Good/bad times for surgery?
c...@rt66.com
I would appreciate any information about whether there is a way to schedule a
surgery to insure optimum results. What aspects, etc. may effect the outcome?
Any answers are greatly appreciated.
Seed of Life
I would say that what you're really asking is, "When is the best
time for "healing"? Surgery is healing. And spiritual healing takes
place anytime, since it is beyond the realm of astrology.
Mostly people look at surgery as something to avoid. For most it is
stressful. Most people do not want surgery. But months later after
they have had surgery, they appreciate it.
There is a saying in the Tao Te Ching that it is easy to uproot
something when it is small. So surely the best time is as soon as
possible.
Acupuncture works with this concept of healing. They know that the
body has a 24 hour cycle of rejuvenation. That is that every two
hours a meridian will in a sense repair and rejuvenate itself.
Fire energies rejuvenate during the night hours, which contribute
to why many people have night sweats. So one thing to look at here
is what energy of the body is the cause for the disease, and then
choose that time of the day for surgery. The symptoms and problem
areas will be much clearer to see during surgery.
To really answer this question one needs to know what energies/planets
are causing the disease. Then look for a time when those energies
are going to be energized by a transit. There may be other symptoms
seen at that time that will make the surgery more thorough. And
the body will be concentrating energy in the area at that time
anyway. Which will bring awareness to the issue and help in
healing the mental-emotional causes.
Ed Lambert
Brant Watson
On Wed, 21 May 97 17:18:21 GMT, c...@Rt66.com wrote:
>I would appreciate any information about whether there is a way to schedule a
>surgery to insure optimum results. What aspects, etc. may effect the outcome?
>Any answers are greatly appreciated.
Yes. Listen carefully to your surgeon's advice. Then get a second
opinion. If they agree, you have the best possible advice on when to
get the surgery. If they disagree, ask each for an explanation and
present it to the other and see what turns up. If you are given some
choice, pick a time which will least conflict with other obligations
in your life.
There are no astrological aspects which will effect the outcome except
that if the surgery must take place within a certain time period and
there are no favorable astrological portents for that period of time,
one of two things will happen:
1) You will risk your health and welfare by not getting the surgery
when it was medically advisable, or
2) You will get the surgery during the medically preferred period, but
you will be under considerable self-inflicted stress.
You'd be best off avoiding any consideration of astrology
whatsoever.
Brant (a skeptic)
Brant Watson
On Wed, 21 May 1997 16:01:04 -0700, hai...@sedona.net (Haizen Paige)
wrote:
>In article <5lvacs$7ev$1...@mack.rt66.com>, c...@Rt66.com wrote:
>
>> I would appreciate any information about whether there is a way to schedule a
>> surgery to insure optimum results. What aspects, etc. may effect the
>outcome?
>> Any answers are greatly appreciated.
>
>(c) Haizen's Astrology Notebook:
>
>Axioms on Elective Surgery:
>
>*Have no surgery when the moon is in the sign ruling that part of the
>body. For ex: no surgery on the spine when the transiting moon is in Leo.
>Should elective surgery be scheduled for such a period -- change it. No
>one will care as much about your health as you will. The best way of
>scheduling a surgery is to find out when the doctor is available so YOU
>can maintain control of your destiny an choose the most auspicious date.
>Surgeries unwisely scheduled when the moon is in that sign of the body are
>sometimes the result of a misdiagnosis by the doctor, or the motives
>behind operating at this time are faulty. In any event, complications are
>more likely, or the person will take longer to recover. This is the number
>one axiom to follow.
Christ, this is even worse than I thought! Not only are you telling
a person to ignore his doctor's advice, but you have undermined the
patient's confidence in his doctor's diagnosis if surgery is scheduled
during an astrologically inauspicious time...as if there are just lots
of surgeons who check horoscopes before scheduling surgery.
If a person makes a tragic mistake in following this kind of advice,
can he sue you for it? Don't you have any conscience whatsoever? Do
you actually feel it is ethical and moral to give this kind of advice,
or do you exempt yourself from responsibility because of the other
person's misplaced trust in your advice?
Brant
John Reder
Brant Watson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 May 97 17:18:21 GMT, c...@Rt66.com wrote:
>
> >I would appreciate any information about whether there is a way to schedule a
> >surgery to insure optimum results. What aspects, etc. may effect the outcome?
> >Any answers are greatly appreciated.
>
of all is during a retrograde Mars. which brings about excessive
bleeding and scaring. (As Mars has recently passed out of retrograde
it's safe).
Try to do it during a period of good Moon/Mars aspects.
--
******When replying by email, remove mass******
******mail blocking X from return address******
John Reder (jre...@tiac.net)
Theresa Ornell
Brant Watson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 May 1997 16:01:04 -0700, hai...@sedona.net (Haizen Paige)
> wrote:
>
> >
> >> I would appreciate any information about whether there is a way to schedule a
> >> surgery to insure optimum results. What aspects, etc. may effect the
> >outcome?
> >> Any answers are greatly appreciated.
> >
> >
> >Axioms on Elective Surgery:
> >
> >*Have no surgery when the moon is in the sign ruling that part of the
> >body. For ex: no surgery on the spine when the transiting moon is in Leo.
> >Should elective surgery be scheduled for such a period -- change it. No
> >one will care as much about your health as you will. The best way of
> >scheduling a surgery is to find out when the doctor is available so YOU
> >can maintain control of your destiny an choose the most auspicious date.
> >Surgeries unwisely scheduled when the moon is in that sign of the body are
> >sometimes the result of a misdiagnosis by the doctor, or the motives
> >behind operating at this time are faulty. In any event, complications are
> >more likely, or the person will take longer to recover. This is the number
> >one axiom to follow.
>
> Christ, this is even worse than I thought! Not only are you telling
> a person to ignore his doctor's advice, but you have undermined the
> patient's confidence in his doctor's diagnosis if surgery is scheduled
> during an astrologically inauspicious time...as if there are just lots
> of surgeons who check horoscopes before scheduling surgery.
>
> If a person makes a tragic mistake in following this kind of advice,
> can he sue you for it? Don't you have any conscience whatsoever? Do
> you actually feel it is ethical and moral to give this kind of advice,
> or do you exempt yourself from responsibility because of the other
> person's misplaced trust in your advice?
>
> Brant
Dear Brant, where have you been? Most hospital employees would agree
that emergency wards and maternity stations are busier on full/new
moons! I would go even further and check out the natal chart of the
doctor and do a composite/synastry chart between the doctor and patient.
We live in a consumer oriented society.... Doctors with lets say,
challenging Mars/Uranus aspects may be too quick at promoting surgery. I
would definately recommend talking with the anesthesiologist before
surgery begins if the chart shows a tendency towards allergic reactions
ect. I know of one particular doctor who removes tonsils for profits....
Coleen
Marsha
Brant Watson wrote:
>
>
> Christ, this is even worse than I thought! Not only are you telling
> a person to ignore his doctor's advice, but you have undermined the
> patient's confidence in his doctor's diagnosis if surgery is scheduled
> during an astrologically inauspicious time...as if there are just lots
> of surgeons who check horoscopes before scheduling surgery.
>
> If a person makes a tragic mistake in following this kind of advice,
> can he sue you for it? Don't you have any conscience whatsoever? Do
> you actually feel it is ethical and moral to give this kind of advice,
> or do you exempt yourself from responsibility because of the other
> person's misplaced trust in your advice?
>
> Brant
Brant,
Medical doctors are not the "gods" that some of them, the AMA,
pharmaceutical companies (& apparently you) would like people to
believe. In fact many could accurately be accused of some of the "sins"
that cynics are accusing astrologers of committing. Greed for one.
Especially many surgeons. Many choose the profession because of the
income possibilities.
The practice of medicine can be compared to the practice of astrology.
There are practitioners in both areas who are knowledgeable, ethical,
sincere & adept at their chosen art. A Medical doctor is not a
scientist. He uses science--biology, chemistry, etc. and practices his
art--as an astrologer uses mathematics, astronomy, etc. In each field
some are better at it than others. And in each field some work better
for some people than others.
A surgeon doesn't schedule surgery to coincide with the best time for
the person unless it's an emergency, & then it's often whoever is on
call. He schedules it to fit in best with his schedule. (Other
surgery, sometimes golf, etc.) They would have better results if they
did schedule surgery using astrology. And it would also benefit their
reputation$!$
Marsha
Ron Grimes
c...@Rt66.com wrote:
>
> I would appreciate any information about whether there is a way to schedule a
> surgery to insure optimum results. What aspects, etc. may effect the outcome?
> Any answers are greatly appreciated.
The indications for, or against, depend on your particular birth data
which you would need to post if you want any accurate or well thought
out advice. Also, to test the accuracy of what any astrologer tells you
in this regard, if the astrologer cannot tell you the onset of ailments
or the nature of such ailments, s/he cannot possibly give you accurate
advice as to when surgery is most advisable.
Ron Grimes
Vedic Astrologer
Haizen Paige
In article <338a73c8...@news.erols.com>, bra...@erols.com (Brant
Watson) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 May 1997 16:01:04 -0700, hai...@sedona.net (Haizen Paige)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <5lvacs$7ev$1...@mack.rt66.com>, c...@Rt66.com wrote:
> >
> >> I would appreciate any information about whether there is a way to
schedule a
> >> surgery to insure optimum results. What aspects, etc. may effect the
> >outcome?
> >> Any answers are greatly appreciated.
