You are currently viewing SPIRITLOVE as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. (Please note: The ads that appear here are nothing to do with Spiritlove and when you are logged in to the Forum they disappear.)
How have I helped Animals - we have treated Ferrets with digestion problems, Horses with misaligned ribs, Dogs with cancer, bad kidneys, e.t.c, Guninee Pigs with lumps on it's body and so on. I do love and find animals amazing.
gary-- say you have a patient and you see your ash for cancer,do you tell them if they didn't know and have you ever made an mistake because you misinterpreted it? And have you ever sensed the cancer is so far gone they wont survive,do you tell the patient? and abrahams 37 helpers,what sort of doctors are they?can you also sense when one of these 37 come through?
The problem with seeing things is that if a client has not mentioned it then by law I am not allowed to say as I could the be diagnosing, if I do say anything I make it clear it is my opinion based only and not backed up with medical evidence, even then I may just say I see a build up of energy in this area if you have any problmes with it please consult a doctor. I have seen cancer patients where I Abraham feels it's their time, in thee cases if the client has already been told by the doctors that they are terminally ill and have so long to live. I tell the client I will do all I can to help in whatever way I can. (e.g giving them longer, helpng with pain, helping pass over). As for the doctors it is hard to say. When I work I see Abrahams hands go into the body and work, sometimes I do see other hands however Abraham said in Trance that he had 37 doctors working with him. I choose not to persue this as I like to report just to Abraham and allow him to do the rest. I am satisfied with the information that there are 37 and that is all. What I can say is the reason there are so many is because each should be trained in atleast some area of the body because Abraham has said he is not trained in all.
A question for Gary - when you and Abe heal - do you get visions about the recipient?
Visions? In what sense. Sometimes if there is an emotional route there I can see the event that has caused this to hapn of similar things. If you can rephase this question I will try and answer it more effectivly :-D
gary,have you had funny moments in healing someone,ie,funny visions or anything like that?
I love doing the public demonstrations as Abraham has a fantastic sense of humour and normally has everyoe in stiches (no pun intended) :-D . When I work Abraham is always making funny comments to me and also showing me funny things. I think this is great as it keeps me intrested in the work, it keeps the vibration up and I think laughter is one of the best healers.
A question for Gary - when you and Abe heal - do you get visions about the recipient?
Visions? In what sense. Sometimes if there is an emotional route there I can see the event that has caused this to hapn of similar things. If you can rephase this question I will try and answer it more effectivly :-D
I have read in a few books that people who heal others may "pick up stuff" from the recipient - Like visions from the persons past lives or something personally about the person...
Clairvoyance in motion you know...
And to rainbows: No I haven't practiced on anyone lately - but when I pick up ailments now it really hurts and doesn't tickle like before. I probably just need a guide like Abe to turn down the volume for me... lol
I haven't seen you gary-if i did i'd have to leave this lot out of it..they would be hiding some drink in their pockets..second thoughts,i'll get these labels made out for them.
Joined: Fri, 26 Oct 2007, 9:17 pm Posts: 1012 Location: england
I tell the client I will do all I can to help in whatever way I can. (e.g giving them longer, helpng with pain, helping pass over).
Gary.wouldnt it be more ethical to say to patients 'i'll do what i can'' and leave vagueness in rather than telling them you'll give them 'longer',one day you may say that and someone may pass the next day or two and you'll have angry relatives on your back.be careful,be wiser!
Joined: Tue, 30 Oct 2007, 9:34 am Posts: 7715 Location: Here, There and Everywhere
Quote:
(e.g giving them longer, helpng with pain, helping pass over).
Gary, how do you help with their pain? What do you do to help them pass over?
_________________ "I am off to hide in the corner while the drunken middle aged sex fiends of the spiritlove forum bask in the humiliation of a once great skeptic" ~ Jon Donnis
Whoops soz if that came across wrong what was in the brackets is what I feel but I do keep it to my self and have only told clients I will do what I can as again I don't diagnose. What I had meant is that if Abraham tells me it is their time e.t.c then I will do all I can and will tell the client Abraham will do all he can to help!
Joined: Fri, 26 Oct 2007, 9:17 pm Posts: 1012 Location: england
I am not trying to catch you out gary unlike some,now i see some sceptic thinks you laugh at the sick because abe has a sense of humour.
my god-what is wrong with those sceptics,ajusting your words to fit their warped malicious minds.They think that of you gary but misquote ,insult and mock you.I do not understand all you say and find it hard to comprehend abe etc but those sceps. need to start looking at themselves before pointing the finger at others.
Sadly they seem to have nothing better to do. I do appolagise if someone mistook what I said. I didn't think I had to go into detail as I have made it clear to the sceps that I don't diagnose. Yet I suppose when you have nothing better to do you have to find something to amuse yourselves.
Let them play their games what goes around comes around :-D
Even if I was allowed to diagnose I still wouldn't tell my client it was their time as that is not mine or anyone other then that persons decision to make. The mind is a powerful thinga and can cause people to give up when they didn't need to. That's an avenue I don't wanna go down :-D
Laugh at the sick. I'm a healer not a sadist lol! I'm sure if more people learned to laugh instead of giving energy to the problem they'd get better much quicker.
A friend of mine has a son in a hospice. He is 12 years old and has suffered since birth. Growing up with pain, not being able to do the things everyone else his age can do. He has more right then anyone to complain, but he doesn't instead he laughs and makes the most of what he has. Sure he could feel sorry for himself and let the pain get the better of him but he doesn't instead he learns to laugh and to make the most of what he's got while he's got it. If only we could all do the same when we're feeling ill.
Probally shouldn't of worte that comment I'll now have the sceptics writing to every hospice to make sure I know someone who has a son there :-D
I don't expect everyone to be able to understand what I do. If I was in your position I would feel the same unless I had seen it first hand or experianced this for myself. Thank you to everyone on here for allowing me to share my opinion on my work and how I believe it works. Even if you may not believe some or all of it you allow me to state my belifs.
If I don't get a chance to pop back sooner I hope you all have a great easter. A good tip I learned when it comes to eating choclate is.
Joined: Tue, 30 Oct 2007, 9:34 am Posts: 7715 Location: Here, There and Everywhere
rainbows wrote:
and some of us were interested to learn how skeptics got their beliefs also and i like to learn from both sides.
