenon Jomanda", whereupon a silence fell and he left. It was very funny, that the nurse present also, after the doctor left, said: "you must especially continue mr.B. with using the energised water, because we see such positive results of it" Became clearly, that regular medicine still has difficulty recognising these kinds of healings"

---

FE wrote:

Read the quote about PEAR (Jomanda even in blue). If you do not want to contact them. Fine, but I'll guess than in that case that if I should give you 900 witnesses of Jomanda's miracles, you will not contact them also. so why bother asking anyway ?

Jessica Utts: "It is a waste of time, to continue this kind of reaearch, if it is only meant to find even more evidence. 'There is few expectations of continuesly handing over evidence, for those who are not willing to accept the presently available data"

#(4)# If someone goes to a doctor, and being refered to a hospital, where a heartattack is being ascertained, and a appointment is made for a second research later, and a person goes to a healing of Jomanda in the place of that sick-person (note - also for Sylvia Millecam people went to healings), and the sick-person after that goes to the second appointment in another hospital, and there after research it shows that 'nothing can be seen anymore of a heartattack', conclusion ?

FE wrote:

Read the quote about PEAR (Jomanda even in blue). If you do not want to contact them. Fine, but I'll guess than in that case that if I should give you 900 witnesses of Jomanda's miracles, you will not contact them also. so why bother asking anyway ?

ISAW wrote:

Because you CLAIMED something to be true! You should be able to support this! If you cant you should admit it and withdraw the claim!

#(5)# Provide me the evidence of what you claim, otherwise I do not believe you, what did I claim to be true in reference to PEAR as you make this claim as an answer to my PEAR quote ? You should be able to support this! If you cant you should admit it and withdraw the claim!

ISAW wrote:

where does PEAR support you claim about Jomanda having powers?

You seem to be confused a bit. I quote PEAR. I quess I could quote them a hundred times if necessary. PEAR claimed that they have "amassed an immense body of empirical evidence that indicates that effects such as those described are empirically demonstrable under controlled laboratory conditions. PEAR speaks of collective scientific evidence supporting phenomena such as those demonstrated by Jomanda, even so much evidence that the term "paranormal" should be inappropriate" and "normal" is more upto reality.

To maybe make it more understandable, PEAR speaks of that phenomena such as those demonstrated by Jomanda are "normal", in their expert opinion. That does not mean PEAR have researched Jomanda. But I guess you could have figured that out by yourself. It is always easier if someone else spells it out, so that that (outspelling) will create new opportunity to (be able to) look for new mistakes, a new stick to hit the dog with.

And if no new stick can be found, you can always turn the matter into a litlle word-game where Sherlock Holmes could come in handy. Twisting, turning, mixing things up, pulling them out of context (as you seem very good at just quoting 1 sentence and leaving the rest out), and drifting away from reality, the points made earlier, the content, context, the facts. This could either be a hobby or confusion. By not answering the questions to proof what you claim, I will just assume you agree with me, because in that case I see no evidence of disagreeing.

ISAW wrote:

In your first post in a section related to curing cancer you state the following:
the effects of human intention and emotional resonance on the behavior of random physical processes. They have amassed an immense body of empirical evidence that indicates that effects such as those described are empirically demonstrable under controlled laboratory conditions"

ISAW wrote:

You gave the PEAR link there. Wher does PEAR suppoer you claim that Jomanda can cure cancer?

#(6)# I do not believe you, provide evidence of what you claim, where did I say PEAR support my claim that Jomanda can cure cancer ? If you do not claim this, why ask the question if then the question does not belong to you and your personal opinion ?

ISAW wrote:

where is there ANY evidence for such "energy" or that Jomanda cured anyone?

In your opinion there is no evidence for such 'energy' or that Jomanda can cure anyone.

#(7)# Do you claim that a Jomanda miracle can not take place, Jomanda could not work, based on your opinion that there is no evidence that Jomanda can cure anyone ?
#(8)# Or do you claim that a Jomanda miracle can take place, Jomanda could work, despite your opinion that there is no evidence that Jomanda can cure anyone ?

ISAW wrote:

Let me be clear
1. Where is the evidence any cure of anyone ever happened?
2. what is the mechanism
3. what measurable paranormal powers does Jomanda have?

