Topic: My list: Art Bell's worst interviews

[Roger]

Oh! And Art's worst interview(s)? Talking to anyone about hand-washing,
vampires, Ed Dames, Whitley Strieber. Economics.
 Really just 'phoning it in'.

[onan]

That is interesting.

One thing I've thought about is: the 'ghost limb' effect.

Suppose an acupuncturist did work with an amputee. Not on his body, but
on his or her 'ghost-limb'?  Could be a test of the 'aura-body' theory.

What happens when a stimuli is applied to the area where the limb, now
'absent', would be: according to functional MRI?

I maintain that just looking at reactions in the matter in the skull is
not a truly complete 'brain-scan', since there is 'brain' in the entire
spinal cord as well.

Ghost limb is a very interesting phenomenon. There are MRI's of the brains of amputees and those scans show activity that would normally indicate some connection to a no longer present extremety. What that suggests is that a great deal of brain geography is tied to our ability to move. Because when other parts of the body need to be excised there is no (generally speaking) similar behavior.
 
As to acupuncture it is also interesting. But moreso because of the placebo effect. Studies have been done with acupuncturists placing needles in "incorrect" areas and producing the same "benefits" as when the needles are placed in the (can't believe I am using this word here) appropriate area.
 

[Roger]

The 'placebo effect' is, so far as I'm concerned, the 'leak in the
dike' of the dogma of so-called medicine.

The huge efforts to marginalize it practically shouts: something important
going on here, if past dogmas that have been demolished are any precedent.

There is as of yet no such thing as a full-body functional MRI scan so as
to show what is going on in real time everywhere in the body.  The FMRI
machinery, capable of just looking at the living brain in reaction to
stimuli weighs tons.  A full-body FMRI machine using extant tech could
only be installed in a basement and use more electricity than an entire
ward of linear accelerators operating at once.

Unless, of course, one believes Baird Spalding, who claimed a full body
imaging device was developed in the 40s or 50s that not only showed
where a dysfunction was in the body, but also was used as a 'biofeedback'
device, so that patients could heal themselves by altering their attention.

It seems he was claiming that attention to defective areas was the cause
of their problems.

I think he was refering to a variation of the Nemescope
or multiple-radiation microscope or a form of heterodyning
imager.  Could be. Maybe not.

[onan]

The 'placebo effect' is, so far as I'm concerned, the 'leak in the
dike' of the dogma of so-called medicine.

The huge efforts to marginalize it practically shouts: something important
going on here, if past dogmas that have been demolished are any precedent.

There is as of yet no such thing as a full-body functional MRI scan so as
to show what is going on in real time everywhere in the body.  The FMRI
machinery, capable of just looking at the living brain in reaction to
stimuli weighs tons.  A full-body FMRI machine using extant tech could
only be installed in a basement and use more electricity than an entire
ward of linear accelerators operating at once.

Unless, of course, one believes Baird Spalding, who claimed a full body
imaging device was developed in the 40s or 50s that not only showed
where a dysfunction was in the body, but also was used as a 'biofeedback'
device, so that patients could heal themselves by altering their attention.

It seems he was claiming that attention to defective areas was the cause
of their problems.

I think he was refering to a variation of the Nemescope
or multiple-radiation microscope or a form of heterodyning
imager.  Could be. Maybe not.

I really do not know where to begin. The placebo effect has not been marginalized by medicine. On the contrary more study has been performed to understand it than most would imagine.
I am not going to define or explain all the facets of why placebos are necessary. Nor am I going to try to give all the variations on the placebo effect.
Why you would posit a placebo is antithetical to medicine is beyond me. It shows a limited insight into the science of medicine. I guess it isn't an unexpected position from anyone that is unfamiliar with the western medical model, nonetheless it is myopic.
To your point on full body MRI's... this is the second post of yours that touches on this and I am hard pressed to understand the necessity of such a scan.
MRI's are designed to detect medical anomalies and form representational images.
They most certainly are not meant to measure a patients total homeostatic being. To even think that would be of some medical benefit shows a complete lack of understanding of reality based physiology.
Simply put, no one is in "perfect health". Some are closer than others but no one has all systems 100% operational at any given time. Add to that the older one is the less healthy they are. So, what does that mean? not much really.
People are born with 2 kidneys. Lots of people that have 2 kidneys have only one that is functional. Most of the time they never know it. An MRI might well inform them of that but for what purpose? Practically speaking there is no benefit and little to be gained by that knowledge.
Everyone is born with a liver. Do you have any idea how many people have cysts in their livers? Do you have any idea how many are benign and are never noticed? It is a lot.
The problem I have with your post isn't so much that you got a few things wrong but more so that it is so easy to make a pompous allegation and seem intelligent when the position is actually of no merit.

