On Apr 7, 2019, Mike Gainor wrote:
I and one of my co-workers are having a friendly dispute about the merits of Dr. Sebi. If you are not failure with him he was a herbalist that decided to call himself a doctor... and states he cured aids, cancer, diabetes, blindness...

The internet does not have a lot to offer as far as non-biased information, and my pal is adamant in his belief in the Doctor.

I find self proclaimed doctors without credentials suspect, but that is just me.

Here is what Wiki has to share (though not much) and may not be the best reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Bowman

And here is a PDF about the actual court case.
https://www.casewatch.net/ag/ny/usha/consent_1988.pdf

I never heard of him before and find it hard that if someone actually accomplished these miraculous results that the world failed to take notice.

Can any of you provide some insights?

The first sentence mentions "research." To test whether products are effective against specific diseases, it would be necessary to have access to large numbers of patients, access to laboratory facilities, and the ability to do properly-designed studies that monitor patients over significant periods of time. I see no evidence that Bowman or his "Research Institute" conducted any such study or even kept track of what happened to their customers.

People who know little about how the body works may be impressed by "Dr. Sebi's" use of scientific-sounding concepts, but the above explanation clashes with established scientific knowledge of physiology, biochemistry, and disease processes. Diseases have many possible causes, and most have little or nothing to do with body acidity, alkalinity, mineral depletion, "toxicity," or mucus. There is no such thing as "body cleansing." I have no idea what he meant by "eliminating toxins" from the skin, liver, gall bladder, lymph glands, kidneys and colon. Real detoxification of foreign substances takes place in the liver, which modifies their chemical structure so they can be excreted by the kidneys which filter them from the blood into the urine. "Intra-cellular detoxification" (throughout the body) does not exist. Mineral products are not "living substances." I am not impressed.

Final Impressions

Alfredo Bowman—a/k/a "Dr. Sebi"—liked to tell stories. I have been unable to find any published evidence suggesting that he did extensive research or cured people who were seriously ill.

On Apr 7, 2019, slowkneenuh wrote:
I'm not sure about Dr. Sebi, but if you want someone fascinating and probably little known today, read about Edgar Cayce, an American psychic who diagnosed illnesses while in a trance and also prescribed the remedy, and he did this successfully for 43 years curing people around the globe.

On Apr 11, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 7, 2019, slowkneenuh wrote:
I'm not sure about Dr. Sebi, but if you want someone fascinating and probably little known today, read about Edgar Cayce, an American psychic who diagnosed illnesses while in a trance and also prescribed the remedy, and he did this successfully for 43 years curing people around the globe.

Your assumption is that psychic phenomena in general is real. However, there is no definitive proof of such a thing. As far as Cayce, he (probably unwittingly) employed the standard psychic technique of throwing out many predictions (and prescriptions in his case) and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses. Some of his more memorable failed predictions include:

-1933 will be a good year (although a vague prediction, Hitler came to power and the Great Depression was in full swing in America)
-Atlantean Death Ray (among other wacky Atlantis notions, he said a "death ray" from the lost City of Atlantis would be discovered in 1958)
-The State of California (a large earthquake would sink California into the ocean sometime during the 1960s)
-Armageddon in 1999
-A New Christian China (he predicted that China would become the new “cradle of Christianity”, and would be completely converted to Christianity by 1968)

More on Cayce:
http://www.skepdic.com/cayce.html


Ron

As far as Cayce, he (probably unwittingly) employed the current corporate medical practice of throwing out many predictions (and prescriptions in his case) and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses.

On Apr 14, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 11, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 7, 2019, slowkneenuh wrote:
I'm not sure about Dr. Sebi, but if you want someone fascinating and probably little known today, read about Edgar Cayce, an American psychic who diagnosed illnesses while in a trance and also prescribed the remedy, and he did this successfully for 43 years curing people around the globe.