1. Medical records, testimonials (doctors/visitors) which could and should be scientifically researched.
2. What is what mechanism ?
3. Posting one: "Jomanda has been giving healings for 30 years. She's born with certain paranormal gifts which (combination) only a few people in the world possess: clairaudient, second-sighted (remote viewing), has clear-feelings (precognition), and the greater part is clear-knowing" Measurable - see e..g. Fritz Albert Popp, Jessica Utts (anomalous cognition "It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria"
I am no researcher. I just write about Jomanda. If you 'really' want to know more contact someone more familiar with these matters.

It could be made very difficult, but a cancertumor is gone or it is not.
JOMANDA: HOW DELIVER PROVE ?
(source - Tv-programme 'Het Levenslied', bco KRO?, 29 aug 1995, conversation with prof. B. Smalhout) - [ Jomanda ] - "Nevertheless easy, because I think if you are honest, then that does not touch you, I do have nothing to hide, also everyone, every journalist can freely go its way, one can researche, I always have a big wish - a dressingroom in the beginning, is quit some work, everybody can undress, with doctors present, research, and then after the healing again, because it is just true, it is for real"

FE wrote:

JOMANDA: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
...How many people have you researched ? ] [KW]- "332 people effectively[/u]"[/i]
Let me guess your answer: "not good enough"

ISAW wrote:

where is the published research on the 332 people you claim?

Thus, Not good enough. I do not know. Contact the bco. I just write, quote and present the 'S.M.case'

ISAW wrote:

Verfiable evidence can be found in medical records. Care to please produce them then?

Jomanda visitors can.

#(9)# What are you claiming ? What difference will it make if you should be given a medical record ? Will you 'suddenly' belief Jomanda ? What will you do with the record ?

Show me your intentions before asking something so that your purpose and goal will be clear before full-filling, meeting your expectations/what you aks for so that afterwards when your are given what you asked for, you can comply with what you yourself claimed beforehand. Otherwise it makes no sense, because if the rules (expectations) change afterwards, it is of no use at all in giving it, because it must be clear 'why' something has to be given, so that just giving for the sake and heck of it, because you say so, is use-less, because the use is not clear.

FE wrote:

VERIFIABLE EVIVIDEN:

ISAW wrote:

Addinf bolding and colour doesnt make it evidence

Pulling 1 sentence out of its context does not make things more clear. It confuses, misleads, distracts from content... I guess that is not your intention at all. Or maybe.....?

ISAW wrote:

Please show in each of these links exacely the part of that link which shows "verifiable evidence " of Jomanda having psychic powers.

I do not see the links in your/this quote/answer, so I can and will not show....
Furthermore, you really have a big fantasy, if you do not answer question 10. I will assume you agree with me, because I will then see no evidence of disagreement.
(10)# I do not believe you, show me the evidence of what you claim, twist and turn, where did I state that these links show 'verifianle evidence' of Jomanda having psychic powers ?

ISAW wrote:

i agree with this quotee (the only one you actually quoted from) but it has nothing to do with Jomanda having powers.

It is becoming very laughable. You make a joke of it / yourself.
(11)# I do not believe you, show me the evidence of what you claim, twist and turn, where did I state that that quote had to do with Jomanda having powers ?

ISAW wrote:

If you make claims SUPPORT them or go away !

Maybe you should say that to the thousands and thousands of women with breastimplants ! You dare to ask me for evidence while silicone breastimplants (the almost first sentence in my very first post SILIONE-GATE) have never been tested on humans, never been 'proven' safe. I think you must have great courage and be very proud of yourself.

Even the headinspector of Dutch healtchare walked over a Jomanda-miracle (confirmed by a present IGZ-doctor) which came to word during the IGZ-investigations. That experience makes me 'believe' that you also are not 'really' interested at all in this matter, no matter what I will give you. You just want it (reality) to go away, and maybe out of that motivation you'll search for any stick..... Thus, It just seems very clear to me: nothing and nobody will be 'good enough for you' because you simply do not and will not belief Jomanda ever, no matter how many scientific evidence will be provided, no matter what will be given to you, in and is my assumption, based on what I have read from you. I could be wrong and mistaken, but as long as I do not see the 'evidence' of me not being right on this, I simply will assume that I am right because I do not belief you just because you say so, according to your own way of reasoning.

At some point in life........see Fairytale.

FE30033

Wicknight wrote:

About 500 years of medicine. And about 500 years of physics.

