tkadm30

Indeed, JC. It's really sorta funny how often practitioners or apologists for psuedo scientific claims use QM as their medium of choice! Rupert Sheldrake does it for his elusive Morphic Resonance. Telekinesis guys use it. As do believers in Crystal Healing and I think even Homeopathy. And you just know they do this since very few people even understand quantum mechanics. And they love the famous Einstein quote about spooky action since it sounds like a very intelligent man of science is actually advocating the veracity of unproven and mysterious machinations.

 

"It works on a quantum level" is beginning to be a throw away phrase. Or even a red flag? LOL. Akin to fat free in the supermarket.

 

What is distant healing?

 

If I posted........

 

 

"The short answer is, Bullshit." Would that be warning point worthy? LOL.

 

At this point, I'm thinking it would be fine. Unless of course the alleged practitioner of the voodoo was a female. In which case kid gloves need be used, less a comment that could be construed as questioning her science gets interpreted as sexist.

 

I would normally add an LOL after that last bit. But after this past week and a real exposure to the silly pc obsession and knee jerk feminism here, it's more a proven accurate claim than a humorous one.

How would you explain then the healing power of plants? It is well known that living at proximity of plants has a potential healing effect. I think you misunderstand how non-thermal bioelectromagnetic resonance may act on cellular response to oxidative stress...

 

We are aware of only 1 meta-analysis that has attempted to integrate the literature of DHI effects in simple living systems. In 2014, Roe et al completed a meta-analysis of “non-whole-human” studies (including animals, plants, and blood and other cells).³⁴ Out of 49 studies, treatment arms receiving active healing displayed improved wellbeing outcomes as compared to those not receiving healing (r=.258, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.239-0.278).

Here's a randomized double-blind study on the effect of distant healing (DH) on a population with advanced AIDS syndrome.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1305403/

So, is this evidence of nonlocal, spooky action at a distance in living systems? (aka biological nonlocality)

Here's a review of the scientific evidences I found so far:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654780/

 

The first critique was a game-ender for many decades, but today, the “nonlocal” connections of quantum entanglement have been convincingly demonstrated,^20,44–46 establishing that instant physical correlations over macroscopic distances, as well as connections that transcend time, are no longer startling theoretical possibilities but empirical facts.

I also found this paper interesting: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27665921

Is there any peer-reviewed scientific studies done on the effect of music on plant growth?

I hate when someone is attempting to mind control you or force you to behave in a particular way.

A sane relationship is not about mind control, but about accepting the differences in your individuality.

you are worrying about me thats good...But i just wanna proof something cuz after end of the day 2 you are not going to feel tired plus: you gonna feel more productive

Citation needed.

EDIT : IK TITLE IS WRONG BUT...WHO CARES

 

Sleep deprivation may impact cognitive performance and working memory.

Your poor spelling could be evidence that your brain is out of energy.

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2656292/

I hope this helps.

Since the endogenous cannabinoid anandamide is a substrate of the CYP2D6 enzyme, can we assume aripiprazole is activated by anandamide biosynthesis?

Cyberhomophobia (homophobic bullying) is completely new to me. I was perhaps imprecise in my OP. However, I do advocate for raising awareness about this condition, as Velocity_Boy pointed out. Anyways, in no way I find this behavior acceptable on a science forum.

By that reasoning you may as well call astrology and homeopathy "scientific".

 

Or in other words, why subvert a thread by trying to redefine the topic?

I don't think Velocity_Boy hijacked the thread: The study of homophobia as a psychiatric disease (irrational fear of homosexuality) is interesting.

 

 

On the contrary, homophobia is very scientific. In psychology we have studied and mostly discerned the various cognitive dissonance and defense mechanisms of the mind that often afflict folks. A phobia is, after all, an irrational fear, and so phobias are also an area of psychological study. Thus, scientific. I can delve into the most common psychological dynamics that are at work in people who are homophobic if you like, but I have a feeling you aren't really interested.

I agree with this. The study of homophobia and how internet is contributing to the emergence of this disorder is significant.

I'm sick of people using internet forums to bash on homosexuality as a way to demonstrate their lower mind density. Homophobia is totally unacceptable and unscientific. There's no reason to tolerate this behavior.

I hope this helps.

I don't know many hop heads, but based on a sample of one (Tkadm30) it seems that they have limited social skills in that they are unable to follow local etiquette, For example, by cherry picking data, failing to make his question clear, and ignoring previous information.

Those actions are impolite on a science web page.

First of all, cannabis smokers are not hop heads. If you care about politeness, why not show the example and calls things respectfully?