Your assumption is that psychic phenomena in general is real. However, there is no definitive proof of such a thing. As far as Cayce, he (probably unwittingly) employed the standard psychic technique of throwing out many predictions (and prescriptions in his case) and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses. Some of his more memorable failed predictions include:

-1933 will be a good year (although a vague prediction, Hitler came to power and the Great Depression was in full swing in America)
-Atlantean Death Ray (among other wacky Atlantis notions, he said a "death ray" from the lost City of Atlantis would be discovered in 1958)
-The State of California (a large earthquake would sink California into the ocean sometime during the 1960s)
-Armageddon in 1999
-A New Christian China (he predicted that China would become the new “cradle of Christianity”, and would be completely converted to Christianity by 1968)

More on Cayce:
http://www.skepdic.com/cayce.html


Ron

Ron, your assumption is that psychic phenomena does not exist. However, there is no definitive scientific proof to back up such a claim.

Quote:

As far as Cayce, he (probably unwittingly) employed the current corporate medical practice of throwing out many predictions (and prescriptions in his case) and counted on the fact that people would remember the occasional hit and forget all the misses.

Fixed that for you.

Sadly, it would appear “medicine” in its modern corporate form likes your assumption as to Cayce’s approach. Maybe he was just that much ahead of his time.

On Apr 14, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Ron, your assumption is that psychic phenomena does not exist. However, there is no definitive scientific proof to back up such a claim.

No, that’s not my “assumption” at all. It’s simply the null hypothesis.

On Apr 14, 2019, R.S. wrote:

No, that’s not my “assumption” at all. It’s simply the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is on those who claim that psychic phenomena is real - not on those who point out that there is no definitive proof of it’s existence.

If you really think that modern western medicine is no better than some guy without a formal education beyond grammar school (who predicted Atlantean death rays and Armageddon) delivering diagnoses from a sleep-like “trance”, then I feel sorry for you. Cayce also recommended "oil of smoke" (creosote made from pine tar) for a leg sore, "peach-tree poultice" for convulsions, "bedbug juice" for dropsy, "fumes of apple brandy from a charred keg" for tuberculosis, and peanut oil rub for preventing arthritis. Not sure if you have children, but I doubt you would have their critical medical needs met by somebody like Cayce rather than an actual modern day MD who practices science-based medicine. Would you? If so, then I would consider that an egregious form of parental neglect.

On Apr 14, 2019, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Ron, your assumption is that psychic phenomena does not exist. However, there is no definitive scientific proof to back up such a claim.

No, that’s not my “assumption” at all. It’s simply the null hypothesis.

What do you mean by the null hypothesis?

On Apr 14, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, R.S. wrote:

No, that’s not my “assumption” at all. It’s simply the null hypothesis. The burden of proof is on those who claim that psychic phenomena is real - not on those who point out that there is no definitive proof of it’s existence.

Except that a hypothesis, and specifically a null hypothesis is by definition an assumption, a starting point at which to test. Ergo, if you “believe” the null hypothesis, that is your assumption.

Quote:

If you really think that modern western medicine is no better than some guy without a formal education beyond grammar school (who predicted Atlantean death rays and Armageddon) delivering diagnoses from a sleep-like “trance”, then I feel sorry for you. Cayce also recommended "oil of smoke" (creosote made from pine tar) for a leg sore, "peach-tree poultice" for convulsions, "bedbug juice" for dropsy, "fumes of apple brandy from a charred keg" for tuberculosis, and peanut oil rub for preventing arthritis. Not sure if you have children, but I doubt you would have their critical medical needs met by somebody like Cayce rather than an actual modern day MD who practices science-based medicine. Would you? If so, then I would consider that an egregious form of parental neglect.

Your inability to perceive the difference between one’s outcomes and one’s method has led you astray. I was simply addressing YOUR statement about “throwing out multiple diagnosis (and prescriptions) hoping that the misses will be forgotten and the successes will be remembered. Example after example of modern corporate medicine show this is precisely the method being used regardless of whether the outcomes are less detrimental when they are wrong. Sometimes the modern wrong outcomes are just as detrimental as antique medical practices.