> >
> >(c) Haizen's Astrology Notebook:
> >
> >Axioms on Elective Surgery:
> >
> >*Have no surgery when the moon is in the sign ruling that part of the
> >body. For ex: no surgery on the spine when the transiting moon is in Leo.
> >Should elective surgery be scheduled for such a period -- change it. No
> >one will care as much about your health as you will. The best way of
> >scheduling a surgery is to find out when the doctor is available so YOU
> >can maintain control of your destiny an choose the most auspicious date.
> >Surgeries unwisely scheduled when the moon is in that sign of the body are
> >sometimes the result of a misdiagnosis by the doctor, or the motives
> >behind operating at this time are faulty. In any event, complications are
> >more likely, or the person will take longer to recover. This is the number
> >one axiom to follow.
>
> Christ, this is even worse than I thought! Not only are you telling
> a person to ignore his doctor's advice, but you have undermined the
> patient's confidence in his doctor's diagnosis if surgery is scheduled
> during an astrologically inauspicious time...as if there are just lots
> of surgeons who check horoscopes before scheduling surgery.
No one told this person to ignore the doctor's advice. Read it again. The
topic under discussion is the timing of elective surgery. You have no
practical experience in this area. I do. There are times when the body
does not want to be cut into. The basic rule about not operating on that
part of the body the transiting moon is in goes back over 2000 years to
Hippocrates: "Pierce not that part of the body ruled by the sign the moon
is in." But you don't know that, do you, because you don't understand
history and you're too emotional to be objective about such an important
issue as the body, health and surgery ? If you want to have back surgery
when the moon is in Leo, then go for it and prove the rule wrong.
>
> If a person makes a tragic mistake in following this kind of advice,
> can he sue you for it? Don't you have any conscience whatsoever? Do
> you actually feel it is ethical and moral to give this kind of advice,
> or do you exempt yourself from responsibility because of the other
> person's misplaced trust in your advice?
This information is to *prevent* tragic mistakes, not cause them. That
you're making a complete fool of yourself on a newsgroup you don't belong
on in the first place is evident to those who know whereof they speak.
>
> Brant
Haizen Paige -- The Cosmic Palette
Haizen Paige
> c...@Rt66.com wrote:
> >
> > I would appreciate any information about whether there is a way to
schedule a
> > surgery to insure optimum results. What aspects, etc. may effect the
outcome?
> > Any answers are greatly appreciated.
>
> The indications for, or against, depend on your particular birth data
> which you would need to post if you want any accurate or well thought
> out advice. Also, to test the accuracy of what any astrologer tells you
> in this regard, if the astrologer cannot tell you the onset of ailments
> or the nature of such ailments, s/he cannot possibly give you accurate
> advice as to when surgery is most advisable.
>
> Ron Grimes
> Vedic Astrologer
Not are medical situations are illnesses, but you don't mention that, so
it possible you've never really dealt with this issue in a real life
situation. If someone is wanting to schedule cosmetic surgury, for
instance, both the client and the astrologer know what the condition is
and there's no need for the astrologer to determine from the chart what is
already known. In matters of the timing of surgery there are proven rules
(tropical) which have stood the test of time, most of which this
astrologer has mention in a previous post. If you use another system, then
use it and share it, but do not confuse the issue by suggesting in all
instances that the astrologer has to assertain the client's condition from
scratch before discussing the timing of the event. I will say that the
astrologer should indeed look to see in the client's chart whether the
desired elective medical procedure is recommended or desired. I would also
add that one does not have to be a master of medical astrology to strongly
suggest to a client that they're better off not having, say, back surgury
during a Leo moon. No doublt Vedic astrologers have a different angle on
the matter. If so, please share it, that is if it's understandable.
Haizen Paige -- The Cosmic Palette
http://www.sedona.net/nen/haizen/
PS. It might also be insightful if you'd share your practical experience
on the important area of health and elective surgery. I have happy
outcomes to report and grateful clients. Even changing the day of elective
surgery by one day can make all the difference in the world in the
client's peace of mind and in the successful outcome of an operation. One
area I have repeatedly been consulted on is choosing dates for dentistry.
One client of mine had to have *17* shots of novocain to deaden a tooth
before it could be worked on. Needless to say, we did not schedule any
more appointments during the transiting moon in Aries. Since her
appointments have been scheduled astrology, they have gone smoothly. This
is just one example of what astrology can do when used properly. But it
requires study before one can work in this area with confidence. Astrology
works if the astrologer works.
One last thought: Most of the astrologers who post on this newsgroup do so
as a way of giving something back to the astrology community and educating
the general public. They make very little from it in terms of dollars and
cents. I'd like to see astrologers speculate less on theory and focus more
on testing the truth of astrology in real life and sharing it. That's the
thing I find of value and see so little of on this newsgroup. Having said
all of the above, I wish everyone on alt.astrology a fond farewell, for
this is my last posting for a long while. Cheers to all and listen within.
Kevin Burk
Haizen Paige wrote:
In article <5lvacs$7ev$1...@mack.rt66.com>, c...@Rt66.com wrote:
> I would appreciate any information about whether there is a way to
schedule a
> surgery to insure optimum results. What aspects, etc. may effect the
outcome?
> Any answers are greatly appreciated.
(c) Haizen's Astrology Notebook:
Axioms on Elective Surgery:
*Have no surgery when the moon is in the sign ruling that part of the
body. For ex: no surgery on the spine when the transiting moon is in
Leo.
Should elective surgery be scheduled for such a period -- change it. No
one will care as much about your health as you will. The best way of
scheduling a surgery is to find out when the doctor is available so YOU
can maintain control of your destiny an choose the most auspicious
date.
Surgeries unwisely scheduled when the moon is in that sign of the body
are
sometimes the result of a misdiagnosis by the doctor, or the motives
behind operating at this time are faulty. In any event, complications
are
> more likely, or the person will take longer to recover. This is the number
> one axiom to follow.
>
> *No surgery during a void-of-course moon. Pick a time when the surgery
> will begin and end while the moon is not void-of-course. This helps ensure
> that you are not undergoing _unnecessary_ surgery through misjudgement or
> guesswork on the part of the physician.
>
> *The period between the 1st Quarter moon and the Full moon increases the
> chance of hemorrhaging. The day before the Full moon is the most critical
> of all.
>
> *Surgery is not recommended when the moon is in the person red-light
> period: when the transiting moon is in the sign opposite to the natal sun.
>
> *The transiting moon making a favorable aspect to Mars (cutting) on the
> day of surgery is helpful.
>
> *There is a caution regarding surgery during moon in Scorpio or while Mars
> is transiting Scorpio: the tendency is that the doctor may go to far in
> cutting out healthy tissue.
>
> *Surgery on a day when the moon's last aspect in the sign it's in is a
> favorable sextile, trine or conjunction.
>
> Taking the above rules into account still leaves MANY other positive days
> for elective surgery. Stay in control of your health. Stay in control of
> your life. If unsure about what to do, talk the situation over with your
> astrologer, preferably one who is experienced in this area.
>
> Haizen Paige
> Professional Astrology Services
> http://www.sedona.net/nen/haizen/
Haizen,
Excellent advice, to which I would like to add this:
1. Avoid any surgery during Mars Retrograde when possible. However:
if you know that you will need to have surgery at some time, and there
is a Mars Retrograde approaching, it is better to have the surgery
BEFORE the Mars Retrograde...surgeries that were intended to be
electional have a tendency to become quite a bit more urgent during a
Mars Retrograde as the universe tells us that we've tried to ignore a
problem for just a bit too long...
2. Avoid surgery during Mercury Retrograde when possible. Surgeries
during Mercury Retrograde seem to have a greater chance of needing to be
re-done at a later date...and I've heard of at least one case where
surgical instruments were... uh..forgotten...in the patient under a
Mercury retrograde surgery. Remember, Mercury in the chart of the
Surgery will represent the dexterity and skill of the surgeon...
3. Good aspects to Mars (the Surgeon/the Surgery) and Mercury (the
dexterity and skill of the surgeon) are helpful but not essential. Mars
and Mercury should be well dignified, however, (at least in their own
triplicity).
4. Good aspects to the Sun, and/or the Sun well dignified and
especially in good aspect to the Moon, Mercury or Mars. The Sun
represents our physical vitality and overall health; a strong Sun will
increase the chances of a rapid recovery from the surgery.
As with any kind of electional chart, you simply have to put together a
wish list of aspects and planetary placements, and go from there. There
is no such thing as a perfect chart or a perfect time to elect to do
anything. The Moon aspects and indicators that Haizen mentioned are
the most important factors to consider.
Peace,
Kevin
--
******REMOVE "X" FROM E-MAIL ADDRESS WHEN REPLYING*****
*****************************************************************
mailto:kb...@astro-horoscopes.com
http://www.astro-horoscopes.com/~kburk
Astrological Horoscopes & Forecasts
P. O. Box 16098 San Diego, CA 92176 (619) 221-5534
*****************************************************************
Jim Rogers
Theresa Ornell wrote:
> Brant Watson wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 May 1997 16:01:04 -0700, hai...@sedona.net (Haizen Paige)
> > wrote:
> > >*Have no surgery when the moon is in the sign ruling that part of the
> > Christ, this is even worse than I thought! Not only are you telling
> > a person to ignore his doctor's advice, but you have undermined the
> > patient's confidence in his doctor's diagnosis if surgery is scheduled
> > during an astrologically inauspicious time...as if there are just lots
> > of surgeons who check horoscopes before scheduling surgery.
> > If a person makes a tragic mistake in following this kind of advice,
> > can he sue you for it? Don't you have any conscience whatsoever? Do
> > you actually feel it is ethical and moral to give this kind of advice,
> > or do you exempt yourself from responsibility because of the other
> > person's misplaced trust in your advice?