Second, there's substantial evidences that cannabis users may have enhanced social saliency and interpersonal communication skills: "Human studies have shown that marijuana heightens the saliency of social interactions (1), enhances interpersonal communication (2, 3), and decreases hostile feelings within small social groups (4)."

See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4653148/

Of course you reject it because you smoke weed. You want to believe only the positive indications about weed smoking.

Why do you cite an article as basis for your statement that it may hardwire people to adapt against negative peer influence, but reject something else that shows a negative effect in the same article?

Hmm, I guess the ability to read scientific articles requires balanced criticism as well.

It's not all black or white.

 

 

Then why did you present it as evidence?

In my opinion there's evidences that cannabis users may be hardwired to adapt themselves agaisnt negative peer influence, but I reject their conclusions about the neurological basis of immature brain development.

I believe "artificial terrorism" is the product of our governments slaughtering its own people for ideological purposes: Global surveillance is the result of tyranny and oppression disguised as "security".

As i understand this has become a topic because the Westminster nut-job used Whats-app 2 minutes before the attack.

 

What level of surveillance is required to be monitoring the numerous messaging platforms and mount an effective response to suspect messages in under 2 minutes? I don't think it would have made a difference in this case, so i can only conclude this government are using as an excuse to continue their efforts to increase surveillance on the populace.

 

When we start surrendering our liberty the terrorists have won.

+1

He's basically talking about chemtrails. I've skimmed through the document, and there are only references to how it could be used to intoxicate the air, but no evidence whatsoever that it is used.

There is no doubt that the air is polluted in certain areas, but there is no reason to believe it's being polluted on purpose, i.e. with the specific purpose of poisoning people as this suggests.

 

It's just a baseless conspiracy, so I found your comment on hypocrisy hypocritical.

There's sufficient photographic reports and testimonials on the internet to assert that solar geoengineering is really a illicit/clandestine activity occuring.

Are they just a bunch of hypocrites to you?

 

 

I don't think that citing a paper from a conspiracy-theory site is a good way to counter charges of it being a conspiracy-theory. Quite the reverse in fact.

 

Unfortunately, the list of predatory journals has been taken off line, but I am pretty confident the source of that paper would have been on the list.

Do you have a PhD ? I suspect this guy is more qualified than you and me to counter the government-sponsored disinformation on covert

solar geoengineering activity.

 

 

Citation? This is not a conspiracy site.

http://nuclearplanet.com/mw1.pdf

 

We disclose a fourth independent line of evidence, based on the co-precipitation technique,

pointing to coal fly ash as the material utilized in tropospheric geoengineering, and describe some

of the adverse environmental and public health risks associated with its persistent application.

During a snow storm, the fluffy snow traps geoengineering-aerosol-particulates and brings them

down with the snow. The results of the ICP-MS analytical measurements of the snow-melt

particulates we tested are consistent with three independent lines of evidence that coal fly ash is

the main aerosolized particulate used for tropospheric geoengineering. Coal fly ash tropospheric

geoengineering inhibits rainfall to change weather/climate which disrupts habitats, including arable

habitats. Long periods of artificially induced drought can wreak economic disaster on farmers, and

shift the delicate balance in nature, weakening natural defenses and giving a boost to aggressive

pathogens. Coal fly ash when exposed to water or body fluids can release a host of toxic chemicals

including neuro-toxic aluminum in a chemically mobile form and carcinogens such as arsenic,

hexavalent chromium, and the radioactive elements, uranium, thorium and their daughter products.

The only safe geoengineering is no geoengineering at all

Government surveillance goes to far when it fabricates terror acts as a pretext to increase monitoring of citizens.

 

Future tests could involve seeding the sky with aluminium oxide – or even diamonds.

I'm guessing metal oxides could be a very toxic cocktail and a source of ambient particulate matter.

Furthermore, I find it hypocrite to pretend to "test" a technology which is already used covertly under our noses, over our heads, and hidden

in plain sight.

In other words, they are probably planning to further develop solar geoengineering while ignoring the risks of this technology for us

and the environment.

What exactly is solar geoengineering?

I'm glad you asked.

Solar geoengineering is the deliberate injection of aerosols (metal oxide nanoparticles) into the troposphere to reflect solar radiation back into space.

See: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/24/us-scientists-launch-worlds-biggest-solar-geoengineering-study

I believe solar geoengineering activity is a source of air pollution/fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
Long-term PM2.5 exposure is a public health issue.
Is the public just poorly (dis)informed about the harmful effects of air pollution?