See FAIRYTALE: so much for evolution. Or you might think that what people believed in the early days (e.g. earth is flat) is the truth, and nothing but the whole truth ever and for ever.Simply Red "'Holding back the years....". Einstein was 'simply' wrong on a matter but life does go on in reality:
"I don't believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."
( Albert Einstein, New York Times, April 19, 1955 )

Wicknight wrote:

How does Jomanda heal these people? In scientific terms what does she actually do? How the atoms from her head influence the atoms in the persons throat, or hand, or leg? I doubt you know.

CARL JUNG: ILLUSION WORLD
"We must take into account that the world as we experience is only appearance. This means that she in fact is part of a larger whole in which a totally different order of things dominates - where ' here ' and ' there ', space and time do not exist"
( C. Jung druing a meeting of a psychological studygroup, Basel, 1957)
CARL JUNG: SUBCONSCIOUS
"Look, I know that I sit with you here now, talking, and you know, as far it concerns you, the same. But between us a exchange of words have taken place. But besides words whom we aim at each other, there are so many other things which move from the one to the other - feelings, images, parts of the soul. If we leave ourself on the nature-science and the so-called realistic view of the world which accumulates of that, we are often not aware how much we make abstracts and isolate. The true reality one can only enter spiritually"
< source- C. Jung, july 1955, to a reporter of a Swiss newspaper >

"We think we have controle, but mostly we act first and than we make up a story.....the conscious, aware controle of a human about his or her behaviour and deeds is 1%"

JOMANDA: HOW DOES HEALING WORK ?

JOMANDA: EACH SICKNESS IS HEALABLE
( source - Tv-programme 'Het Levenslied', bco KRO?, 29 aug 1995, conversation with prof. B. Smalhout ) -
-[Jomanda]-"Every sickness can be healed, not every sick person, there are many people with soul-pain, and than you enter a different territory, past lifes"
-[Jomanda]-"Because the energy that comes free via me, is a love-energy that touches the core of people, and if one suddenly feels, that sorrow from, out of a youth, coming up, and suddenly one thinks 'heee, I now have to scream or I must suddely cry' and suddenly feel that space, and then the positive energy comes into the body, and that can accomplish that a healing, or certainly an improvement, will take place"...(...)..."It is so beautiful what people tell afterwards, that they were allowed to decharge, that the depth of their soul, the deepest sorrow will rise and that gives a human so much room, that is so great"
- [Jomanda] -"I am convinced of that. Sometimes I get a clue from a patients past lives. For example, once I said to a gentleman 'Well, Sir, do you know you have been a fighting-boxer in a past life ?', the man looked at me and replied ' I have always had pain in my hands, but no body is able to find anything'. I replied 'Than that pain will disappear' and the core was struck, the subconscious recognised it and he was instantly cured, healed of the pain in his hands. I believe absolutely in Life after this life, to be born is living and dying, but the soul lives on. If life would only be this life, it would have no purpose. I think people have to learn, we are here to learn, I think that than the soul will get richer and I think if you go about life very well, listen well to your body, and try to be honest to yourself and your fellow-human, that on that moment you realise that you are growing, and that is very important. A lesson, you pay for death, you do not get it free. You pay it with your life"

JOMANDA: HOW DOES HEALING WORK ?
( source - Tv-programme '5 Uurshow', bco RTL4, 11 dec1995 ) -
[Jomanda]-"A medium is quit different from a paranormal healer, normally one uses it's own energy, I do not use that, it happens through me, theenergy that comes free that touches the core of people, and as a result things can happen, so the positive energy which enters the body of people, will battle with the negative energy in the body, that is a complaint, a sickness, a other kind of problem, a fear, a negative thought, and when you get the batlle between good and evil, then it is indeed possible to get improvement or healing"

JOMANDA: HOW DOES HEALING WORK ?
( source - Tv-programme 'RondomTien', bco NCRV, 15 febr 1994,Violet Falkenburg ) -
Is jomanda, a miracle, real healing, suggestion or witchcraft ? - [Jomanda]-"If there is a negative energy inside a human, than that can be a disease, a pain, a blockade, a negative thought, than you get the battle good-evil, and that means that than the body can react, and thus as a result of the battle good-evil, to try to work the negative energy out of the body, than people get reactions, that is the easiest explanation, so one could start to shake, one could get it very hot, and there are also people who have to go to the toilet extra more often and find black relief, stools, which is ofcourse a nice easy method"