Skeptics Beliefs ???? Now come on Rainbows, you ought to know better - surely that's a fallacy. Can you honestly state as a fact, in your opinion, can you logically and scientifically PROVE that skeptics have beliefs and state QED infinitatatatata quantum tontum. There's no evidence that belief exists. Didn't you know that belief is a non-existant delusionary, fraudulent theory, and that's a fact that can be proven by double blinding magical tests under controlled conditions.
_________________ "I am off to hide in the corner while the drunken middle aged sex fiends of the spiritlove forum bask in the humiliation of a once great skeptic" ~ Jon Donnis
Now now Kitkat, that's a slightly unfair mischaracterization of skeptics, don't you think?..
Being a skeptic doesn't mean not accepting anything as true. It just means having a high standard for evidence and expecting the quality and objectivity of evidence to be higher if the claim is more extraordinary.
I've always been amazed that anyone would disagree with that as a sensible way to be.
The alternative is to lay oneself open to deception and basically be gullible.
but bwm..while i dont take back what i said -kk and i have heard many skeptics views and they are not skeptics in our opinions to the truest meaning.
disagreeing,debating,questioning is fine of course,but you must really know what im saying that many are insulting,mockful and make unfounded cruel allegations based on what they hear,i dont expect them or you just to 'just believe' but disbelieving without really knowing either is no excuse for insults and even threats we have come across.
I take your point, and people who come here with nothing more constructive to offer than mockery and insults are obviously not helping anyone.
But this does raise an interesting issue. I think that some of these "ranting" skeptics are behaving that way because they are upset and frustrated at what they see as potentially harmful and exploitative behaviour.
In an ideal world we would all happily accept each others ideas and tolerance would pervade the land. But what when an idea is harmful and causes unnecessary suffering?
Is universal tolerance always the right thing?
Should we be tolerant of all beliefs?
What about the belief that it's wrong to accept blood transfusions, commonly held by Jehovahs Witnesses? How many children need to die needlessly before one is entitled to express judgemental views about this?
Or how about teaching creationism in schools (including the idea that the world is only 6000 years old)?... This means sending children (who trust us to educate them) out into the world with demonstrably false nonsense in their heads about history and biology.
Another example is campaigning against stem cell research. In the US, certain groups have managed to stop funding for SCR (which is one of the most promising branches of medical development we have, promising potential treatments for many areas) on the basis that they believe that small clumps of cells in petri dishes have souls and should trump the rights of eight year old children with leukemia who stand to benefit from the research. It is hard to guess the number of deaths that would be prevented over the next few years if this research was not delayed in the way it has been on the basis of peoples beliefs.
Now I'm not likening the beliefs of anyone here to the craziness I've just described, but my point is that are some ideas that it's perfectly right to feel angry and insulting about.
Some people feel that the spiritualist movement (for want of a better word) also causes unnecessary harm. They feel that some people calling themselves psychics and mediums are feeding off other people's grief, exploiting the bereaved and stopping the natural process of grieving and acceptance.
Some skeptics feel that "healers" are particularly dangerous because they are not qualified to give health advice to anyone and some people even come off much needed medication as a result of seeing them.
The point I'm making is that there are valid reasons to be angry about ideas. Try, if you can to be a little more forgiving of people who feel that they might have valid reasons for feeling angry about your beliefs.
If you can be less angry back then maybe those people might learn something from you?...
just thought i'd pop on here to see how garys thread was doing. i have said before that i am dubious garys claims. not that i disbelieve him, i just don't know. i believe he has a gift to heal but psychic surgery is somehting i struggle to comprehend. this doe'snt mean it is not genuine.i would like to ask gary how does he cope with the constant onslaught from the sceps. does it affect his work, their negativity and intrusion. from reading your replys i feel you are a good, genuine person who gets harrased and misquoted for every little thing. do you feel now that you have to analyse everthing you say.
must say i agree with ros. i stoped looking on this thread as i cannot stand sarcasm and rudeness till i thought i could resume and look at garys explanations and replys. i stated that bwm was sarcastic, to which he asked when had he been sarcastic to gary. i was referintg to myself actually. you then said something about hoping i was better now and about me being angry. well if this does'nt give an example of your sarcastic aprroach that is self evident i don't know what is. for your info bwm, i was far from angry and still are. trust me that you can never make me feel such a negative emotion over your bad manners . your problem not mine.
these remarks you dish out are patronising and you blatantly say you are not rude or sarcastic.
i really want to read garys posts without sarcasm flying around and hopefully we can all gain more from his posts. please refrain from more of it. it is the lowest form of wit and the highest form of vulgarity. i hope we can continue to answer and reply with manners and respect from here on, so gary can answer without feeling on the stand all the time. thankyou.
Joined: Tue, 30 Oct 2007, 9:34 am Posts: 7715 Location: Here, There and Everywhere
Very well put, BWM - in part.
However, focusing on your comment ..
Quote:
but my point is that are some ideas that it's perfectly right to feel angry and insulting about.
the anger maybe is an understandable concept, it's the second half of that comment surely that merits question? and highlights the element of playground bullying that lurks in some areas of the skeptic groups. The unaccountable harm that can be done by those bullies in the playground who will "pick on" the child who is perhaps different to their accepted standard of "the norm", the easy target, someone with a visible physical disablement, a different colour skin, different cultural ideas or language, doesn't easily "fit in" with the crowd. It's a sad fact that this form of bullying does happen thoughout all areas of life (mostly stemming from the bullier's ignorance or fear of what is unknown to them). They themselves want to fit in with the crowd and feel a certain power is attributed to them by doing so.
Ironically, it's also a known fact that very often the bully was once the bullied, and the very area that he/she will direct their bullying tactics is that where they have suffered the most in the past. The wheel is turning but not going anywhere. Perhaps they would be better off looking inwardly for the answers to their questions/experiences before they can begin to understand the questions and experiences of others.
_________________ "I am off to hide in the corner while the drunken middle aged sex fiends of the spiritlove forum bask in the humiliation of a once great skeptic" ~ Jon Donnis
I take your point, and people who come here with nothing more constructive to offer than mockery and insults are obviously not helping anyone.
