Forum Sceptique

COURT ORDERS QUACKBUSTERS BARRET AND POLEVOY TO POST $433,715.93 BOND
( Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen, May 2nd, 2007 )
The "quackbuster" organization is learning a very HARD lesson about the reality of the US legal system. And, I'm very pleased. They're learning, in the most humiliating, and financially devastating way, that US Courts don't want the system abused to harass those that the "quackbusters" don't like... http://www.bolenreport.net/feature_arti ... cle060.htm

Dutch quackwatch association bankrupt ?
COURT OF JUSTICE CORRECTS DUTCH ASSOCIATION AGAINST QUACKERY
( 5 june 2007, Dutch newspaper 'Volkskrant', Sophie Broersen, Ben van Raaij )
The Dutch association against Quackery ('Verenging tegen de kwakzalverij' , VTDK) can not call ortho manual doctor Maria Sickesz a quack anymore. That has been ruled by the Dutch court of Justice in Amsterdam in higher appeal. In 2005 the court of justice had yet allowed the term...(...)... VTDK-chairman Cees Renckens calls the decision incomprehensible and disconcerted. 'Who claims nonsense, goes scott-free. Who objects, is being handled' According to Renckens the decision will financial bankrupt VTDK. 'That rectification will cost 30.000 euro. That kind of money our association does not have'.
http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/art ... de_vingers
RESTRICTIONS WORD QUACK NECKSHOT FOR DUTCH QUACKWATCH ASSOCIATION
http://www.kwakzalverij.nl/php/display/ap/630/1
"......Nobody, and certainly not a doctor, can be accused of quackery, as long as there is but one publication, how poor it may be, in which the 'benefit' of the treatment is described. Propaganda for aspirine against depression is allowed, because aspirine helps against a headache. Propaganda for treatments against cancer may, because people say to get better from treatments against rheumatism. Everything is allowed, everything but calling quacks quacks."
"....The Court also claims that the effectiveness of Sickesz' treatments is established because insurances cover the expenses and that she had never been convicted by a health-board..." http://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/art ... n_wel_kwak

JAMES RANDI: DISTRUBING NEWS FROM THE NETHERLANDS
And, on another similar matter of equal importance, go back to last week, at randi.org/jr/2007-06/060807.html#i8, concerning the Dutch lawsuit problem. JREF has offered to similarly assist this cause financially, and we are awaiting a response from the Dutch Association Against Quackery. To stay in existence, they will need a large sum indeed. We'll donate, and we'd like to hear from persons, anywhere, who are willing to help as well
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-06/061507.html
http://www.randi.org/jr/2007-06/060807.html#i8

QUACKWATCH SKEPP.BELGIUM ALSO BANKRUPT ?
Quackbuster organisation SKEPP
http://www.skepp.be/
http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/SKEPP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etienne_Vermeersch
in Belgium has already had 2 negative verdicts against them in the legal proceedings doctor Robert Gorter * has instituted against SKEPP, about which 'suprisingly' there is about nothing to be found on the internet about this case compared to the many quoted (same) article-Google-hits from the various quackbusters-organisations. Now there lays a huge damageclaim of more than 100.000,- euro which will yet probably be appointed summer 2007
( see also SKEPP.Be: "Support Dutch association against quackery...(...)....Also SKEPP is now be sued by a guru-doctor who tearly sells wothless treatments to 1500 cancerpatients for 30.000,- euro each. With that you can thus afford a few expensive lawyers......" http://forum.skepp.be/viewtopic.php?t=7 ... akzalverij , http://forum.skepp.be/viewtopic.php?p=6 ... ight=#6544 , http://forum.skepp.be/viewtopic.php?p=7 ... ight=#7202 )

Bel exercice de spam et propagande visant à défendre une médium (Jomanda) qui, sous toutes apparences, a conduit une actrice hollandaise (Sylvia Millecam) à la mort cancéreuse en lui faisant miroiter sa thérapeutique magique (à base de gui) au détriment de tous les traitements moins "alternatif" (chimio, etc.). Traitements qui auraient pu lui sauver la vie. Ce texte est très vindicatif et un condensé de rhétorique propagandiste.

Le plus con dans cet essai est sans doute l'appel à l'igorance qui est lancé:
"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, tha 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 ?"
"May in the future appear that Jomanda's treatment indeed is healing..."

Bref, la question de cet ahuri est: où sont les preuves que les pouvoirs de la médium (Jomanda) ne sont pas réels ni effectifs? Puisse-t-on démontrer ses pouvoirs... Dans son appel à l'ignorance, il n'avance que des anecdotes pour soutenir la légitimité des prétentions de la médium. Mais, il pousse l'absence de scrupule jusqu'à prétendre que cette médium voulait être tester.