> Dear Brant, where have you been? Most hospital employees would agree
> that emergency wards and maternity stations are busier on full/new
> moons!
And they're wrong. That's "confirmation bias" working, nothing more.
Controlled studies have shown that there's no significant increase in
medical emergencies or births during full moons.
> I would go even further and check out the natal chart of the
> doctor and do a composite/synastry chart between the doctor and patient.
> We live in a consumer oriented society.... Doctors with lets say,
> challenging Mars/Uranus aspects may be too quick at promoting surgery. I
> would definately recommend talking with the anesthesiologist before
> surgery begins if the chart shows a tendency towards allergic reactions
> ect. I know of one particular doctor who removes tonsils for profits....
And I'm sure his chart predicted that for you, right? Right.
Jim
Ron Grimes
Haizen Paige wrote:
>
> In article <338AF4...@ibm.net>, rog...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> > c...@Rt66.com wrote:
> > >
> > > I would appreciate any information about whether there is a way to
> schedule a
> > > surgery to insure optimum results. What aspects, etc. may effect the
> outcome?
> > > Any answers are greatly appreciated.
> >
> > which you would need to post if you want any accurate or well thought
> > out advice. Also, to test the accuracy of what any astrologer tells you
> > in this regard, if the astrologer cannot tell you the onset of ailments
> > or the nature of such ailments, s/he cannot possibly give you accurate
> > advice as to when surgery is most advisable.
> >
> > Ron Grimes
> > Vedic Astrologer
>
> Not are medical situations are illnesses, but you don't mention that, so
> it possible you've never really dealt with this issue in a real life
> situation. If someone is wanting to schedule cosmetic surgury, for
> instance, both the client and the astrologer know what the condition is
> and there's no need for the astrologer to determine from the chart what is
> already known.
First, let me say that no one should take offense at my recommendation
that a client take measures to ensure that the astrologer knows what
they're talking about. Obviously, if an astrologer can tell the client
the purpose of their visit without foreknowledge, then that's a great
confidence builder for the client so that they can KNOW the advice they
get is accurate. In an age with so many astrologers who don't know their
science, I feel it is important for the astrologer to be put to the
test. Personally, I welcome the opportunity to build the client's
confidence. No, I don't do it for an ego boost. I simply don't want the
client leaving and wondering if I am just a good psycho-babbler who
throws out astrological jargon, or whether I really have analyzed the
planetary configurations relative to their chart in an accurate manner.
> In matters of the timing of surgery there are proven rules
> (tropical) which have stood the test of time, most of which this
> astrologer has mention in a previous post. If you use another system, then
> use it and share it, but do not confuse the issue by suggesting in all
> instances that the astrologer has to assertain the client's condition from
> scratch before discussing the timing of the event.
I stand by my assertion that this is necessary. Personally, if I am
going to trust an astrologer to set the time as to when someone is going
to cut into me, they better be damn good, and I don't want to have any
doubt as to whether they know what they're talking about. I also
disagree with the implication that an astrologer cannot see elective
surgery in a chart without foreknowlege.
> I will say that the
> astrologer should indeed look to see in the client's chart whether the
> desired elective medical procedure is recommended or desired. I would also
> add that one does not have to be a master of medical astrology to strongly
> suggest to a client that they're better off not having, say, back surgury
> during a Leo moon. No doublt Vedic astrologers have a different angle on
> the matter. If so, please share it, that is if it's understandable.
>
> Haizen Paige -- The Cosmic Palette
> http://www.sedona.net/nen/haizen/
>
> PS. It might also be insightful if you'd share your practical experience
> on the important area of health and elective surgery. I have happy
> outcomes to report and grateful clients. Even changing the day of elective
> surgery by one day can make all the difference in the world in the
> client's peace of mind and in the successful outcome of an operation.
I would respectfully ask how do you know it changed the outcome of the
operation since they obviously didn't have the surgery on the other day?
> One
> area I have repeatedly been consulted on is choosing dates for dentistry.
> One client of mine had to have *17* shots of novocain to deaden a tooth
> before it could be worked on. Needless to say, we did not schedule any
> more appointments during the transiting moon in Aries. Since her
> appointments have been scheduled astrology, they have gone smoothly. This
> is just one example of what astrology can do when used properly. But it
> requires study before one can work in this area with confidence. Astrology
> works if the astrologer works.
Precisely my point. You may be very good at medical astrology. I don't
know and neither does a first time client. That confidence has to be
built. Obviously, you have your way of building it, and I have mine.
With my way, no doubt is left in the mind of the client as to the
accuracy of astrology and what they're being told.
>
> One last thought: Most of the astrologers who post on this newsgroup do so
> as a way of giving something back to the astrology community and educating
> the general public. They make very little from it in terms of dollars and
> cents.
I agree and I take pride in being among them. I have never accepted pay,
nor requested it, for the dozens of hours worth of astrological analysis
that I have given to others in response to requests for help through
this newsgroup. In fact, you would find that the majority of my posts
are generally to individuals asking for astrological help or analysis.
Mostly, I e-mail to them my analysis without posting it to the
newsgroup. On the occasions that I do post it, I seem to get responses
from individuals such as yourself who take offense that anyone should
state things in a definitive manner. Some may call it arrogance, but I
simply have confidence in my abilities. I don't intend to water down my
statements so as to not offend those who can't analyze charts with
predictive accuracy. Personally, I am offended by those who pretend to
practice astrology when they are only playing at it. Nevertheless it is
their right, even though it only further destroys the credibility of
astrology which has suffered greatly in the hands of Westerners who seek
to practice and commercialize before gaining mastery.
Ron Grimes
Vedic Astrologer
Jim Rogers
Roger L. Satterlee wrote:
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> > Theresa Ornell wrote:
...
> > > Dear Brant, where have you been? Most hospital employees would agree
> > > that emergency wards and maternity stations are busier on full/new
> > > moons!
> > And they're wrong. That's "confirmation bias" working, nothing more.
> > Controlled studies have shown that there's no significant increase in
> > medical emergencies or births during full moons.
> I seem to recall a coorelation of surgical proceedures performed near
> sunset and higher instances of fatalities due to hemmoraging, this seems a memory
> of trivia tossed out in a lecture from my anatomy and physiology class...but my
> memory is less trustworthy than I would like...:)
That may well be, as we do tend to live on a diurnal cycle, along with
most other terrestrial life; if nothing else, social patterns have
forced most of us into these (work ~9-5, do something in the evening,
sleep until ~dawn, repeat...). Most times I hear of (non-emergency)
surgery, it tends to be scheduled in the morning; I really don't know
why, but perhaps there is a medical reason generally known to doctors
(and I may have a biased perception; this is no random survey).
Nor would I be very surprised at some lunar cycles turning up, like the
"emergency ward" effect Theresa mentioned -- because increased light at
night might alter collective human behavior in a statistcally
significant way. Attempt to show this, however, show any signal to be
lost in the noise. One "emergency room" study appeared at first to show
such a link, but then it was found that the time period chosen had more
full moons lining up with weekends than is the average, and the observed
increase was really a "weekend effect" instead of a "full-moon effect."
I'm sure I don't have to elaborate on the purely social construct this
represents, and the absence of any exactly-seven-day cycle in
astrological calculations.
It would be a simple matter to check out the "maternity ward" connection
by collecting birth dates (randomly) and comparing them against the
lunar cycle. Many astrologers on this NG likely already have a data base
of birthdays on hand, which could be used as long as they weren't
collected with any lunar-cycle bias (reject any that originate from such
intentionally skewed lists).
Jim
p.s. - I'm going off the NGs for an indefinite time; please forward any
replies requiring response to grim...@pobox.com, or
BCC:grim...@pobox.com if necessary, when posting (please don't use open
CC: to me in newsgroups, to help stymie robo-spammers).
Sherilyn
[follow-ups to sci.skeptic]
In article <338abda3...@news.c-zone.net>,
petejanR...@spamBLOCKc-zone.net writes
>Pete Stapleton comments:MORE ANTI ASTRO
>CLONE POSTS ON ALT.ASTROLOGY - THE SIXTH
>TODAY -
>
Pete, I'm not familiar with Brant's posts on alt.astrology, but if this
sound medical advice is an example. notwithstanding his opinion of the
subject, I think he's got his head screwed on well and will be an asset
to the group.
You on the other hand I only know from your content-free screeching
posts in sci.skeptic of which this one is typical, from some stuff you
posted about Velikovsky, and from a "works every time astrology
challenge" which turned out to be incorrectly posted (since you probably
don't read the sci.skeptic group to which you posted it, perhaps you
missed out my follow-up pointing out that one of the three data files
was posted twice, and one of them was not posted at all (this meant I
could not try it out on my friends, as you advised).
>WHY DOES THIS FANATIC POST ON
>ALT.ASTROLOGY?
I'd hazard a guess and say he takes astrology seriously--in this case,
as a potential threat to a person's health. I don't want to get into
whether his viewpoint is valid or not, but it is undeniably germane to
astrology.
>bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 May 97 17:18:21 GMT, c...@Rt66.com wrote:
>>
>>>I would appreciate any information about whether there is a way to schedule a
>>>surgery to insure optimum results. What aspects, etc. may effect the
>outcome?
>>>Any answers are greatly appreciated.
>>
>>Yes. Listen carefully to your surgeon's advice. Then get a second
>>opinion. If they agree, you have the best possible advice on when to
>>get the surgery. If they disagree, ask each for an explanation and
>>present it to the other and see what turns up. If you are given some
>>choice, pick a time which will least conflict with other obligations
>>in your life.