But this does raise an interesting issue. I think that some of these "ranting" skeptics are behaving that way because they are upset and frustrated at what they see as potentially harmful and exploitative behaviour.
yes,i see that,i understand that and we feel the same about fake mediums/psychics/healers ,the difference is they often state it doesn't exist full stop without actually knowing,we see this as pure ignorance.They may have witnessed many who are frauds and indeed there are,shockingly so,many who are dangerous ,misleading and liars and its wise to single these out-if one is sure this is the case.Then there will be those in the group who genuinely believe they have the ability but do not and these too need to be stopped.
In an ideal world we would all happily accept each others ideas and tolerance would pervade the land. But what when an idea is harmful and causes unnecessary suffering?
Ideas can cause harm and where harm is caused,people need to do something i agree.We need to get it right though and not make mistakes, and prove one is guilty before we claim them to be so.Is universal tolerance always the right thing?
Should we be tolerant of all beliefs?
What about the belief that it's wrong to accept blood transfusions, commonly held by Jehovahs Witnesses? How many children need to die needlessly before one is entitled to express judgemental views about this? Blood transfusions can neither be proven to prolong or save a life,thats what a witness told me once and they dont see it as their children dying needlessly. Personally,if my child was at deaths door,i would try anything.
Or how about teaching creationism in schools (including the idea that the world is only 6000 years old)?... This means sending children (who trust us to educate them) out into the world with demonstrably false nonsense in their heads about history and biology.
Another example is campaigning against stem cell research. In the US, certain groups have managed to stop funding for SCR (which is one of the most promising branches of medical development we have, promising potential treatments for many areas) on the basis that they believe that small clumps of cells in petri dishes have souls and should trump the rights of eight year old children with leukemia who stand to benefit from the research. It is hard to guess the number of deaths that would be prevented over the next few years if this research was not delayed in the way it has been on the basis of peoples beliefs.
Now I'm not likening the beliefs of anyone here to the craziness I've just described, but my point is that are some ideas that it's perfectly right to feel angry and insulting about. But to mock, insult it all as a whole without research and proof.No,that is not ok.
Some people feel that the spiritualist movement (for want of a better word) also causes unnecessary harm. They feel that some people calling themselves psychics and mediums are feeding off other people's grief, exploiting the bereaved and stopping the natural process of grieving and acceptance.
There will be psychics/mediums who dont do this.There are that do and again i say we're with you .The natural process of grief and grief councelling if wanted rates very highly in my book and should be the priority before seeking a medium.
Some skeptics feel that "healers" are particularly dangerous because they are not qualified to give health advice to anyone and some people even come off much needed medication as a result of seeing them.
This is disgusting and needs to be stopped.This is very dangerous of course but again all healers are not the same.
The point I'm making is that there are valid reasons to be angry about ideas. Try, if you can to be a little more forgiving of people who feel that they might have valid reasons for feeling angry about your beliefs.
Yes,there are valid reasons to be angry about ideas,if i never got it,i wouldn't of allowed skeptics to have their say.We all need to be a little more forgiving at times but rarely do we see them put themselves in our shoes,it works both ways.
If you can be less angry back then maybe those people might learn something from you?...
Those skeptics who approach with hatred do not want to learn from us,we have learnt that.The members who have been angry back that is their right to defend themselves.Many of us have said we agree with you on many things and welcome discussion.You would not like someone barging into your livingroom with a barrage of insults,indeed you would probably throw them out.The skeptic who stays and discusses a variety of things with us in the aim of learning from each other is proving a difficult task.
thank-you bwm, i do agree. choosing to live in harmony and acknowledgment of others beliefs is something instilled within me. i'm glad you can see this too.lynne
I couldn't agree more.
There is no excuse for bullying.
The weak and vulnerable among us should always be the targets of our compassion rather than our aggression.
I still think though that what differentiates a civilized society is the willingness to criticize bad ideas. If that were not so, we'd still be in the dark ages assuming that disease were caused by evil spirits and embracing superstition rather than genuine understanding.
Sometimes, inevitably a degree of insult results from the willingness to criticize.
I know that some people find my non acceptance of their cherished ideas insulting and I'm sorry about that but it isn't my primary intention to insult them.
Other people, I am quite happy to insult (such as those that believe some races are superior to others or that non believers deserve to go to hell etc..) These are ideologies worthy of contempt.
i believe a sceptic or believer has every right of course to be angry about any fake or charlatan. nobody however has the right to be angry about anyones personnal belief if it does not harm anyone else. my belief of the spirit world is my own and this does not in any way harm anyone. for any sceptic to be angry about this is diabolical. this is where the problem lies i guess. when we have been called childish names in the past from many sceps, how do they justify this to themselves.
just like there a sceps out there for the good of exposing fakes , alongside respect for believers. there are sceps who use it as an excuse to belittle anyone belief and class them all the same.
same as there are genuine mediums with nothing less than pure intentions as there are fakes again, exploting others.
maybe as sceps are working at trying to expose fakes, which is admirable they also need to be sure they are not fakes themselves first, wanting to hunt and discredit every medium and believer from sheer ignorance and self gain.
I have a negative experience every time I hear about a child dying because her parents insisted on praying over her rather than calling a doctor. Every time I hear about fraudulent faith healers getting rich off the last remaining savings of desperate elderly people (not so much here, but too common in the US).
Every time I hear about women being subjugated by the religions they were unlucky enough to be born into and every time I read how much the NHS spends on "alternative modalities" which have been proved not to work.
i believe a sceptic or believer has every right of course to be angry about any fake or charlatan. nobody however has the right to be angry about anyones personnal belief if it does not harm anyone else. my belief of the spirit world is my own and this does not in any way harm anyone. for any sceptic to be angry about this is diabolical. this is where the problem lies i guess. when we have been called childish names in the past from many sceps, how do they justify this to themselves.
You're quite right. You are perfectly entitled to believe whatever you like and as long as your beliefs don't cause anyone harm, it would be quite wrong for anyone to be angry about them. Any skeptics calling you childish names purely because of what you believe are being childish themselves.
Quote:
just like there a sceps out there for the good of exposing fakes , alongside respect for believers. there are sceps who use it as an excuse to belittle anyone belief and class them all the same. same as there are genuine mediums with nothing less than pure intentions as there are fakes again, exploting others.