Sauf que c'est très douteux: vu que son gagne-pain dépend beaucoup que ses prétendus dons ne soient pas démontrés fantasmagoriques, il est sûr et certain que cette Jomanda ferait tout pour ne pas être testée sérieusement.

Même s'il s'agit d'une forme de spam (publicité pour cette Jomanda), est-ce qu'on pourrait garder ce texte? J'aimerai le faire parvenir à J. Randi, entre autres.

Jean-François

---

---

You have to speak french to talk here, sorry and goob bye.

FE9999 a écrit :I do not speak and understand french

So it's not a bright move to send your message on this French-speaking forum. If you're interested by a skeptical reaction in English, look here. But I thank you nonetheless for your "infomercial".

To summarize: I think that your presentation of the problem is "mostly bullshit", due to bad arguments and propaganda-like speech. I also said that I would bring the attention of Randi to this presentation with a spin.

Maybe James Randi should bring his 1 million dollar prize test also to the attention of e.g. the Pope in Rome, or reverend Pat Robinson in the US

He had, at least for Robinson. But, Jomanda is not alone in bringing excuses to do not prove her claims. As a general rule: the more someone makes a living of claiming supernatural gifts, the less he (she) will be inclined to prove anything (except to friends, in an unformal way). You may be impressed by an allusion in one of Jomanda's books to a letter from an anonymous "Dr.V.", such an allusion is a serious proof of nothing.

Concerning Zammit, the major problem with his offer is that he wants someone to disprove what other claimed. So if you answer something, the other people (Zammit first) just have to change what they say and you've worked for nothing. And, it's pretty easy for Zammit to change the rule during the test as he decides what consist a "dis-proof":
"Because of the very high cash offer, the applicant has to rebut the substantive objective evidence presented in Victor Zammit's A Lawyer Presents the Case for the Afterlife (http://www.victorzammit.com/book/) (see chapters 3 to 24) which includes: Materialization, Electronic Voice Phenomena, Instrumental Transcommunication, the Scole Experiments, Professor Gary Schwartz' Experiments, Mediumship - Mental, Physical and Direct Voice, Xenoglossy, the Cross-Correspondences, Proxy Sittings, Automatic Etheric Writing, Laboratory Experiments, Poltergeists, Apparitions together with the evidence provided by Near Death Experiences and Out of Body Experiences which psychics claim are supportive of and are directly linked with the afterlife.

Further, the applicant has to rebut the technical afterlife evidence presented by the following: Arthur Findlay's On the Edge of the Etheric, Sir William Crookes' On Human Personality and Researches in the Phenomena of Spiritualism; Sir Oliver Lodge's Raymond and Geraldine Cummins' Swan on a Black Sea and the evidence provided by the Inner Peace Movement."

A lot of weasel words and an impossible task... and you're sure that noone could claim your money.

Rand's challenge is more straightforward: if someone says something, he (she) just has to prove it (his/her claim)... but in controlled conditions. And, the two parts have to agree on terms before the test. I really think that Randi's challenge is far more honest than Zammit's one.

BOOK JOMANDA'S MIRACULOUS HEALINGS (1999) ... DR. P.G. V....

Quel argument! si Jomanda dit dans un de ses livres que le "Dr. V, chirurgien orthopédique d'un hôpital d'Amsterdam" (on notera les précisions qui font vrai mais ne permettent pas de vérifier grand chose) soutient la légitimité de ses dons... c'est qu'elle en possède forcément. Après tout, elle ne peut pas tourner les choses pour paraître à son avantages, impossible

Jean-François

---

---------

FE9999 a écrit :You must be sure of yourself that jomanda has even ever heard of mr Randi or his test

Je suis surtout sûr que Jomanda ne se compromettra pas trop et ne risquera certainement pas d'être testée.

Autrement, vos "red herrings" ont beau avoir les ouïes fraiches, il ne sont pas très pertinents. Ce que Schwartsz pense (sur la base d'expériences très mal foutues), ce que A. Dubois ou J. Edwards prétendent pouvoir faire (sans le montrer sérieusement, comme Jomanda), ou la routine "au petit bonheur la chance, cherchons n'importe comment dans une masse considérable de données, on trouvera bien quelque chose d'étonnant" du PEAR ne disent rien sur Jomanda elle-même. Même si la médiumnité, la vie après la mort, ou les dons de guérisons magiques étaient indéniables - ce qui est loin d'être le cas -, la possibilité que Jomanda soit un escroc demeurerait.

C'est la Vie ?

Except for Sylvia Millecam... sadly.

Jean-François

---

Dans le genre zozo without a clue, il se pose, le Fe9999. Encore un qui croit qu'à tout mélanger n'importe comment, ça finit par produire du sens.

Jean-François