>>
>>There are no astrological aspects which will effect the outcome except
>>that if the surgery must take place within a certain time period and
>>there are no favorable astrological portents for that period of time,
>>one of two things will happen:
>>
>>1) You will risk your health and welfare by not getting the surgery
>>when it was medically advisable, or
>>
>>2) You will get the surgery during the medically preferred period, but
>>you will be under considerable self-inflicted stress.
>>
>> You'd be best off avoiding any consideration of astrology
>>whatsoever.
>>
>> Brant (a skeptic)
>>
>>
>
>
--
Sherilyn
Edmond Wollmann
Brant Watson wrote:
> Any such correlations, discovered by *medical* research, may have
> significance and you can be sure, nothing whatsoever to do with
> astrological influences.
SNIP! I can assure anyone reading these posts, that NOTHING can be
assured about anything except that this type of "sureness" is the surest
sign of cynicism. How many times have we turned the unimaginable anamoly
into what we now commonly accept? History backs me in saying that it is
more likely that what we now accept as truth, will be turned on its
head.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's
mind
about nothing-to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts, not a
select party." John Keats
--
"Things that you held high and told yourself were true, lost or changin
as the days come down to you. Down to you constant stranger -you're a
brute, your an angel, you can crawl, you can fly too-its down to
you...it all comes down to you!" Joni Mitchell "Court and Spark"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1997 Altair Publications
http://home.aol.com/ewollmann
PatP879353
Dear Brian:
>>Would you like me
to give you some examples of people who died because they put their
trust in charlatans and pretenders to great wisdom or insight?>>
Yes, please do.
Confine this to astrology, name the astrologer, and show proof please?
Please be willing to put your self on the line for libel, since you so
broadly accuse others.
Theresa Ornell
Brant Watson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 May 1997 08:52:51 -0500, Theresa Ornell
> <te...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Brant Watson wrote:
>
> >> Christ, this is even worse than I thought! Not only are you telling
> >> a person to ignore his doctor's advice,
is power) and don't assume that doctors are infallible. If someone wants
an astrological approach to understanding illness, then that's their
choice. Astrology can never be used exclusively, one must consider all
facets. It would be like building a house without mortar. You seem to
think that Astrologers have a one-sided approach to everything. I
happen to have a background in social work/pyschology/homeopathy/and
massage. I have also lived in other cultures.
but you have undermined the
> >> patient's confidence in his doctor's diagnosis if surgery is scheduled
> >> during an astrologically inauspicious time...as if there are just lots
> >> of surgeons who check horoscopes before scheduling surgery.
> >>
There may not be lots of them, there are some though. In the
states it's much harder for physicians to voice their "unorthodox"
opinions, in Europe it's much different.
> >> If a person makes a tragic mistake in following this kind of advice,
> >> can he sue you for it? Don't you have any conscience whatsoever? Do
I avoid offering advice even though I know I am capable in many
situations. Generally, I feel it's not wise to interfer in other peoples
fate. And of course, there are consequences when one does. So yes, I do
have a conscience.
> >> you actually feel it is ethical and moral to give this kind of advice,
Where does moral fit in?
> >> or do you exempt yourself from responsibility because of the other
> >> person's misplaced trust in your advice?
> >>
There are consequences to everything we do or say, that's part of
being an adult. However, the "bogus" art of sueing everybody and
everything,(that's so popular in the US) also has to stop.
> >> Brant
> >
> >
> >Dear Brant, where have you been? Most hospital employees would agree
> >that emergency wards and maternity stations are busier on full/new
> >moons!
>
> I have been in a place seldom frequented by some of the people I've
> encountered here...the real world, where people live and die by
> natural causes. One of those natural causes of death is ignorance.
>
Please don't put medical astrology in the same category as some
religious groups who are against all medical treatment. Even these
isolated cases are probally in the minority in compared to what happens
at some hospitals.
> Those who agree to this moon business are as ill-informed as you
> are.
Yes Brant, next time I get my period I'll remember your wise words
that it's just a "weekend effect!"
You have read books with bogus claims promoted by publishers who
> are *only* concerned about making money. They sell idiotic notions
> pushed by authors *only* interested in...making money. Numerous tests
> of lunar phases and their alleged effects have been conducted and
> virtually all research upon which these claims is based is utter bunk.
There are three kinds of lies- lies, damned lies, and statistics.-B.
Disraeli
> Data is shamelessly fudged and selected in a highly suspicious manner.
> The results, already determined by these purveyors of nonsense, are
> totally invalid and have repeatedly been shown so.
>
> But why do so many people still believe this nonsense?
It has to do with finding truth, or directing ones will. If someone
fears an upcoming surgery then the matter should be discussed. Trusting
ones intuition is important.
Because the
> truth about these things just isn't as exciting. It doesn't sell.
Who needs to sell? Why does it have to be exciting? Are you sure you
don't have a Sun/Uranus in your chart? I detect a bit of mania in your
posts?
> Some emergency room and maternity nurses and other hospital personnel
> may still believe these effects, but this is completely accountable to
> bias fulfillment. The actual statistics show no correlation between
> the moon and hospital activity at all. People see what they believe
> they will see.
>
Funny, many police officers believe the same "nonsense." Usually
when I've had a bad nights sleep, I realize "afterwards" that it was a
full Moon. Perhaps you consider this biased?
> >I would go even further and check out the natal chart of the
> >doctor and do a composite/synastry chart between the doctor and patient.
> >We live in a consumer oriented society.... Doctors with lets say,
> >challenging Mars/Uranus aspects may be too quick at promoting surgery. I
> >would definately recommend talking with the anesthesiologist before
> >surgery begins if the chart shows a tendency towards allergic reactions
> >ect. I know of one particular doctor who removes tonsils for profits....
>
> This is not only complete quackery, it is dangerous quackery.
It is unethical to remove tonsils to make money!
If you consider it quackery to question, consult, and reaffirm before
one undergoes surgery, then I can only say you do seem a bit naive.
> challenge you again to assume medical responsibility for giving bogus
> astrological advice which is contrary to a doctor's recommendations or
> diagnosis.
You seemed very impressed with doctor titles which are often worth
less than the paper they are printed on.
Your kind of superstition kills people.
A little overdramatic I see....
Would you like me
> to give you some examples of people who died because they put their
> trust in charlatans and pretenders to great wisdom or insight?
Yes, please do. And I would be grateful for examples of error made by
doctors. I'm afraid the latter would take up an inordinate amount of
bandwidth.
>
> The great consumerism you idealize
You love making value judgements.
is partly responsible for so many
> people being tragically misled by modern superstitions and religious
> fanaticism. So what if doctors perform their very special services
> for a premium? Most of them deserve it.
>
A premium that puts many in debt....When I think of my Uncle who had
to sell his business to pay for his seven year olds chemotherapy, it
breaks my heart. As if it wasn't enough to lose his child....
> I hope you never use this kind of reasoning on your own children.
I have always gone to homeopathic doctors and am quite happy with the
results. When I think of all the times antibiotics were suggested for
simple flues ect. it makes me very worrisome. One doctor told me that If
I didn't take an antibiotic for a sinus infection I could end up with
pnuemonia! Thanks to Samuel Hahneman, my sinus cleared up after several
doses of metavirulent, without side effects.
> But if you do and it has tragic results, there is legal precedent for
> what can happen . You can be charged with negligence. The court
> won't be interested in your superstitions when someone else's life
> depended upon your judgments.
Ugh! Thank you for this information, gee I never knew that....
Unfortunately, I fear, it will be cases
> just like this which will finally start waking people up. Yes they
> will be summarized in books, magazines, and television shows produced
> by the same publishers and programmers who contributed to the
> acceptance of the superstition in the first place.
>
> Using astrology for medical advice is reckless and irresponsible.
It has been done for thousands of years....It is very widespread in
other countries.
> Those who give this kind of advice are making the assumption, "If
> you're stupid enough to believe me, then you deserve to die." How
> does it feel to be one of those people, Colleen?
Please refrain from familiarity. Your argument reminds me of some
communist/religious propaganda. You paint a bleak picture that just
doesn't exist.
Has anyone ever died
> because of buying into your bogus witchdoctoring?
I have never worked with medical Astrology in the manner you are
referring to. I like to look at illness from a pyschosomatic angle by
trying to unravel the underlying causes. "Look into the depths of your
own soul and learn first to know yourself, then you will understand why
this illness was bound to come upon you and perhaps you will thenceforth
avoid falling ill." Freud
Do you honestly
> believe your practice is more reliable than the best medical science
> has to offer?
I never made such claims, nor would I ever in the future. I do believe
medical science relys too heavily on allopathic solutions and would fare
better if they incorporated more holistic forms of healing. Nor would I
ever use Astrology exclusively....
If so, then you really should be asking what world
> *you* live in. And then you should get out
What do you suggest? The gas chamber, jumping off a bridge, a leather
belt? Wherever they burn books, they will also, in the end, burn
people. -Heinrich Heine
of it before you hurt
> someone in my world.
>
Are you sure you weren't an inquisator in one of your past lives?
Gee, what a horrific thought that I would be forced to become like you
in order to be accepted, and if I didn't live up to your expectations??
Don't worry, your flocks will survive without you rescueing them, and
Astrology will continue to fascinate and aggravate people.
