Mike, It's very possible that Hazel herself was distraught by the author's representation of her work and medical philosophy. My husband and I, as Michigan's only cranberry growers (up until very recently) on a 125 year old farm have had much unexpected publicity. One of them a lengthy, splashy article replete with pictures in the Detroit Free Press, plus many other local and national publications. It's something we had never experienced before (and not so sure we want to again!)
Because of this, we came to realize what we had always heard before - namely, that you can't believe everything you read. Although some of the articles were accurate, the Free Press being among them, the rest were fraught with inaccuracies including quotes that neither one of us made. It was quite upsetting. If we had known what to expect, we may not have agreed to these interviews at all. Some of them were over the phone, and one of them there was no interview at all. Every bit of their "information" was obtained from someone else. It was very upsetting. I would suppose that Hazel Parcell's book would reflect her own beliefs and how she arrived at them. I would be much more inclined to accept what she herself wrote if it didn't interfere with my scientific reasoning. After all, who would be better at lending credibility to her medical philosophy and explaining it in terms we can all understand than the lady herself. The author is everything. Sharon Experiments should be reproducible - they should all fail in the same way ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >I wrote: >> That's the kind of crap that spoils these things for me. How in the >> hell is someone going to be able to reproduce her results? Or is it >> a big secret for commercial reasons? > >I had just finished reading a glowing and vague description of >Parcells' measuring "energies" that were not identified or explained >*at all* at that point in the article, and were only elaborated on >in the vaguest terms towards the end. > >Whether Parcells' methods work or not, *THIS KIND OF WRITING* does >both the subject and the readers a disservice. > >I will not be convinced that something works when it is presented >as if it were a magical potion or incantation. Either it works by >some explicable mechanism or can be shown to work by anecdotal >results -- but there is *no* such thing as "proof by mumbo-jumbo." > >Del Snow wrote: > >> 1.) Dr. Parcells is 105 years old. >> 2.) She has 2 alternative therapy loffices which she works in >> every week. >> 3.) She teaches her system to enquiring minds in the school that >> bears her name which is in full operation as we speak. >> 4.) She looks better to the writer of the article than his 40 >> something wife. >> >> These items were missed by your scientific eye as you read through >> this " kind of crap" as you called it. > >Not missed, overshadowed by the author's attempt to describe >Parcells' methods in terms of mystical and undefined "energies" >which, at that point in the article, knocked the pins out from under >my curiosity and acceptance of what was written. > >My "scientific eye" simply refuses to believe something just because >it is *said*. The author could have claimed she consulted chartreuse >ceramic pixies and it would have been no less jarring. > >> I might add that dead Doctors don't lie. > >No need, Del. I understand the shortcomings of mainstream medicine. >You don't hang around this bunch for very long before that hard and >humbling reality seeps into you! > >> Dr. Parcells is 105 years old and the last 55 years (?) she has been >> changing peoples lives from sick to healthy, at least this is the >> gist of the article. Shit, I want to meet her and see for my self. > >Someone else posted that she passed away at age 106, so it looks >like neither of us will have that chance. Nonetheless, the *facts* >presented in the article do paint an interesting picture, however >poorly the author dealt with some parts of his subject. > >> Now keep up the good work, we need hard science that tells us every >> precise detail so we can replicate this for ourselves, do we ? > >If something *can* be reduced to hard science, and that science can >be applied fairly by others to reproduce good results, then there's >nothing wrong with that! > >If, on the other hand, something defies scientific understanding, >then either it is wishful thinking *OR* denotes the *limitiations* >of science. If it is the latter, you had better at least have >reproduceable if unexplainable results to prove it's real. > >But, any attempt to present something beyond science *AS* science >only diminishes your credibility. > >If the author was being honest, which I'm willing to accept in the >absence of other information, then Parcells' work is worth study. But >he unwittingly proves that even the most ardent supporter can >undermine what he tries to praise. > >You don't have to go very far in the direction of most alternative >health subjects before encountering this style of writing. It's >offensive, and blocks the widespread acceptance of *anything*, no >matter how promising it is in fact. We've seen it in all aspects of >CS marketing, and it has helped fuel the recent actions by the FDA >here in the US. > >And, yes, it's tiring to have to wade through all the vague muttering >and hand-waving to get to the little nuggets of real results. If my >frustration led me to offend you, I'm sorry. > >Be well, > >Mike D. > >[Mike Devour, Citizen, Patriot, Libertarian] >[[email protected] ] >[Speaking only for myself... ] > > >-- >The silver-list is a moderated forum for discussion of colloidal silver. > >To join or quit silver-list or silver-digest send an e-mail message to: >[email protected] -or- [email protected] >with the word subscribe or unsubscribe in the SUBJECT line. > >To post, address your message to: [email protected] > >List maintainer: Mike Devour <[email protected]>