[aldousburbank]

I really do not know where to begin. The placebo effect has not been marginalized by medicine. On the contrary more study has been performed to understand it than most would imagine.
I am not going to define or explain all the facets of why placebos are necessary. Nor am I going to try to give all the variations on the placebo effect.

This reminds me of a piece I listened to this past weekend, on NPR, in an "On The Media" segment concerning the vagaries of data collection.  It was a weird report on how properly collected data changes over time, apparently due to the act of collecting data (the decline effect).  The placebo effect and the apparent change in drug efficacy over time is mentioned.  It also delves into the "observer affecting reality" question and I'm sure the program would interest most CoastGabbers.  Highly recommended!

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/05/13/04

[onan]

This reminds me of a piece I listened to this past weekend, on NPR, in an "On The Media" segment concerning the vagaries of data collection.  It was a weird report on how properly collected data changes over time, apparently due to the act of collecting data (the decline effect).  The placebo effect and the apparent change in drug efficacy over time is mentioned.  It also delves into the "observer affecting reality" question and I'm sure the program would interest most CoastGabbers.  Highly recommended!

http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2011/05/13/04

Thanks for the link. I listened and it is certainly food for thought, but they get the observation effect wrong too.

Agent Orange, I believe explained it in another thread. He has a much better grasp of the subject.

But the regression to the mean (AKA reversion to mediocrity) is a well known phenomenon in statistics. I am glad to see it getting some "air" time.

Again, observing a behavior does not (in it's volition) change the behavior. And as nifty an idea as the "collective conscious" is, it is an idea. It is not a fact.


Sent from my iPad

[Bounder]

The absolute nadir?  Frankly, many of Coast's guests are determinedly anti-scientific and therefore untenable.  The standouts in my opinion -- true lapses in judgment -- are Al Bielek and his cohorts.  Also that Starfire person.  And anyone that folded Christianity/religious hokum into otherwise rational alternative models of reality.  Viz., the types that talked coherently about scientific ideas and in the same breath gave absolute credence to notions like the survival of death, an afterlife, reincarnation, etc. (commonly derived of Christian imagery).

The actual percentage of worthwhile guests must be heartbreakingly low. 

I hope Knapp figures out how to tack on an interview next Sunday with Annie Jacobsen, author of that genuinely intriguing new book on Area 51 (how few there are!).

[Eddie Coyle]

        A whiny martyr-complex phony like Steven Greer also compelled me to turn the radio off. Every time he was on, it was a jeremiad about how "I'm alone in this" and he always said disclosure was forthcoming...his sources were akin to Fort Rock's. A defensive,over sensitive baby. And Dames makes two.

[Roger]

Onan: thank you for your reply to my post, however outrageous it seemed to
you to be.  A childhood friend once enunciated to me that criticism or
adoration, either one is better than being ignored!

In matters of subjects subject to reason, however, discussion alone
can 'suss out' things to better inform our discretion.

Herein, on this page, we are not developing a 'tome' or some highly
scholarly discussion nor are we, if I am any measure, 'experts' delineating
fine points of understanding of the issues of how to interpret results
of scholarly or detailed studies of what's going on.

My only 'in' in this discussion on this topic, apart from the technical
side of equipment used to look at the living brain can only be with regard
to your objection as to my view of 'faith' in regard to health or healing.

The so-called 'placebo effect'.

While some would like to ascribe the term 'faith' only to issues of
religious dogmas or emanations of what any might deem to be 'ultimate' I
think 'faith' and the 'sugar-pill effect' is simply an unexplored
realm with regard to consciousness.

Someone gets ill, and by some means or another, they develop faith
they might recover.

I would like to see how 'experts' impact this native ability due to their
lack of understanding of what is being observed while also having some
standing or 'position' of respect as 'experts' wherefrom they pronounce:
'there is no hope': and then the receiver of this 'expert advice' comes
true.

Is this a pronouncement of true knowing, or a pattern that has been set
forth and empowered only due to faith by the recipient?

You no doubt know about the practice in sports of 'visualizing' the 'goal'?

What happens when the 'expert' proposes a 'goal' that is little more than
'hopeless'?

I think you misunderstand any of my points here or elsewhere to which
you have responded.

And that's okay.  It may well be I have not delineated my points faciley
or in some way amenable to your approaches and the understandings
you've derived thereby to these problems.