JOMANDA: ONE HEALS, ANOTHER DOES NOT ?
(1) ( source - Tv-programme 'Barend & Witteman',13 mei 1999, Sonja Barend) -
[Jomanda]- "Not all people, but everything what mat happen is for the good. every reduction of pain, is profit"
(2) ( source- Tv-programme 'Rondom Tien', bco NCRV, 15 febr 1994, Violet Falkenburg ) - [Jomanda]- "There are many people who do not cure, heal. Imagine that everybody would could be healed, that would be a revolution on earth, that is not the intention, it is possible fo one person, for another not, evry sickness can be healed, but not every sick-person, there are many people with soul-pain/smart, soul-agony,anguish, mental suffering, and than you come onto another territory, wich dates from past-lives. It is also possible that people get a bit of acceptation and that is also a form of healing"

FE wrote:

Do you not find medical records proof ?

Wicknight wrote:

No, of course not. If I drive my mother to the doctor for a broken leg, and a week later her medical records show that her leg is healing, can I claim that those medical records are proof that I healed my mother? No, of course not that would be nonsense.

If your mothers leg is broken, she visits the doctor who put this in the medical record (moment A) and then later she visits Jomanda, and after that she visits the doctor again and the leg is healed, that will also be put in the medical record (moment . Between moment A and B is Jomanda. Thus medical records can show something.

#(1)# If someone goes to a doctor, and being refered to a hospital, where a heartattack is being ascertained, and a appointment is made for a second research later, and a person goes to a healing of Jomanda in the place of that sick-person (note - also for Sylvia Millecam people went to healings), and the sick-person after that goes to the second appointment in another hospital, and there after research it shows that 'nothing can be seen anymore of a heartattack', conclusion ?

Wicknight wrote:

How does she heal these people? What does she do? What actually happens

See above. But also:

JOMANDA & BREASTCANCER
A woman, a Jomanda-visitor (M. H. from town Haarlem) got once during a Jomanda healing, a (spiritual) 'thumb-push' from Jomanda (type of energy injection) on her breast, without Jomanda knowing why, because Jomanda treated people massively in this case, and in this case people came forward in rows, where upon the thumb-push was given to a person in front of the wiating line, and then it is the following person' turn, as a result of which Jomanda is in the presence of concerning person only split seconds, whereas further no words are spoken and there therefore absolutely no patient information exchange takes place. This thumb-push was painful for the concerning woman and this little spot, print on het body stayed that way after the healing, so that she decided after twoo weeks to visit a regular doctor. This doctor observed cancer (diagnosis) in a very early stage, as a result of which an adequate regular treatment could be given and worse scenario's could be prevented.

The treatment, spiritual operation of Jomanda, in this case, the thumb-push, had a primarily goal to prevent (more terrible) sickness, and with that promoting the medical condition of the woman. If the woman had got no (painful) thumb-push from Jomanda, then she would have walked on much longer, not knowing she had cancer, as a result of which she would have knocked on regular' door in a much further stage in time, as a result of which cancertreatment would have been more difficult with higher costs for national health care. Jomanda wishes cooperation with regular medicine for 30 years. Informant Jomanda (of causes) and the 'finisher' regular medicine (to prevent more serious impact) without both parties being damaged in their profession and study.

JOMANDA: CAUSE-NOSIS
Above thumb-push example shows that Jomanda does not occupy herself with diagnosis proposition (impact of a cause). Jomanda does cause-proposition: 'cause-nosis'. Jomanda knows nothing of patients and wants to know nothing about them. So, through the view of regular medicine seen the quantity of patient information regular medicine needs to make a diagnosis, diagnosis-proposition by Jomanda is impossible.

Jomanda treats her visitors without Jomanda knowing who, what, how and where. Jomanda only gets, in above example, to 'see' the spot where she must press her thumb. And that in split seconds, from the moment that one person steps away from her after having received the thumb-push to the moment the next person in line steps forward. Also this treatment, the spots are a total surprise for Jomanda herself, because afterwards frequently it proves to be just the right spot. Like for instant when the person walking away after the thumb-push is calling out to Jomanda "well what a co-incidence that I get the Thumb in my backside, I just went through my back this week", or "well what a co-incidence, that I get the Thumb on my hand, I will be operated on my hand next week".