The problem is that many skeptics (myself included) think that its not just a case of "real medium/psychics/healers and fakes". Some people think that many honest well intentioned believers have simply got it wrong and are causing needless suffering without meaning to. For example a healer may be doing nothing other than producing powerful placebo effects in their patients. What if one of these patients mistakenly thinks they are healed and comes off their medication?(even if the healer has not suggested this, it happens often)
This could result (and definitely has in the past) in someone becoming more sick, or even worse. In such a case, nobody has been deliberately false or deceptive, but harm has still been caused.
Quote:
maybe as sceps are working at trying to expose fakes, which is admirable they also need to be sure they are not fakes themselves first, wanting to hunt and discredit every medium and believer from sheer ignorance and self gain.
I agree that skeptics should not be fakes themselves. (I assume by that you mean that their intentions are good)
i mean that some sceps need to ask themselves are they indeed fakes as if they they are intent only on exposing fakes then where does name calling fit in and classing all mediums as the same too. some sceps are very genuine and this i admire but some find ridiculing, a past-time which suggests that their intentions are not of good entirely but more of a real dislike of mediums and believers.
i understand about the placebo effect. very tricky area. i do believe though in healing as energy is felt by both giver and reciever. if that is so then it should be left to that person. if i ever went to one and did'nt feel this energy radiating through me i would then question it. this is very profound i have been told so that would be the difference for me personally.
Joined: Tue, 30 Oct 2007, 9:34 am Posts: 7715 Location: Here, There and Everywhere
Here's another link that people should know about:
arrow:
_________________ "I am off to hide in the corner while the drunken middle aged sex fiends of the spiritlove forum bask in the humiliation of a once great skeptic" ~ Jon Donnis
Last edited by Kitkat on Sun, 23 Mar 2008, 12:28 am, edited 3 times in total.
i too get sick of people who don't take their sick child to hospital or get medical help, through ignorance. also of faith healers who are fake. disgusting.this is a violation of childrens rights.
this does not mean there are no genuine healers out there. common sense would make you go down medical avenues first and foremost, especially if it was serious. but there are times when people have tried everything and then look into healing. you could also say that if someone is being healed in this way , who is anyone to deny them this.
believe me i abhor any fake in any walk of life. especially when it takes advantage of the vunerable. but we cannot dismiss healing as an alternative just because some don't believe in it.
bet you didnt make that offer privately to gary first-instead it was put up on site..dont you see how tacky this is?
dont you see....
Why is it tacky for the offer to be through a group that is challenging the validity of Gary's claims.
If they are wrong and Gary is the genuine article then this would represent an excellent opportunity for him to show this.
I know that one particular website would publish a full retraction of all claims made about Gary if he can show that he's genuine and that he can really do what he claims.
If he is genuine, he should be willing to do this. I can guarantee that any test would be done fairly.
i too get sick of people who don't take their sick child to hospital or get medical help, through ignorance. also of faith healers who are fake. disgusting.this is a violation of childrens rights. this does not mean there are no genuine healers out there. common sense would make you go down medical avenues first and foremost, especially if it was serious. but there are times when people have tried everything and then look into healing. you could also say that if someone is being healed in this way , who is anyone to deny them this. believe me i abhor any fake in any walk of life. especially when it takes advantage of the vunerable. but we cannot dismiss healing as an alternative just because some don't believe in it.
Yes, I do understand where you're coming from here Lynne.
There is a difficult moral dilemma. Some would say that even if healing is all just a placebo effect, we should be quiet and let people benefit from it.
But I don't go along with that.
If I opened a shop on the high street selling plain sugar pills but telling people that they cure various conditions, then a certain percentage of my customers would actually experience a benefit purely as a result of the placebo effect and the expectation of getting better.
It would still be wrong of me to do this though. I would not be serving the best interests of the people coming to the shop.
Healing is not dismissed as an alternative just because some people don't believe in it. It's dismissed because the evidence for it is so subjective, and if we were to accept everything based on such subjective evidence, then we would be obliged to accept the reality of all sorts of nonsense.
The problem with things like healing is that when you honestly investigate the phenomenon and take proper steps to account for the fallibility of human subjectivity and bias, the effect always seems to disappear. Surely any reasonable person would accept that this does have implications for the veracity of these areas?...
Hi all have to post this agan as it didn't come out the first time!
i would like to ask gary how does he cope with the constant onslaught from the sceps. does it affect his work, their negativity and intrusion. from reading your replys i feel you are a good, genuine person who gets harrased and misquoted for every little thing. do you feel now that you have to analyse everthing you say.
You just get on with it I suppose. Thankfully most of my clients come through word of mouth. Therefore they are coming because they have seen the results or they have been directed by someone who has seen the resluts. They havn't been put off by the sceps. Aldo the prganisations I work with have seen and experianced my work, therefore they have their evidence and are not put off by the sceps. I do have to try and be careful what I say these days however have come to accept that no matter what I say it will be twisted to make it sound as if I am out to hurt people and rip them off. I am surprised how quickly it all happens. Within half an hour of posting this I'll be able to read extracts from it on the uk sceptics forums. I've now even started getting stupid emails from people making malicious comments. As I said before what goes around comes around and it may be sooner then I was expecting :-D
As for drugs I always make it clear to clients that they must consult a medical profession before coming off tablets, because their body might still need it and also because some drugs have bad side effects if you just stop taking it and are not weened off. That said I can't amke people do anything just like if someone was to go to a doctor and decided not to take the medication for their own reasons the doctor can't force them. I dontt think the healer should get the blame if they have made the client aware that they are not a doctor and can't advice on that subject.
I think that doctors and healers should work much closer together, there is a testamnoial on my website which will be udated shorty from a guy who has had a condition for years and has been on medication for it. Since we started treating him I asked him to continue to keep getting tests and blodds from the doctors (which he did) and now the doctor is comfortable enough to take him off his medication (which as far as I'm aware, but can double check) doesn't happen. Althugh he has been off the drugs for 2 months now his doctor continues to monitor his health. I think this is great as the doctor is giving him everything that from a scientific point of view he needs and the healing is giving him that which the drugs couldn't
Their are conditions that get sorted by healers that the doctor could do nothing about. If the sceps want evidence speak to the people who went through it.
After all any healing should be premoting the body to heal itself. The body built itself so in theory there shouldn't be any reason that given the right tools and told what to do the body can't fix itself.