The face of tyranny is always mild at first. Racine
> >Coleen
>
> Brant
Marsha
> On Tue, 27 May 1997 09:37:23 -0500, Marsha <sha...@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Brant Watson wrote:
> >
> >
> >Brant,
> >
> >Medical doctors are not the "gods" that some of them, the AMA,
> >pharmaceutical companies (& apparently you) would like people to
> >believe. In fact many could accurately be accused of some of the "sins"
> >that cynics are accusing astrologers of committing. Greed for one.
> >Especially many surgeons. Many choose the profession because of the
> >income possibilities.
>
> If you wish to propose that you are justified in interfering in
> people's lives
I don't claim to be a professional astrologer & I don't interfere in
people's lives by giving medical advice. I have some knowledge of
astrology. I'm interested in astrology & I know it works. I stated my
opinion on both the positive & negative aspects of medical doctors &
astrologers.
> because of this cynical attitude toward doctors, then
> this is a specious and dishonest argument. You will discover the
> truth of my remark when you have a serious medical disorder that
> requires surgery. When you have a heart attack or stroke or are
> bleeding to death, I want to see you go to your astrologer or consult
> your charts.
Actually my attitude isn't cynical--in my case it's realistic. You
assume I've never had any experiences that led me to my beliefs on this
subject like you, who apparently hasn't had enough experience with
astrology to intelligently discuss it.
When I was 19 years old I had surgery for an ovarian cyst (which I found
out later didn't require surgery).
After the surgery I was given blood (and remember being angry & telling
them that I didn't want that blood unless it was mine--in my pain-killer
state)--I became jaundiced from the blood that they gave me.
Then there was a nurse that would come to me in the middle of the night
when I told her I needed something for pain. I remember seeing her as
an "angel". She would give me a shot & then lie down herself on the
empty bed next to mine. I thought she must really be tired working the
night shift. When she quit coming & the next nurse wouldn't give me
anything that "worked" I vehemently complained to the doctor who told me
that she was fired & had been giving me morphine to which I had become
addicted. Being taken off of that created more pain than the sugery
ever did. The blanket I asked for because I was freezing felt like a
ton of bricks being put on top of me.
And during this I couldn't keep down the high-protein diet for the
jaundice that was mistakenly given to me while my body was trying to
recover from surgery.
Whatever was done in surgery led another doctor to tell me on a
follow-up visit that I would never be able to have children. I didn't
believe him, but was surprised that my belief manifested so soon--a year
later I was pregnant.
I also have an Rh- blood factor--my husband's is Rh+. I was concerned
about this & did some reading & found that it should be checked at
certain times during a pregnancy. When my doctor on my regular checkups
never did anything about this, I hestitated to say anything because I
didn't want to "question" this "authority", but thinking about my
previous experience I realized that if I don't question the doctor I may
be hurting my child. So, I asked him about it. He was very upset with
himself & apologized profusely for not doing it & immediately took the
blood for the tests. We lived in a small town & it was well-known that
this doctor was having major personal problems regarding his wife & his
younger girlfriend & the possiblity that he may have to sell his
horses. So, I understood his preoccupation with his own problems, & I
liked him personally (not my place to judge his personal life) & knew
that he was well-intentioned. I didn't consult astrology in any of
these situations, but I believe it could only have improved the
situtation if I had.
> >The practice of medicine can be compared to the practice of astrology.
>
> I'm going to say something I rarely say...BULLSHIT!!!!
>
> >There are practitioners in both areas who are knowledgeable, ethical,
> >sincere & adept at their chosen art. A Medical doctor is not a
> >scientist. He uses science--biology, chemistry, etc. and practices his
> >art--as an astrologer uses mathematics, astronomy, etc.
>
> And it's that "etc." which comprises all the bunk we know as
> astrology. The fact that a doctor uses science, *and* reason, *and*
> rigor, *and* intense critical evaluation, *and* the Hippocratic Oath,
> *and* accountability, *and* objectively measurable results that makes
> his/her practice valuable. Astrologers exempt themselves from *all*
> of these things. No other profession is so completely devoid of these
> methods and checks and balances as astrology is. To compare astrology
> and medicine is an insult to the intelligence.
>
> >In each field
> >some are better at it than others. And in each field some work better
> >for some people than others.
>
> The only measure of success for an astrologer is the number of
> people successfully conned.
>
> >A surgeon doesn't schedule surgery to coincide with the best time for
> >the person unless it's an emergency, & then it's often whoever is on
> >call. He schedules it to fit in best with his schedule. (Other
> >surgery, sometimes golf, etc.) They would have better results if they
> >did schedule surgery using astrology. And it would also benefit their
> >reputation$!$
> >
> >Marsha
>
> These same doctors who you so unfairly malign,
Not unfairly, & if malign means talking about mistakes made by doctors,
you must be living in a different country under a different form of
government than I am.
> save thousands of
> lives every day. They provide services of a quality which is
> unmatched in almost any other profession.
Not unmatched, everyone makes mistakes--theirs are just more serious
when they make them.
> Your claim that they would
> have better results using astrology is a mindless appeal to
> superstition and ignorance
One form of ignorance is putting authority figures (medicine,
law-enforcement, government, parents...) on pedestals & not questioning
them.
and I just hop there aren;t a lot of people
> who listen to it.
And I hope a lot of people don't listen to you.
> But in any case, you are welcome to show evidence
> in support of your ideas
The facts in my personal experience is the only evidence I need. And I
don't need your "welcome" to do anything.
> Go ahead,
make your day?
> show the evidence which
> demonstrates the astrological effects which you feel doctors should
> consider in scheduling surgery.
I'm not a professional astrologer as I told you above. And these
considerations were mentioned in the original post in this thread. I
was responding to what in my opinion looked like your blind trust in
authority figures (in this instance MD's)--including the attitude that
looks to me as if you're trying to set yourself up as an authority
figure based on old & tired traditional viewpoints. Are you really that
much of a follower? If you want your own followers you need to be a
little more orignal. Maybe your chart would answer this question.
> Heck, just show ONE!
Raising your voice won't intimidate me. I know, it's hard to use
physically aggressive tactics in writing.
If you can do
> it, James Randi will *gladly* make you a million dollars richer. (Oh,
> that's right...your intentions are purely magnanimous.)
What's my ulterior motive? A bit of projection here?
>
> In the meantime, you can only hurt anyone who listens to you.
And here.
>
> Brant
>
All I was trying to get across was that some people are competent &
sincere & some are one or the other or neither. No matter what they
do--medicine or astrology. I was responding to your statements that
appeared to be saying that no astrologers are competent or sincere but
that all medical doctors are. It's not as simple as you would like it to
be.
I don't need an outside "authority" (Randi?) to validate my beliefs.
And my only motives here are to be sincerely understood & to understand
others & myself. Astrology helps me to do that.
If I were a competent astrologer I would use my chart to point out the
influences that signify my medical experiences. In fact I would be
willing to split the million dollars with you. Heck, you could have the
whole million. But first of all you would have to prove to me that you
are open-minded & I don't think that you have left room in your beliefs
to allow for even the possiblity that astrology may work. A competent
astrologer would be welcome to use my chart for this, but then I have a
feeling you would not accept any positive results after the fact? Even
though that is how we learn sometimes, after the fact, from experience.
I know I sure did.
I am 100% sincere in everything I have said here--also maybe a bit
sarcastic at times. If you do respond at all to this, would you please
respond as a rational human being & not an emotional bully?
Marsha
Brant Watson
>Brant Watson wrote:
>> Christ, this is even worse than I thought! Not only are you telling
>> a person to ignore his doctor's advice, but you have undermined the
>> patient's confidence in his doctor's diagnosis if surgery is scheduled
>> during an astrologically inauspicious time...as if there are just lots
>> of surgeons who check horoscopes before scheduling surgery.
>>
>> If a person makes a tragic mistake in following this kind of advice,
>> can he sue you for it? Don't you have any conscience whatsoever? Do
>> you actually feel it is ethical and moral to give this kind of advice,
>> or do you exempt yourself from responsibility because of the other
>> person's misplaced trust in your advice?
>>
>> Brant
>
>
>Dear Brant, where have you been? Most hospital employees would agree
>that emergency wards and maternity stations are busier on full/new
>moons!
I have been in a place seldom frequented by some of the people I've
encountered here...the real world, where people live and die by
natural causes. One of those natural causes of death is ignorance.
Those who agree to this moon business are as ill-informed as you
are. You have read books with bogus claims promoted by publishers who
are *only* concerned about making money. They sell idiotic notions
pushed by authors *only* interested in...making money. Numerous tests
of lunar phases and their alleged effects have been conducted and
virtually all research upon which these claims is based is utter bunk.
Data is shamelessly fudged and selected in a highly suspicious manner.
The results, already determined by these purveyors of nonsense, are
totally invalid and have repeatedly been shown so.
But why do so many people still believe this nonsense? Because the
truth about these things just isn't as exciting. It doesn't sell.
Some emergency room and maternity nurses and other hospital personnel
may still believe these effects, but this is completely accountable to
bias fulfillment. The actual statistics show no correlation between
the moon and hospital activity at all. People see what they believe
they will see.
>I would go even further and check out the natal chart of the
>doctor and do a composite/synastry chart between the doctor and patient.
>We live in a consumer oriented society.... Doctors with lets say,
>challenging Mars/Uranus aspects may be too quick at promoting surgery. I
>would definately recommend talking with the anesthesiologist before
>surgery begins if the chart shows a tendency towards allergic reactions
>ect. I know of one particular doctor who removes tonsils for profits....