JOMANDA & MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS: UNREALISTIC
Also seen the large number of people that Jomanda can treat at once (full rooms), diagnosis proposition is thus not practical, feasable and realistic. Jomanda's unique revealing uncommon treatment technique with as an aim awareness, reallisation of the 'cause' of sickness from consequentual diagnostic-complaints. Jomanda goes directly to the cause by means of her combined paranormal gifts (technique) which has nothing to do with diagnosis. Simply because Jomanda is no doctor, but a paranormal healing medium.

QUOTES WEBSITE JOMANDA: CAUSES
"...By means of Jomanda the cause of a sickness or complaint may be traced. Her deceased father is her guide and at the same time mediator for so-called spiritual doctors who can use Jomanda as medium / channel to cure sicknesses of body and soul. That can happen via Jomanda's hands, voice or total fysical radiation. Also healing takes place via so-clled 'spiritual operations" , "The positive energy which is released through Jomanda as medium is an energy of love. This energy touches you in the depth of your being and in that depth everything lies hidden, including the cause of your complaint. Jomanda began her first practice around 1978. Since then many miracles have happened. Many more will follow... also today. You don't have to believe it; you may experience it, as many have done before you"

Wicknight wrote:

Inconclusive. That is not proof that Jomanda healed the person, any more than saying that the coffee she had for breakfast healed her.

#(2)# What does actually and concrete proof to you that Jomanda healed a person ?
A cancertumor is gone or it is not after having visited Jomanda.

Wicknight wrote:

The only reason you think Jomanda healed the person is because she claimed she did. That is not proof she did, or even reason to believe her

The only reason you think Jomanda did not healed the person is because she claimed she did, what is not good enough for you. That is not proof she didn't, or even reason not to believe her. It just proves what you do or do not find 'good enough'.

#(3)# What kind of proof is good enough for you ?
Maybe you mean such excelent and fantastic proof as for some regular medicine which are not based on scientific evidence at all but on consent between professiongroups. (see post earlier 'evidence based') Or the reliable evidence out of evenmore reliable scientific studies (see earlier quotes on 'fraud' etc)

Wicknight wrote:

Imagine if someone else had claimed to have healed the person at the same time? Now you have 2 people claiming that in the week between doctors appointments they healed the patient? Without having any clue what either of these people actually did how do you know if either of them is telling the truth. I could claim that over the years I have, by remote viewing, managed to healed all the people that Jomanda has claimed to heal, that it was really me, not Jomanda. Prove I didn't, prove to me now that it wasn't me

#(4)# Do you mean to say regular medicine might not be so effective as some claim it to be, because when I go to a doctor for treatment, or take medicine, maybe at the same time someone is praying for me in Africa, or maybe even an alien might be beaming at me.or maybe I might be eating some kind of special pruple fruit or vegeatable when laying on the operation table etc etc etc. Without having any clue what either of these people actually did how do you know if either of them is telling the truth. Prove it was really just the regular medicine. and it wasn't anything else. That might be a fantasy, which might also explain why someone gets cured from cancer by medicine and another person does not with the same medicine.

Wicknight wrote:

how do you know if either of them is telling the truth

See FAIRYTALE.."at some point if life..."

Wicknight wrote:

How much money does Jomanda make by claiming that she heals people?

Ask Jomanda. Healing is unaffordable.
How much money do churches make by claiming that they heal people ?

FE30033

ISAW wrote:

You are at it again! Asking me to prove a negative and shifting the burden
Please alearn some logic. Above doen not say "no miracles happen" It says EITHER "no miracles" happen OR " If I say either I am male OR I am female that is NOT a claim I am male is it?

See FAIRYTALE: "In reference to a to the eye simple earthly question, after two weeks of discussion and conversation......"

#(1)# - Do you think/claim that Jomanda can perform miracles ?
#(2)# - Or do you think/claim Jomanda cannot perform miracles ?

Just answering the questions will make (life) a lot easier. If you refuse (having problems with simple quotestions) I see no point why I should bother to answer your questions.

I asssume and will continue to assume you think/claim 'Jomanda can not perform miracles'. If I see no written for me checkable disagreement, no arguments ('evidence') against this assumption of me, I can only draw the conclusion that you actually agree with my assumption that you claim 'Jomanda can not perform miracles'.

A claim which you cannot support, not proof with evidence. And in that case I can understand why you want to believe or make it look like you claim nothing, for the simple reason as that will look kind of contradicting foolish and silly, asking other to proof what they claim, while in the meantime you yourself cannot proof what you claim.