Hi all have to post this agan as it didn't come out the first time!
i would like to ask gary how does he cope with the constant onslaught from the sceps. does it affect his work, their negativity and intrusion. from reading your replys i feel you are a good, genuine person who gets harrased and misquoted for every little thing. do you feel now that you have to analyse everthing you say.
You just get on with it I suppose. Thankfully most of my clients come through word of mouth. Therefore they are coming because they have seen the results or they have been directed by someone who has seen the resluts. They havn't been put off by the sceps. Aldo the prganisations I work with have seen and experianced my work, therefore they have their evidence and are not put off by the sceps. I do have to try and be careful what I say these days however have come to accept that no matter what I say it will be twisted to make it sound as if I am out to hurt people and rip them off. I am surprised how quickly it all happens. Within half an hour of posting this I'll be able to read extracts from it on the uk sceptics forums. I've now even started getting stupid emails from people making malicious comments. As I said before what goes around comes around and it may be sooner then I was expecting :-D
As for drugs I always make it clear to clients that they must consult a medical profession before coming off tablets, because their body might still need it and also because some drugs have bad side effects if you just stop taking it and are not weened off. That said I can't amke people do anything just like if someone was to go to a doctor and decided not to take the medication for their own reasons the doctor can't force them. I dontt think the healer should get the blame if they have made the client aware that they are not a doctor and can't advice on that subject.
I think that doctors and healers should work much closer together, there is a testamnoial on my website which will be udated shorty from a guy who has had a condition for years and has been on medication for it. Since we started treating him I asked him to continue to keep getting tests and blodds from the doctors (which he did) and now the doctor is comfortable enough to take him off his medication (which as far as I'm aware, but can double check) doesn't happen. Althugh he has been off the drugs for 2 months now his doctor continues to monitor his health. I think this is great as the doctor is giving him everything that from a scientific point of view he needs and the healing is giving him that which the drugs couldn't
Their are conditions that get sorted by healers that the doctor could do nothing about. If the sceps want evidence speak to the people who went through it.
After all any healing should be premoting the body to heal itself. The body built itself so in theory there shouldn't be any reason that given the right tools and told what to do the body can't fix itself.
sorry,but to me it shows egotism for yourself nothing else.
give your 50 grand to a charity now that will benefit next week.
That's slightly unfair rainbows.
Part of the reason why I wanted the claim to be made through the website and not in my name was to remain reasonably anonymous. If I was doing this as an ego trip I would have approached it very differently. The reason for attaching a financial offer to the request to test Gary was as an incentive for him to accept the challenge. I'm very pleased that he has agreed to be tested. He had previously indicated that he would and his willingness to participate shows strength of character on his part and is evidence for his honesty. I respect Gary for that.
I don't think anyone thinks that you're deliberately out to hurt people.
You must understand however, that what you are claiming is very extraordinary and the type of evidence put forward in support of your claims (accounts from people who feel better after seeing you) is very weak.
Such evidence would never be accepted as proof that a "conventional" medical intervention worked. It is far too subjective.
sorry,but to me it shows egotism for yourself nothing else.
give your 50 grand to a charity now that will benefit next week.
That's slightly unfair rainbows.
Part of the reason why I wanted the claim to be made through the website and not in my name was to remain reasonably anonymous. If I was doing this as an ego trip I would have approached it very differently. The reason for attaching a financial offer to the request to test Gary was as an incentive for him to accept the challenge. I'm very pleased that he has agreed to be tested. He had previously indicated that he would and his willingness to participate shows strength of character on his part and is evidence for his honesty. I respect Gary for that.
I dont think,even slightly i am being unfair.It took me less than 20 seconds to find your name come up with this offer.Gary has been taunted,threatened and harrassed.I am stunned quite frankly he has agreed to be tested after all that -i think he should of gone elsewhere,quietly.However he has agreed and is to be applauded and i recognise you are doing that here.
Can i ask you gary--are you seeking advice about this testing that it be be fair?
i do understand what you mean bwm about placebo effect, the mind can trick you of course. but it does'nt escape from the fact that maybe there is genuine healing taking place. if say all healers were stopped from healing, using thier gift on people who were genuinly helped by it how would anyone justify abolishing this gift. i cannot be so dismissive of alternative approaches as some sceps are. some are arrogant at how they are so certain that they infact could hinder mediumship and healing for people it has been invaluable to. there are dangers of harmship by both sceps and fake healers and mediums.
i think for me it is the fact that i have heard many accounts from people who all feel the energy and healing affect as it happens. too much to be conjured up by our minds. i accept it as truth as it is usually a very powerful experience that cannot be dimissed so readily. lynne.
Bmw As you wile aware in my email if you are putting up the 50k I don't want the money. I agree to mneet with both you and the progfessor on the date we have set to discuss protocols. Should I pass the test however you still don't have to shell anything out but you are very welcome to make a donation to any charity you see fit (as long as it's not bad psychcis, I don't believe in biased sites) lol. I doubt anyone will disagree to your generous offer. As I have said though I have nothing to be proven from the test I would continue my work regardless. As I know it works and my ability is not being tested by seeing if I can tell if someone has a gall stone or not. Though out of the intrest of what this result could offer to the whole medical field I will happily except your offer, just as I have of another Scientific institute (will need to check before mentioning any names). My query will always be though what will this test prove. As was mentioned in the email that if I had a tv channle there to film it then I could use that as evidence to go for Randi's $1 million challenge. I assume that means I would have to go through the test again. Then if I passed that who would be next. What I would hope is Abraham will play ball on the day and give you both what you are looking for. You then take that and do some good with it.
I think that it's very honorable of you to agree to be tested Gary and shows a great deal of good will on your part.
I suppose that discussion of the implications of test results might be premature until we have them.
I can guarantee that any test will be fair and honest. There would be no point at all in doing this if it did not set out to accurately and dispassionately assess your ability in a fair way.
Last edited by Blindwatchmaker on Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 4:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
placebo affect again or even delusional patient-then yes.but the placebo affect will wear off,more studies need to be done on healing and now will be with the new centre for cancer patients--more info on that is coming up right now on sky soon.
Joined: Tue, 30 Oct 2007, 9:34 am Posts: 7715 Location: Here, There and Everywhere
ros wrote:
blindwatchmaker-you asked admin on badpsychics where all their donations go exactly-nobody ask ah?
Good question, Ros! Do BP members know the answer? Do you, Blindwatchmaker?