Could it not be: a person willing to get well, regardless if given poisons
or sweet foods: will get well?

And how is that going to be explored? What controlled experiment could
possibly be contrived to exhaustively explore that?

As long as that is unstudiable except by personal choice: that is a region
that lies far outside so-called 'medical science'.

"Science" is not a verb, it is a vague residue of study and testing.

Scientific method devolves, mostly, on first hand experiment and will,
ever, remain empirical . . . where consciosness is involved.

Or does anyone anywhere or at any time maintain they have
solved that problem?

Set that component of personal consciousness
 'cheap', so long as we don't know what-all that
is, we might merely get what we accept.

Not 'cutting edge', just lazy thinking.

Set forth a dime and get a penny in return. That is,
as I see it modern 'treatment' or so-called medical
'science'.  In other words: ever learning, and also
struggling under the delusion that: all is known.

Had to modify my statements, so this is an edited
spiel. No doubt imperfect.

r.

[onan]

Onan:
r.

Roger, I know I must seem somewhat cranky to you. That is not my intention, although I will concede your posts do make it difficult to avoid frustration.

And I say that because you are far from inarticulate. I see how you turn a phrase. I see your use of verbage. So I feel you write more romantically/poetically. That is fine but the loss of linear, logical thought makes it impossible to fully understand your meaning.
When discussing matters that require some measure, I am left lacking in your exposition.

No this forum is not a scholarly venue where anyone will come for a credited source. But that does not mean our discussions should be inaccurate.

As to placebo and faith, I think you are blurring the lines. Faith is not a simple word to describe. But generally faith is dismissive of proof. Placebos are not about faith but about expectation. Although expectation is sometimes used as a synonym of faith it is misleading. Expectation comes about from previous experience, faith does not.

Placebos are used to measure the efficacy of treatments. Medicines and therapies both are benefitted by measuring the placebo effect.

When treatments and medicines leave the realm of strict study and move into general practice, placebo becomes a much harder factor to study. Some would say impossible. But the term has reached a level of common tongue and is used by those that have little knowledge as to the actual tool of a placebo. It is this area that quackery thrives. So I have little tolerance for discussions in that arena.

Simply put, the human body is more remarkable than most ever consider. A majority of patients that seek medical help would get better on their own in about the same amount of time as those seeking treatment. But since most people are not trained to make that decision a trip to the doctor is always...ALWAYS the better choice.

To your point of visualization of the goal. This is a very dangerous strategy for anyone to employ. First off the dynamic of visualizing success most often only measures the hits and disregards the misses. Secondly, if a treatment goal is to suggest that a person only need think themselves healthy, then they will get better, is a dangerous precedent. Because when health is not achieved the patient may well consider themselves at fault for not getting better. That is not science that is nonsense.

Medicine is not a perfect science. The variables are much too numerous/complicated to account for. But medicine is a science and it does follow disciplined research.

Human beings are funny creatures, we are all superstitious to some degree. But that is not where the story ends. Because someone is enamored with some aspect of metaphysics they are not elevated to some other level of existence. They will respond to medical treatment in much the same way as every other person in a similar situation does.

My objection to your previous post is all about your misconception about medicinal science sweeping placebos and the effect under the rug. That medicine was misdirecting an unknowing population for something untoward. That is just not the case.

[Eddie Coyle]

   A 1981 film comes to mind...

[Harmness]

I got the action figures at Corky St. Claire's store!

[Eddie Coyle]

I got the action figures at Corky St. Claire's store!

  +1 for the Guffman reference..

[neilslade]

Per this comment above:
"Scans of the brain show activity in all areas at all times. If we used only a portion of our brain, chances would be brain injuries would be much less traumatic.

The fact is, many physical injuries to the brain result in no change at all, where some result in massive cognitive problems.
 
"The only area that the 10% may be arguable is in memory capacity. No one that I know of has ever done a study on a brain's memory capacity."

That is extremely easy to test if you are speaking of short term memory.

Memorize this number:
128

Turn away from the screen a repeat it.

Now this one:
436798

Okay, how about this one:
857937597389038473683

There is most definitely a limit to this kind of memory. Notably, some savants can memorize
that long one, and even more.

But in regards to overall capacity of the brain, here's one online comment to consider:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-memory-capacity

Otherwise, in regards to brain potential, I've written a good deal on this subject which you can read from my site: **REMOVED**

I, for one, have never argued that we use 10% of our brain- or ANY percentage for that matter.
It's not the right way to view brain potential.  You cannot even state in percentage how much of your brain one is capable of using. It's a meaningless question.