On Apr 15, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Ron, your assumption is that psychic phenomena does not exist. However, there is no definitive scientific proof to back up such a claim.

No, that’s not my “assumption” at all. It’s simply the null hypothesis.

What do you mean by the null hypothesis?

In this example, it’s simply the default position that there has not yet been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration of any psychic phenomena that has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

On Apr 15, 2019, R.S. wrote:
It is not my “assumption” that psychic phenomena hasn’t been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the mainstream scientific community. It is a fact as far as I know. Do you have incontrovertible objective evidence to the contrary?

Just to be clear, are you saying that there really is no difference between the way Cayce diagnosed and prescribed and how modern western medicine diagnoses and prescribes??

Would you rather have the medical care available to you in the year 2019 or in the year 1619?

On Apr 15, 2019, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 15, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Ron, your assumption is that psychic phenomena does not exist. However, there is no definitive scientific proof to back up such a claim.

No, that’s not my “assumption” at all. It’s simply the null hypothesis.

What do you mean by the null hypothesis?

In this example, it’s simply the default position that there has not yet been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration of any psychic phenomena that has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

Why is that the default position?

Has there has been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration that psychic phenomena don't exist?

It seems to me that you can use the same reasoning that you just presented to justify the opposite null hypothesis.

On Apr 15, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 15, 2019, R.S. wrote:
It is not my “assumption” that psychic phenomena hasn’t been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the mainstream scientific community. It is a fact as far as I know. Do you have incontrovertible objective evidence to the contrary?

What an outstanding magician. You made the “null hypothesis” defense disappear when you realized it is just an assumption. Well done. Goal post change noted.

If you read the posts of Bob Cassidy you will soon discover that science has indeed judged recently that there is reason to pursue more investigation into certain aspects of “psychic phenomenon”.

Quote:

Just to be clear, are you saying that there really is no difference between the way Cayce diagnosed and prescribed and how modern western medicine diagnoses and prescribes??

Just to be clear, no, I am not saying that. Why is your bias making you read that when, in fact, I specifically pointed out that there are differences. What I did say is that the basic method YOU stated is very much like the current model used by corporate medicine today.

Quote:

Would you rather have the medical care available to you in the year 2019 or in the year 1619?

Your need to emotionally charge the issue with false statements and purposefully inflammatory words gives the appearance of a weak position from which to argue. It’s not doing you any favors.

On Apr 16, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 15, 2019, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 15, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, R.S. wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 14, 2019, Tom Cutts wrote:
Ron, your assumption is that psychic phenomena does not exist. However, there is no definitive scientific proof to back up such a claim.

No, that’s not my “assumption” at all. It’s simply the null hypothesis.

What do you mean by the null hypothesis?

In this example, it’s simply the default position that there has not yet been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration of any psychic phenomena that has been accepted by the mainstream scientific community.

Why is that the default position?

Has there has been a (unambiguously statistically significant) demonstration that psychic phenomena don't exist?

It seems to me that you can use the same reasoning that you just presented to justify the opposite null hypothesis.

Because it's a position of neutrality.

On Apr 16, 2019, Steven Keyl wrote:
The assertion that those claiming "psychic phenomenal is real" have failed to meet the burden of proof to convince me they are correct doesn't seem to be a troubling statement. It is neutral in the sense that it makes no counter claim that psychic phenomena does NOT exist.

On Apr 16, 2019, Steven Keyl wrote:
...OR, you could make the neutral assertion that I have failed to meet the burden of proof for such an extraordinary claim. I believe Ron is claiming the latter.

It is neutral in the sense that it makes no counter claim that psychic phenomena does NOT exist.

On Apr 16, 2019, R.S. wrote:
...IS the evidence (so far anyway) that psychic phenomena doesn't exist.