This is not only complete quackery, it is dangerous quackery. I
challenge you again to assume medical responsibility for giving bogus
astrological advice which is contrary to a doctor's recommendations or
diagnosis. Your kind of superstition kills people. Would you like me
to give you some examples of people who died because they put their
trust in charlatans and pretenders to great wisdom or insight?
The great consumerism you idealize is partly responsible for so many
people being tragically misled by modern superstitions and religious
fanaticism. So what if doctors perform their very special services
for a premium? Most of them deserve it.
I hope you never use this kind of reasoning on your own children.
But if you do and it has tragic results, there is legal precedent for
what can happen . You can be charged with negligence. The court
won't be interested in your superstitions when someone else's life
depended upon your judgments. Unfortunately, I fear, it will be cases
just like this which will finally start waking people up. Yes they
will be summarized in books, magazines, and television shows produced
by the same publishers and programmers who contributed to the
acceptance of the superstition in the first place.
Using astrology for medical advice is reckless and irresponsible.
Those who give this kind of advice are making the assumption, "If
you're stupid enough to believe me, then you deserve to die." How
does it feel to be one of those people, Colleen? Has anyone ever died
because of buying into your bogus witchdoctoring? Do you honestly
believe your practice is more reliable than the best medical science
has to offer? If so, then you really should be asking what world
*you* live in. And then you should get out of it before you hurt
someone in my world.
>Coleen
Brant
Brant Watson
>Brant Watson wrote:
>>
>>
>> Christ, this is even worse than I thought! Not only are you telling
>> a person to ignore his doctor's advice, but you have undermined the
>> patient's confidence in his doctor's diagnosis if surgery is scheduled
>> during an astrologically inauspicious time...as if there are just lots
>> of surgeons who check horoscopes before scheduling surgery.
>>
>> If a person makes a tragic mistake in following this kind of advice,
>> can he sue you for it? Don't you have any conscience whatsoever? Do
>> you actually feel it is ethical and moral to give this kind of advice,
>> or do you exempt yourself from responsibility because of the other
>> person's misplaced trust in your advice?
>>
>> Brant
>
>
>Brant,
>
>Medical doctors are not the "gods" that some of them, the AMA,
>pharmaceutical companies (& apparently you) would like people to
>believe. In fact many could accurately be accused of some of the "sins"
>that cynics are accusing astrologers of committing. Greed for one.
>Especially many surgeons. Many choose the profession because of the
>income possibilities.
If you wish to propose that you are justified in interfering in
people's lives because of this cynical attitude toward doctors, then
this is a specious and dishonest argument. You will discover the
truth of my remark when you have a serious medical disorder that
requires surgery. When you have a heart attack or stroke or are
bleeding to death, I want to see you go to your astrologer or consult
your charts. Doctors aren't gods and medicine isn't perfect, but
astrological medical advice is pure quackery.
These same doctors who you so unfairly malign, save thousands of
lives every day. They provide services of a quality which is
unmatched in almost any other profession. Your claim that they would
have better results using astrology is a mindless appeal to
superstition and ignorance and I just hop there aren;t a lot of people
who listen to it. But in any case, you are welcome to show evidence
in support of your ideas. Go ahead, show the evidence which
demonstrates the astrological effects which you feel doctors should
consider in scheduling surgery. Heck, just show ONE! If you can do
it, James Randi will *gladly* make you a million dollars richer. (Oh,
that's right...your intentions are purely magnanimous.)
In the meantime, you can only hurt anyone who listens to you.
Brant
Edmond Wollmann
Brant Watson wrote:
> If you wish to propose that you are justified in interfering in
> people's lives because of this cynical attitude toward doctors, then
> this is a specious and dishonest argument.
If you wish to propose that you are justified in interfering in
people's lives because of this cynical attitude toward astrology, then
this is a specious and dishonest argument.
--
"And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right, where I belong I'm
right, where I belong!" The Beatles "Fixing a Hole"
Peter A. Smith
If anyone is seriously interested in the influence of lunar cycles, try:
The Lunar Effect
by Arnold L. Lieber M.D.
Published by Corgi in 1979
0 552 11048 5
A well-researched book which considers surgery as well as other topics
such as aggression, and includes an extensive bibliography.
--
Peter A. Smith
And the people all cried "Never fear,
Here comes Smith, the Engineer".
Theresa Ornell
Brant Watson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 27 May 1997 08:52:51 -0500, Theresa Ornell
>
> >Brant Watson wrote:
>
> >> Christ, this is even worse than I thought! Not only are you telling
> >> a person to ignore his doctor's advice, but you have undermined the
> >> patient's confidence in his doctor's diagnosis if surgery is scheduled
> >> during an astrologically inauspicious time...as if there are just lots
> >> of surgeons who check horoscopes before scheduling surgery.
> >>
> >> If a person makes a tragic mistake in following this kind of advice,
> >> can he sue you for it? Don't you have any conscience whatsoever? Do
> >> you actually feel it is ethical and moral to give this kind of advice,
> >> or do you exempt yourself from responsibility because of the other
> >> person's misplaced trust in your advice?
> >>
> >> Brant
> >
> >
>
> Brant
What do they call the person that graduated last in his class? Doctor!!
What should the doctor in Florida do who amputated the wrong leg ?
Jump?
What should the doctor in Massachusetts do who took out the wrong
kidney Jump?
What should the doctor in Massachusetts do who over radiated a young
mother who died unnecessarily? Jump? Or meet the spaceship behind
hale-bop?
How come there are patients who are marking their own limbs with right
and wrong so no mistakes are made?
There are quacks in every profession, even yours I'm sure.
Coleen
Brant Watson
>Brant Watson wrote:
>
>> Any such correlations, discovered by *medical* research, may have
>> significance and you can be sure, nothing whatsoever to do with
>> astrological influences.
>
>SNIP! I can assure anyone reading these posts, that NOTHING can be
>assured about anything except that this type of "sureness" is the surest
>sign of cynicism.
It may also be a sign that I am correct. You, of course, are more
than welcome to show that astrology is on a par with medicine and in
some cases, as suggested in several posts, superior to it. I would
appreciate such evidence because where my health is concerned, I don't
want to play games or accept *any* approach which is demonstrably
inferior, no matter *how* much I may have become accustomed to it.
>How many times have we turned the unimaginable anamoly
>into what we now commonly accept? History backs me in saying that it is
>more likely that what we now accept as truth, will be turned on its
>head.
This very thing has happened to astrology. Yet it persists.
<snip John Keats' and Joni Mitchell's affirmations of Ed's beliefs>
Brant
Kevin Burk
Brant Watson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 May 1997 22:12:48 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
> <woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>
> >Brant Watson wrote:
> >
> >> Any such correlations, discovered by *medical* research, may have
> >> significance and you can be sure, nothing whatsoever to do with
> >> astrological influences.
> >
> >SNIP! I can assure anyone reading these posts, that NOTHING can be
> >assured about anything except that this type of "sureness" is the surest
> >sign of cynicism.
>
> It may also be a sign that I am correct. You, of course, are more
> than welcome to show that astrology is on a par with medicine and in
> some cases, as suggested in several posts, superior to it. I would
> appreciate such evidence because where my health is concerned, I don't
> want to play games or accept *any* approach which is demonstrably
> inferior, no matter *how* much I may have become accustomed to it.
>
> Brant
Brant,
If I might interject here, I've been vaguely following this post from
the beginning, and although I have certainly skipped over portions of
it, I don't recall anywhere anyone offering astrology as a substitute
for a doctor's advice. Even astrologers who specialize in the various
forms of medical astrology (which can be quite accurate) as a matter of
course do not advise their clients to ignore their physician's advice,
nor do they offer their services as a substitute for a medical exam.
The original post, also, was asking about choosing the best time for
elective surgery. The key word here is "elective". To me, this means
that the surgery is not critical, and that the condition is not
life-threatening. There is nothing wrong with using astrology to choose
the most fortuitous time for the surgery, although in reality there will
always be some time constraints (i.e. the surgeon's schedule, the
hospital's availability, etc. Few surgeons would consent to perform
elective surgery at 2:00 a.m.; many won't do it on their regular day for
golf as it is...).
Medical astrology in general is far more effective when used as a
preventative measure. By becoming aware of how the cycles and transits
may impact our physical bodies, we can then take simple precautionary
measures to prevent a potentially more serious illness.
Brant Watson
On Fri, 30 May 1997 09:16:52 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Brant Watson wrote:
>
>> If you wish to propose that you are justified in interfering in
>> people's lives because of this cynical attitude toward doctors, then
>> this is a specious and dishonest argument.
>
> If you wish to propose that you are justified in interfering in
> people's lives because of this cynical attitude toward astrology, then
> this is a specious and dishonest argument.
Well, here's why my argument is not specious or dishonest. Medical
science has provided us with the best health care currently possible
for our species to offer. While doctors are human and not everything
is known, they provide a service which is of indisputable value to
anyone who is not trying to interject their own pseudoscience or
religion into the scene. Astrology, on the other hand, can offer *no*
evidence that it has *any* ability to provide decent medical advice or
care. Those who presume to give health advice to others on the basis
of astrology are, by any definition one wants to use, quacks,
crackpots, or predatory frauds.
>"And it really doesn't matter if I'm wrong I'm right, where I belong I'm
>right, where I belong!" The Beatles "Fixing a Hole"
"Baby you can drive my car." The Beatles
"Just give me money, that's what I need." The Beatles
Deep stuff.