MRI and PET scans only show that the brain IS engaged. Clearly, the AMOUNT that the brain is engaged wildly varies, this is inarguable, and precisely why these brain scans are useful-- exactly because they show MORE or LESS brain function between areas, and more or less function in the same area depending on other factors.

A good analogy would be comparing brain use to engine use in a car--  when you drive, all cylinders are firing (in a good engine).  But it is not uncommon for spark plug wires to become disengaged, for there to be problems in the fuel system or other mechanisms that decrease the power generated by the motor. Further, you can drive a car at 2 mph, while it is capable of going 100 mph-  obviously, one does not use the full potential of a car most of the time, and usually, just a mere fragment of the engines potential.

The brain certainly does NOT use the same amount of energy all of the time-- if it did, a PET scan would not even work at all, because PET scans register differing amounts of glucose metabolism across the neural network inside the brain.

Neil

Admin Edit:  Neil... please don't spam our forum with 38,000 URLs to your personal/business websites when you post.  It's in poor taste and not allowed for users with only TWO posts to their name.  I can think of countless people here who have contributed far more to this forum than you, and even THEY have chosen not to drop URLs everywhere.  If you want to post in this forum for the purpose of engaging others in conversation and/or debate, that's great.  Stick around.  If you're simply doing so for the purpose of promoting yourself, then please move on.  You won't be missed.  Furthermore, your links will NOT get you any "Google juice" on this forum because all URLs here are automatically tagged "nofollow."  Click here for an explanation of what that means.  That policy was implemented due to this exact situation.  In your profile, there is a field for your website.  That should suffice.

[onan]

Per this comment above:
"Scans of the brain show activity in all areas at all times. If we used only a portion of our brain, chances would be brain injuries would be much less traumatic.


 
"The only area that the 10% may be arguable is in memory capacity. No one that I know of has ever done a study on a brain's memory capacity."

That is extremely easy to test if you are speaking of short term memory.

Memorize this number:
128

Turn away from the screen a repeat it.

Now this one:
436798

Okay, how about this one:
857937597389038473683

Neil

I should write a book; cuz you are an idiot.

You wrote:
The fact is, many physical injuries to the brain result in no change at all, where some result in massive cognitive problems.

Wtf is many? And your source? Your ass.

Your example of short term memory is so out of context it has no value.

Here is a short term example with thousands of data points... A hungry lion. I would bet it passes the 20 second rule no matter how many distractors used. Short term memory was kinda interesting in 1980. Today there is much debate as to whether there is actually more than one memory system. don't let current science stop you though.

As for the potential of memory...oh ffs can you even give me a good definition of memory? Science is finding a great deal out about memories. Significantly they are very plastic, and may not be precisely memories at all.

PET scans are not used to measure synaptic responses but rather the real time growth of tissue that may suggest a pathology. That is very different from thinking. So I am at a loss for your example of radioactive glucose other than you have no clue as to what you are talking about. MRI's more specifically MEG's do measure thought processes.

You are going with a car analogy for the brain... Nice. They have nothing in common except they both exist. Brains have no accelerator, no steering wheel and mostly brains do not have an mpg or varying speeds.

Usually, I try to at least understand another's posts... But you are a hack/quack.






---
- Sent from my iPad

[Paper*Boy]

Art's worst interviews. 
 
I'm glad someone mentioned Elenore Paglini (her one big prediction - 'fires in the west' - then taking credit for calling the annual So Calif fires was awful - that's along the same lines as someone predicting 'snow in the north', or 'heat in the summer'). 
 
And as someone else mentioned, GIS has to be right up there. 
 
And the guy that sees 'Rods' everywhere - Jose Escamilia.  Very stupid.
 
He wasn't exactly a guest, but I could have done without the 'JC' foolishness.  How is that in any way entertaining?  The only thing amusing about JC was that when George Noory took over full time he admitted asking Art how to deal with JC - that from a guy claiming something like 57 years of broadcasting experience.
 
I'd nominate Whitely Strieber for a top five slot.  Every time he is on he starts whining about being 'disbelieved, mocked, ridiculed, and marginalized'.  Some host, maybe Ian or a guest host, once asked him if someone told him what he was telling us, would he be sceptical.  He answered yes, he would be.  But somehow the rest of us aren't supposed to be at all sceptical - no, that would be 'marginalizing' him.
 
The absolute worst is Ed Dames.  By a lot.  His fear mongering and love of evil reaches George Noory's level.
 
Interesting that of all Art's guests, George Noory chose these people to be on an almost unlimitied number of times.