_________________ "I am off to hide in the corner while the drunken middle aged sex fiends of the spiritlove forum bask in the humiliation of a once great skeptic" ~ Jon Donnis
Joined: Fri, 26 Oct 2007, 6:29 pm Posts: 778 Location: uk
we do and we want to know..exactly where every penny goes and every penny has gone since site opened.after all you want to make sure theres no frauudulant activity going on there bwm dont you? the members should know bwm.
If we are to be fair (and everyone here wants that) then I think it's pertinent to look at cases of known fakes and what kind of evidence supports their claims.
There is an american televangelist called Peter Popoff (I think I mentioned him in an earlier post). He made millions in the 80s conning people out of money. His main targets were the sick, the poor and the elderly.
He was caught red handed cheating. The way he worked was as people were arriving for his arena sized Healing revivals, ushers would collect "prayer cards" from the audience. People were instructed to write their names and addresses on the cards and whatever they might be praying for so that the ministry could "pray on it for them".
prey more like!
These cards were all collected together and taken to a control room where Popoffs wife would go through them and then send him info on the audience members that he "could not possibly know" via a radio receiver hidden in his ear.
The prayer cards were then thrown in the bin.
Popoff would stand on stage and make a big show of the spirits communicating details about the audience members.
"Is there a woman here called Maggie Jones?..."
"Maggie?...yes you dear..stand up!"
"Maggie Jones of Templewood Avenue?..."
"Yes?.....good! I feel your arthritis leaving your body now!!!"
"Can you feel that?...."
"Feel the power moving through you?!!!"
etc etc etc..
The whole thing was a horrible and cynical setup. They would take their own wheelchairs to every show and when someone came up to be healed complaining of, say, a stiff neck or bowel cancer, they would put them in a wheelchair (which they didn't need), wheel them on stage and then WOW!!! tell them to STAND!!!!....WALK!!....to rapturous applause from the credulous audience who were unaware how nastily they were all being duped.
People in wheelchairs for real who might have come huge distances to receive the healing were left ignored by the stage.
Anyway I'm sure that we can all agree that this is despicable and horrible.
But, how then do we account for the thousands of people who claim have been healed by this man?
We only have two options.
Either Popoff really is a healer and doesn't know it and is healing these people inadvertently, or the expectation of healing and the placebo effect are powerful enough to account for even such large numbers of positive reports.
Incidentally, researchers looking into Popoff were not able to find one single person who had actually been cured of a condition that might not have gone away anyway, and a significant number of people who claimed that Popoff had cured them, turned out to have died of their original illnesses when a follow up was done later on.
As rainbows pointed out, placebo effects wear off.
We are still left with a quandary though. For if the testimony of people saying they had a benefit is to be accepted, then we are obliged to grant credibility to known charlatans too.
I'm afraid I don't understand the questions about BP website.
I don't care where any donated funds go. If I donate to a website (as I sometimes do) I do so realizing that the owner of the site may do whatever he or she wants with the money.
I would imagine that any donations go towards the running costs of the site (hosting, web services etc).
I would also imagine that the level of donations to BP are probably very small. I believe that the chap who runs it does so at a personal loss, but keeps it up because he's passionate about it.
Kirsty, what kind of "fraudulent activity" do you suppose could be going on?
bwm, you say that you think it very honourable that gary agreed to testing and it showed good will. does this mean you would of respected his decision if he had of declined. only you suggested that if he did'nt accept it would more or less prove him fake. seems an empty gesture then to credit him for accepting as honourable when he would of been hounded more for declining.
I don't think that Gary can actually heal anyone. I think that the positive accounts of his patients are explicable in terms of placebo and other psychological factors.
However I don't necessarily think that Gary is a fake. I think he may be genuine in his beliefs.
If he had declined to be tested, then that would have put a question mark over his honesty. That's not to say it would prove that he's a fake. Just that it would be consistent with him being one, whilst accepting to be tested is more consistent with him being genuine.
I would add that if someone offered me £50K (which could go to my chosen charity) to do something that I claim to do every working day, I would jump at the chance unless I had serious doubts about whether I could actually do it.
sorry gary, another question. has abe given you any idea of where your gift will take you. what spirit has planned for you in the future.thanks, lynne
He has given me some ideas. I don't think I will do Surgery for ever hence why I am setting up the A.B.E Healing charity so others can take up the role of healing. I want to eventually focous my attention more on the kids coming in to our planet at the moment. Being diagnosed these conditions and put on these horrible drugs. I don't want to live in a society where half the population are on Ritalin and anti-depressants.
I also want to set up a few more charities, for organisations like Chase Hosipice who don't get goverment funding.
Want to try and establish a social life again as that's gone out the window since I started working.
Want to dedicate more time on Physical mediumship!
So on So on.
I have agreed to meet and discuss the protocols we will tke things from there!
thanks for clarifying this bwm.
i do think that gary will be at a disadvantage even if you believe it to be fair as how do you prove that others can feel healing. how do you prove something felt by individuals(the huge energy)that can be so profound but not scientifically easy to prove, that then promotes healing inturn. this is where it will always be a belief rather than a fact.
i believe your methods of testing are honourable but not ideal.
There are a number of fair ways of testing Gary to see if his abilities are genuine. The purpose of our first meeting will be to discuss some of these to establish what he will be comfortable with and what will be be a fair assessment.
If I may, I'd like to refer to my earlier post about Peter Popoff and ask your opinions about how we should interpret the "evidence" of a large number of anecdotes from people who claim to have been healed by him?...
Joined: Fri, 26 Oct 2007, 6:29 pm Posts: 778 Location: uk
if gary was asking for donations the sceps and prob. you would be asking questions where that goes, odd how sceps dont question this,still,they busy getting the hounds out.
this is what i'm saying really. it is hard to put forward peoples accounts as evidence even though it is compelling to them as no-one else can feel what they feel. it is so relevant but cannot be tested as proof. i can't see how gary can prove this as a result.
Lynne, do you accept the accounts of people who say they were "healed" by the fraudster and charlatan Peter Popoff as proof that he is genuine?
As I said, if there is really an effect there, then it should be measurable or testable by reference to things other than people's personal experiences.
if gary was asking for donations the sceps and prob. you would be asking questions where that goes, odd how sceps dont question this,still,they busy getting the hounds out.