Brant
Brant Watson
On Fri, 30 May 1997 11:37:53 -0500, Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 May 1997 09:37:23 -0500, Marsha <sha...@mindspring.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Brant Watson wrote:
>
>> >
>> >
>> >Brant,
>> >
>> >Medical doctors are not the "gods" that some of them, the AMA,
>> >pharmaceutical companies (& apparently you) would like people to
>> >believe. In fact many could accurately be accused of some of the "sins"
>> >that cynics are accusing astrologers of committing. Greed for one.
>> >Especially many surgeons. Many choose the profession because of the
>> >income possibilities.
>>
>> If you wish to propose that you are justified in interfering in
>> people's lives
>
>I don't claim to be a professional astrologer & I don't interfere in
>people's lives by giving medical advice. I have some knowledge of
>astrology. I'm interested in astrology & I know it works. I stated my
>opinion on both the positive & negative aspects of medical doctors &
>astrologers.
Okay, good for you. But you clearly justify the use of astrology in
interfering in people's medical decisions on two grounds: 1) that
doctors aren't all they're cracked up to be, medically *or* ethically
and 2) astrology is just as legitimate as medicine. Both of these
justifications are intended to undermine confidence in standard
medicine while promoting the legitimacy of astrology. Both are
misleading and dangerous.
>> because of this cynical attitude toward doctors, then
>> this is a specious and dishonest argument. You will discover the
>> truth of my remark when you have a serious medical disorder that
>> requires surgery. When you have a heart attack or stroke or are
>> bleeding to death, I want to see you go to your astrologer or consult
>> your charts.
>
>Actually my attitude isn't cynical--in my case it's realistic. You
>assume I've never had any experiences that led me to my beliefs on this
>subject like you, who apparently hasn't had enough experience with
>astrology to intelligently discuss it.
<your story snipped because...>
I make no such assumption. I have also had bad experiences. There
is no question that once in awhile an astrologer will recommend
against surgery and it will later turn out to be true that surgery
would have been wrong. Does this make astrology right? No. It is
bound to have such luck on some occasions and these cases will no
doubt be paraded around as significant.
You have had more than your share of bad experiences, but this is
not typical. We have both acknowleged that doctors (and nurses) are
not perfect. In fact, some are downright scoundrels. But because
doctors have become so good at so many things, I sometimes think we
expect them to be perfect. A person with bad experiences such as you
have had might be tempted to turn elsewhere for advice. It's too bad
that we have astrologers who are more than willing to capitalize on
the imperfections of medical personnel. Since doctors are right about
most things most of the time, getting contradictory advice will more
often than not, be wrong. Those who offer it should be willing to
accept responsibility, as doctors must. I ask again, what do you
think an astrologer would have to pay for medical malpractice
insurance? Do you think any insurance company will ever underwrite
such a policy?
You're upset about your experiences...justifiably. Condemning
medicine in general, or comparing it to astrology are not justifiable
responses. Medical boards police the quality of their practitioners.
The nurse who doped you up was immediately fired. Who fires a bad
medical-astrologer? Who certifies them? What court holds them
responsible? What evidence is there that *any* of their methods work?
>> save thousands of
>> lives every day. They provide services of a quality which is
>> unmatched in almost any other profession.
>
>Not unmatched, everyone makes mistakes--theirs are just more serious
>when they make them.
Name the profession which saves as many lives or even a small fraction
of the lives that modern medicine saves.
>> Your claim that they would
>> have better results using astrology is a mindless appeal to
>> superstition and ignorance
>
>One form of ignorance is putting authority figures (medicine,
>law-enforcement, government, parents...) on pedestals & not questioning
>them.
Medicine is not based on authority. It is based on the more rigorous
standards of evidence than any other human endeavor. Astrology, on
the other hand, is based *entirely* on authority. And that authority
is not only unable to describe any mechanism by which astrology works,
it is unable to show that astrology *does* work.
> and I just hop there aren;t a lot of people
>> who listen to it.
>
>And I hope a lot of people don't listen to you.
I wish there was some way to verify what you do the next time you have
a serious injury or illness. If I encourage people to follow the best
medical advice available, my conscience is clear because it is the
very best our species can offer...and provably so. Astrology, on the
other hand, never has been and never will be anything but a bogus
interference with the best available treatments. Put your money on
astrology if you wish, but when you give someone advice to do the
same, you'd better be prepared to show how your suggestion was based
on verifiable knowledge of astrology's worth. I can do that with
medicine...you can't even begin to do it with astrology.
BTW, why not advise people to seek out a faith healer or voodoo
witchdoctor?
>> But in any case, you are welcome to show evidence
>> in support of your ideas
>
>The facts in my personal experience is the only evidence I need. And I
>don't need your "welcome" to do anything.
You can do whatever ill-advised thing you want with your own body.
But when you start advertising alternatives to medicine in such a
manner that others may follow your advice, I not only welcome you to
show evidence, I demand it. This is the only way to get others to see
their folly, as the promoters of astrology will be utterly unable to
demonstrate the legitimacy of astrology.
>> Go ahead,
>
>make your day?
>
>> show the evidence which
>> demonstrates the astrological effects which you feel doctors should
>> consider in scheduling surgery.
>
>I'm not a professional astrologer as I told you above. And these
>considerations were mentioned in the original post in this thread. I
>was responding to what in my opinion looked like your blind trust in
>authority figures (in this instance MD's)--
My trust is not blind, nor is it in authority. What about your trust
of astrology?
>including the attitude that
>looks to me as if you're trying to set yourself up as an authority
>figure based on old & tired traditional viewpoints. Are you really that
>much of a follower? If you want your own followers you need to be a
>little more orignal. Maybe your chart would answer this question.
>
>> Heck, just show ONE!
>
>Raising your voice won't intimidate me. I know, it's hard to use
>physically aggressive tactics in writing.
Nice dodge. You didn't show one, did you?
> If you can do
>> it, James Randi will *gladly* make you a million dollars richer. (Oh,
>> that's right...your intentions are purely magnanimous.)
>
>What's my ulterior motive? A bit of projection here?
You could take the million and give it to astrological-medical
research. Now let me see, what was the address of one of those
research facilities?...
>>
>> In the meantime, you can only hurt anyone who listens to you.
>
>And here.
>>
>> Brant
>>
>
>All I was trying to get across was that some people are competent &
>sincere & some are one or the other or neither. No matter what they
>do--medicine or astrology. I was responding to your statements that
>appeared to be saying that no astrologers are competent or sincere but
>that all medical doctors are. It's not as simple as you would like it to
>be.
I said nothing about sincerity, but now that you bring it up, one
thing that I am intent on finding out is the proportion of astrologers
who are sincere and those who are outright frauds. Frauds in medicine
are rare, as doctors have to pass a strict gauntlet of professional
evaluation...something that no astrologer has to do. As far as
competence, I *will* say that *all* astrologers are medically
incompetent to the degree that they depend on astrology. It is the
astrology that is incompetent.
In the case of astrology, it *is* as simple as I want it to be.
>I don't need an outside "authority" (Randi?) to validate my beliefs.
>And my only motives here are to be sincerely understood & to understand
>others & myself. Astrology helps me to do that.
It's amazing how many paranormalists just have no need at all for a
million dollars!
>If I were a competent astrologer
You would be in a class by yourself.
>I would use my chart to point out the
>influences that signify my medical experiences. In fact I would be
>willing to split the million dollars with you. Heck, you could have the
>whole million. But first of all you would have to prove to me that you
>are open-minded
Alas, I could prove no such thing because I am *not* open-minded where
astrologically divined medical advice is concerned. There is no
evidence of its success, no explanation for its methods, and no system
for accountability. There is no need to be openminded, no matter how
fashionable that is these days...not when the evidence is so clear.
Still, if the evidence were to be shown, I would have to change my
mind. I predict that the evidence will never be shown, except through
the same unreliable sources and inconclusive methods that it has
always been. I am as certain of this as I am that the earth will not
be shown to be flat, and my reasons for believing that are just as
good.
>& I don't think that you have left room in your beliefs
>to allow for even the possiblity that astrology may work. A competent
>astrologer would be welcome to use my chart for this, but then I have a
>feeling you would not accept any positive results after the fact?
You make the all-important "after-the-fact" exclusion. Well done!
Now why do you suppose someone would not be impressed with
after-the-fact comparisons?
> Even
>though that is how we learn sometimes, after the fact, from experience.
>I know I sure did.
>
>I am 100% sincere in everything I have said here--also maybe a bit
>sarcastic at times. If you do respond at all to this, would you please
>respond as a rational human being & not an emotional bully?
I believe you are 100% sincere. Now before you get others to abandon
medical advice for astrological advice, make the determination of how
*right* you are.
Some thoughts on parting...who determined that you didn't need
surgery? Do you still have ovarian cancer? Who fired the nurse?
What system set the standards for providing you with compensation for
medical malpractice, (if that's what it was)? What was your
alternative to jaundice...death, perhaps? And only you will know this
one: in what ways have doctors performed healing procedures for
yourself and members of your family?
>Marsha
Brant
Brant Watson
On Thu, 29 May 1997 22:00:08 -0700, Edmond Wollmann
<woll...@aznet.net> wrote:
>Brant Watson wrote:
>
>> I have been in a place seldom frequented by some of the people I've
>> encountered here...the real world, where people live and die by
>> natural causes. One of those natural causes of death is ignorance.
>>
>> Those who agree to this moon business are as ill-informed as you
>> are. You have read books with bogus claims promoted
>
>SNIP!
>Nothing is ever proven. The null hypothesis is disproven or changes in
>the null hypothesis are weighed against alternative hypothesis.
>Probability values determine whether there is significant evidence for
>rejecting or accepting the null hypothesis.
>Theories are made of consctructs. Constructs are beliefs and pardigms.