Gary is asking for donations. I believe that this is how he earns his income.
Donations made to support a free to use website are an entirely different matter and it might be me, but I completely fail to see what one has to do with another?....
I still don't understand exactly what it is that you think should be questioned....Are you saying that you think people who donate to various internet websites should be more concerned about exactly how the money is being spent? What difference does that make to anything?..
As I said, I'm sure it's going on hosting fees and other internet related costs. Possibly it's being spent on beer for the guy who owns the site. I don't know or care!
It's not as if it's being used to buy arms for Bin Laden.
Last edited by Blindwatchmaker on Fri, 21 Mar 2008, 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I want to ask if it would be possible for any tests of Gary to be done without using Chris French and Richard Wiseman.
Why? Because these two people are biased. I am sure there are plenty of other qualified scientists who would be more neutral.
Every time there is something on the TV regarding mediumship or anything paranormal they wheel out "French & Wiseman". While I agree that they are educated, they are both personally responsible for loads of anti Spiritualist propaganda in the media and I reject any "results" from tests where these two men are involved.
Sorry to chuck this spanner into your works.... but if you wheel out the same old people for testing mediums, healers, etc. every single time, it creates a little rat odour in my book.
Sorry but can't accommodate you there. There is a reason why people like Chris French and Richard Wiseman are in the media a lot.
This is because the particular skill-set required for testing paranormal claims involves taking steps to prevent cheating and deception and there just aren't may people qualified to do it.
This is misinterpreted as being "anti" when in fact it is simply a requirement for doing this properly.
The academic literature is littered with papers by good reputable capable scientists who have been completely duped by self professed psychics and mediums. A good example are Targ and Putthoff who tested Uri Gellar at SRI in the 70s. Both PhD's in physics he completely pulled the wool over their eyes.
What it mean for a test to be properly designed, is that any bias on the part of either the subject or the testers is eliminated. If Gary is genuine he should pass the test irrespective of the opinions of French, Wiseman, me or anyone else.
As I said, I am guaranteeing that any test will be fair.
Possibly, the reason why people like Wiseman etc are publicly very skeptical about these things is because they have never found a single genuine instance and not because of previously held prejudice.
I see your point about Popoff, in fact I think I saw the video footage with an audio track of his wife reading out the cards to him.
If I may explain my beliefs first. I do not believe in God or the creation. I am skeptical about healing, as there is currently no concrete evidence I have seen to support it.
I am not a blind believer at all. But I do believe in the Spirit World as being very much a part of the universe as the World we exist in. It is something which sadly remains unproven.
I'm also familiar with how the implications of quantum mechanics have been erroneously interpreted. You do know that quantum indeterminacy only exists at the quantum level and that no quantum effects operate on the macro scale right? I'd be interested to know how you connect Young's two slits experiment to a belief in spirits....
Also, why do you discount the evidence of healing as not concrete but accept the evidence for the spirit world as such?
When they attempted to observe the electrons passing through the two slits, the pattern changed. So my point is that there are some things which react differently when an observation is applied. Nothing hocus-pocus about it. It's simply that there are some examples in science which show that observation of a behavoir can ruin the results.
I am in no way saying that electrons are intelligent and behave differently because they are being watched. I am saying that there are instances where observation will invalidate the experiement.
As for my belief in the Spirit World. I believebecause I have had personal experience of messages from mediums which included information which nobody alive could have known. Specific information given to me as a complete anonymous person. Evidence which you would expect to be from hot reading. But as I am well aware of hot reading and cold reading, I took precautions. I specifically counted the number of names mentioned. I specifically recall how the information was delievered. I specifically carry no ID, no credit cards, no motor vehicle and use a false name.
I am aware of frauds. I agree they exist. But I am at a loss to explain my experiences with any explanation other than an intelligence which was aware of my dead relatives lives.
Lynne, do you accept the accounts of people who say they were "healed" by the fraudster and charlatan Peter Popoff as proof that he is genuine?
As I said, if there is really an effect there, then it should be measurable or testable by reference to things other than people's personal experiences.
Im in agreement.But tricky issues arise,firstly in mediumship,many cannot prove one has had a personal experience and this does not make it untrue but speaking of a medium /psychics claims we can only go on the evidence to prove if it exists but judgement should be made fully after a lengthy inquiry unless it is blatently obvious falsehoods are made,but mediums may get vagueness for one person,that doesnt make them frauds and is no fault of their own,the genuine ones i mean,lets analyze and study it at lengh ,the same goes for healers,if one claims to heal-someway,somehow the if it is true than the results will prove it,i am cautious about gary being tested just for one day--i dont believe this is long enough-at least go for 50 people ,thats what i would do and record results and do follow-ups on patients ..if im right you're not aiming to find out if gary can heal only diagnose -if the people are in front of him,why not go the whole hog and give him time to do the healing also-2 birds with one stone!
Im in agreement.But tricky issues arise,firstly in mediumship,many cannot prove one has had a personal experience and this does not make it untrue but speaking of a medium /psychics claims we can only go on the evidence to prove if it exists but judgement should be made fully after a lengthy inquiry unless it is blatently obvious falsehoods are made,but mediums may get vagueness for one person,that doesnt make them frauds and is no fault of their own,the genuine ones i mean,lets analyze and study it at lengh ,the same goes for healers,if one claims to heal-someway,somehow the if it is true than the results will prove it,i am cautious about gary being tested just for one day--i dont believe this is long enough-at least go for 50 people ,thats what i would do and record results and do follow-ups on patients ..if im right you're not aiming to find out if gary can heal only diagnose -if the people are in front of him,why not go the whole hog and give him time to do the healing also-2 birds with one stone!
I would LOVE to be able to test Gary's healing with a large scale double blinded study. Unfortunately such an undertaking would be extremely difficult, costly and time consuming and it's unlikely that it could done properly without huge resources.
I would say though that if his diagnostic skills are as effective as he says, that could well open the door for a wider reaching longitudinal study along the lines you suggest.
A one off day experiement is not really a fair experiment is it?
Didn't Professor Archie Roy conduct his double blind (and some triple blind) testing of mediums over a period of years?
It all really depends on exactly what we are looking to test and how.
This will be determined when we meet in May.
It does not necessarily have to all be done in one day. Gary may prefer to work another way. We are all reasonable people and I'm sure we'll be able to work something out which is concise, insulated from any prior prejudice and fair.
Sir William Crookes, did a lot of testing over time. But I'm sure you'll enlighten me as to how he was fooled. But I would like to remind you that William Crookes was far more highly qualified than Chris French.
Prof. Archie Roy in Scotland is a good example of double blind testing. I am sure you are also aware of the Arizona University tests.
When they attempted to observe the electrons passing through the two slits, the pattern changed. So my point is that there are some things which react differently when an observation is applied. Nothing hocus-pocus about it. It's simply that there are some examples in science which show that observation of a behavoir can ruin the results.
I am in no way saying that electrons are intelligent and behave differently because they are being watched. I am saying that there are instances where observation will invalidate the experiement.
Yes, I understand what you mean. However this could not be the case with Gary as the effects are observed every time he does a healing. If observation invalidated the effect, then the healings would never work.
Quote:
As for my belief in the Spirit World. I believebecause I have had personal experience of messages from mediums which included information which nobody alive could have known. Specific information given to me as a complete anonymous person. Evidence which you would expect to be from hot reading. But as I am well aware of hot reading and cold reading, I took precautions. I specifically counted the number of names mentioned. I specifically recall how the information was delievered. I specifically carry no ID, no credit cards, no motor vehicle and use a false name.
I am aware of frauds. I agree they exist. But I am at a loss to explain my experiences with any explanation other than an intelligence which was aware of my dead relatives lives.
I'm fascinated by this Daniel. I must say that if I had an experience like that it would shock me a lot too. You sound as if you went into the experience knowing what to look out for and with knowledge of such things as hot reading and still had an amazing time of it. Is the person who gave you this information a well known medium? (Or was it more than one?..)
bwm-has gary given an idea of say,in 20 patients,how many he can diagnose ? Skeptics say one has to actually make a claim of what they can do.. has gary stated this somewhere very specifically..have i missed it somewhere?
I am only interested in finding out the truth. It frustrates me that there is so much conflicting information out there.
I find that "Spiritualist Mediums" provide better evidence. I have seen many on platform and in private sittings. I can think of three who have given me astounding specific information. I would hate for these ladies to suddenly appear on the BP list if I mentioned them by name. Two of them are SNU mediums and one of them is a Greater World medium.
i know gary says he sees ash for cancer and rust for arthritus..but has he said he sees these in those conditions repeatedly,has he given any statistics?
Sir William Crookes, did a lot of testing over time. But I'm sure you'll enlighten me as to how he was fooled. But I would like to remind you that William Crookes was far more highly qualified than Chris French.
Prof. Archie Roy in Scotland is a good example of double blind testing. I am sure you are also aware of the Arizona University tests.
I would agree that Crookes' scientific qualifications were higher than French's. Crookes was primarily a chemist if I remember correctly. The two american physicists who were bamboozled by Uri Geller in the 70s also had much higher scientific credentials than Chris French but that didn't stop them being fooled by his simple tricks.
Scientists are often the wrong people to test psychics and mediums. The best people are actually magicians as they are far more likely to know the tricks. Scientists are generally used to dealing with a physical world that "plays fair".
James Randi has no scientific qualifications at all but he knows every trick in the book.
Chris French's area of expertise is psychology and I would imagine that the same things that fooled Crookes probably wouldn't get past French (although I could of course be wrong about that). One has to see these things in a historical context too. In Crookes' day, many of the techniques used to fool investigators were simply not known, whereas now they are.
I'm not sure which tests you're referring to in Arizona. Please tell me more?
Just to elaborate on two of my previous posts. There was no "psychology" in the 1800s.
I apply the same anonymous precautions to everything I attend. I would hate to invalidate any evidence by feeding the medium a single scrap of detail about me.
I would love to put to bed the argument skeptic/spiritualist, but I cannot. I have read books which explain cold reading. Written by magicians and scientists. My problem is that these books do not explain my experiences. Perhaps they explain the vast majority of readings and once you've taken on board the skeptic view, it's hard to view mediums in the same light. But there are honestly instances which are not covered in these books. Which is annoying and exciting.
Joined: Tue, 30 Oct 2007, 9:34 am Posts: 7715 Location: Here, There and Everywhere
Blindwatchmaker wrote:
Fair enough
Shame though. If what you're saying is true, I'd love to experience that myself.
BWM - I'm sure you mentioned way back on this thread that you have had a couple of readings which you found "extremely underwhelming". May I ask how you sought out the medium/psyhic/ who gave you those readings?
_________________ "I am off to hide in the corner while the drunken middle aged sex fiends of the spiritlove forum bask in the humiliation of a once great skeptic" ~ Jon Donnis
One was the Chelsea Psychic Faire. I don't remember the name of the reader.
The other was in New York Last year. It was expensive too. He was recommended by my cousin. I'd rather not mention his name but he was totally hopeless. Just wild guessing and poor cold reading.
Joined: Tue, 30 Oct 2007, 9:34 am Posts: 7715 Location: Here, There and Everywhere
So, presumably, neither would have been an accredited Spiritualist medium?
_________________ "I am off to hide in the corner while the drunken middle aged sex fiends of the spiritlove forum bask in the humiliation of a once great skeptic" ~ Jon Donnis
I have no idea.
I don't place much stock in the accreditation though.
There is a certain medium who is not only on LBC radio every week but is a lecturer at a well known college in London. (you probably know exactly who I mean).
She's appalling. Even worse than the idiot I saw in America.
Joined: Tue, 30 Oct 2007, 9:34 am Posts: 7715 Location: Here, There and Everywhere
Not offensive sounding at all.
No, I don't know who you mean.
Psychic Fairs - money-making machines and playground market place for every new fangled "New Age" cult and gadget.
_________________ "I am off to hide in the corner while the drunken middle aged sex fiends of the spiritlove forum bask in the humiliation of a once great skeptic" ~ Jon Donnis
The point is though, that The College of Psychic Studies is reputed to be a good establishment, but they willingly accredit people who seem to barely have double digit IQs.
I would really love to see a "good" psychic to see what all the fuss is about. I think that if I were to have an experience such as the one Daniel described, it would certainly give me another outlook.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
.gif "-")
.gif ".....")
just to save them time on me.. 
but bwm..while i dont take back what i said -kk and i have heard many skeptics views and they are not skeptics in our opinions to the truest meaning.