This is the response of a con artst when presented with
contradictory evidence. Studies which purport to show lunar
influences, when examined more closely, are highly selective with
extremely ill-defined variables, obviously constructed in such a way
to show positive results. Tests that demonstrate legitimate data
analysis reveal no effect. Does this prove there is no lunar effect?
No. But in order to continue claiming that such an effect exists, the
believer has to argue that the effect only works some of the time, in
some locations, and manifests itself in numerous unrelated ways. This
is particularly difficult to justify when the mechanism has never been
demonstrated, nor can one be reasonably argued for.
>Theory=A systematic arrangement of facts with respect to some real or
>HYPOTHETICAL laws; a hypothetical explanation of phenomena; a hypothesis
>NOT YET empirically verified as a law, but accepted as the basis for
>experimentation; an exposition of the general or abstract principles of
>any science or humanity which have been DERIVED from PRACTICE; a plan or
>a system SUGGESTED as a METHOD of action; an ideal arrangement of
>events, usu. preceeded by in; a doctrine or SCHEME of things resting
>merely on SPECULATION, contemplation, supposition, or conjecture!
>Lexicon/Webster, page 1018 #2 of two volume set.
>
>Hypothesis generate theories. Theories generate data to look at.
>Theories exist within paradigms. Paradigms are sets of belief
>assumptions.
Again, as you did when explaining the reason for equinoctical
precession, your points here are irrelevant. They have little to do
with the fact that the lunar effect is a myth.
>"The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions";
>"We believe every effort should be made to study abnormal behavior
>according to scientific principles. It should be clear at this point
>however, that science is NOT a completely objective and certain
>enterprise. Rather, as we can infer by the comment from Kuhn, subjective
>factors, as well as limitations in our perspective on the universe,
>enter
>into the conduct of scientific enquiry. Central to any application of
>scientific principles, in Kuhn's veiw, is the concept of a paradigm, a
>conceptual framework or approach within which a scientist works. A
>paradigm according to Kuhn, is a set of basic assumptions that outline
>the PARTICULAR UNIVERSE OF SCIENTIFIC ENQUIRY..." (my emphasis)
>In addition to injecting inevitable biases into the definition and
>collection of data, a paradigm may also affect the interpretation of
>facts. In other words, the meaning or import given to data may depend to
>a considerable extent on a paradigm.
>University of Southern California", State University of New York"
>Davidson and Neale, 6th
>edition, 1996. Wiley and sons publishers.
>
>In short paradigmatical definitions (beliefs) can affect perception.
In short, you can invent (or extend) any paradigm you want and call it
legitimate. You actually seem to believe that all these people you
quote are in some sense agreeing with you. Do you believe Kuhn would
say, "Ed is right...since he presumes other paradigms, he is allowed
to exclude any objective analysis of data which undermines the claims
he is making."
Sorry, Ed, it doesn't work...and here's why: these alleged lunar
effects are fully a part of the scientific paradigm and therefore
completely assessable by its methods. They include stillbirths, birth
rates, general criminal behavior, murders, hemorrhages, etc.
Analysis of the frequency of these effects falls fully within the
scientific paradigm. They are correlated to a specific spatial
relationship between the sun, moon, and earth. This too, is completely
understandable and measurable within the scientific paradigm.
Therefore, your argument fails. Now if you said that "lunar phases
affect one's ability to absorb the psychic vibrational energies of the
collective multiversal superconsciousness thus achieving a unity with
a higher, supernatural dimensional plane," then the scientific
paradigm would be inapplicable, according to what Kuhn actually seemed
to be saying. But as soon as you start using references which are
part of the scientifically observable world, those for which there
*are* existing hypotheses, theories, and methods of observation and
analysis, you have to accept the rules of *that* paradigm.
>Absence of evidence from one paradigm to another proves only that the
>above
>connections have different sets of propositions to explain results.
As I said, frequency of the advertised effects compared to lunar
phases, is NOT from another paradigm. In fact, the
mystical/astrological/religious paradigms, any you may choose, should
be eliminated from the discussion precisely because of the very
argument you make: they have propositions which have nothing to do
with simple statistical analysis. It is the astrological paradigm
which is being misapplied to purely mundane events, not the other way
around.
>We can never PROVE anything, we can only measure the truth premise of
>inductive logic through confidence intervals and tests os
>significance-which still doesn't prove anything.
>Hence we never proved that the Earth was round, we only disproved to
>some degree, in this reality, at this time with these assumptions-that
>it is not flat (in relative terms).
This pretty well sums it up. If you do not believe the earth has been
completely proven not to be flat, then you can believe or deny
anything. So can I. Who wins?... the guy who has the most charisma
and is best at conning people, in your paradigm.
Personally, I like my paradigm better...the one which recognizes
objective reality, the unyielding nature of facts, dependence on
mutually obtainable evidence, the objective analysis of phenomena,
verification or refutation by replicable experiment or observation,
and the unparalleled quality and quantity of knowledge which has
resulted from that paradigm. I believe this paradigm, as briefly
characterized by one moderately educated layman, to be so powerful,
compelling, and beautiful, that I will allow you, without further
comment from me, to have the last word...
>Belief system="This will be one of the aspects that creates your
>artificial construct personality. It will be one of the cornerstones of
>the prism of personality. The other two will be emotion and thought. It
>is what is responsible for the methodology, along with the other two
>ideas, of how you choose to exercise your physiological mental free will
>in giving yourself the type of approach to your life that you do. It
>will be responsible for the creation of your physical reality and the
>reflection of that reality through your physical senses back to your
>mentality."
>
>Reality= "Will simply be an idea being expressed and experienced."
>Bashar Darryl Anka, "The New Metaphysics", Light and Sound
>Communications, Beverly Hills CA., 1987
Marsha
Brant Watson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 May 1997 11:37:53 -0500, Marsha <sharma!@mindspring.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 27 May 1997 09:37:23 -0500, Marsha <sha...@mindspring.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Brant Watson wrote:
> Okay, good for you. But you clearly justify the use of astrology in
> interfering in people's medical decisions on two grounds: 1) that
> doctors aren't all they're cracked up to be, medically *or* ethically
> and 2) astrology is just as legitimate as medicine. Both of these
> justifications are intended to undermine confidence
My statements in previous posts were intended to express my opinion
which is based on my own experience.
> in standard
> medicine while promoting the legitimacy of astrology.
The practitioners of medicine need to be questioned--not given total
trust. People often totally "surrender" to a doctor's care without
finding out "what caused this?", "why do you think this is necessary as
opposed to that?", "what are the side effects of this drug?", "isn't
there something that could be done to reverse the situation rather than
cover up the symptoms?", etc. Most people, when not questioned & when
their word is habitually taken as authority tend to believe themselves
that they are an authority & act in confidence & sometimes
over-confident that they are right & don't question themselves. It's
easy to do. It's power. And people "give" their power to doctors & let
them make decisions for them.
Astrologers don't make decisions for a person. They offer insight that
could help someone make their own decision. Kevin Burke's earlier post
reminds us of what Haizen Paige's original post was about: Scheduling
elective surgery.
> Both are
> misleading and dangerous.
No, it's misleading & dangerous to perpetuate the belief that one should
just put themselves in the hands of a doctor and leave everything up to
them. Allowing doctors to make decisions for me was dangerous to me.
What you are defending--the status quo, the omniscience of doctors, is
dangerous.
> <your story snipped because...>
>
> I make no such assumption.
Actually, you did in a previous post.
> I have also had bad experiences. There
> is no question that once in awhile an astrologer will recommend
> against surgery and it will later turn out to be true that surgery
> would have been wrong. Does this make astrology right? No. It is
> bound to have such luck on some occasions and these cases will no
> doubt be paraded around as significant.
>
> You have had more than your share of bad experiences, but this is
> not typical. We have both acknowleged that doctors (and nurses) are
> not perfect. In fact, some are downright scoundrels. But because
> doctors have become so good at so many things, I sometimes think we
> expect them to be perfect.
That's the problem, people don't question them because they do expect
that they know what they're doing--and because of that many doctors act
as if they are perfect.
> A person with bad experiences such as you
> have had might be tempted to turn elsewhere for advice.
That's putting it rather mildly...for me they are a last resort because
I don't know of a doctor that I trust with my life. I would like to
know of one. But the situation as it is now, I could't even interview a
doctor to decide whether or not I might consider it.
> It's too bad
> that we have astrologers who are more than willing to capitalize on
> the imperfections of medical personnel.
I sure don't know of any that are doing that.
> Since doctors are right about most things most of the time,
I don't like those odds, (assuming it's correct, I don't know for sure)
especially when in my case I've been in the "some things some of the
time" category most of the time. Maybe you can accept that I'm just an
annoying statistic, and not take it too seriously because "the poor
maligned doctors do their best and what do they get for it? Criticism
when they make a mistake. Isn't that a shame". I hope you don't work
in a position dealing with human beings.
> getting contradictory advice will more
> often than not, be wrong
Not in my case. It would have been right. Since I'm in the minority I
shouldn't be given much consideration, right? It works for most people
so let's not think about those it doesn't work for.
> Those who offer it should be willing to
> accept responsibility, as doctors must. I ask again, what do you
> think an astrologer would have to pay for medical malpractice
> insurance? Do you think any insurance company will ever underwrite
> such a policy?
This is ridiculous, astrologers don't practice medicine.
> >> astrology. The fact that a doctor uses science, *and* reason, *and*
> >> rigor, *and* intense critical evaluation, *and* the Hippocratic Oath,
> >> *and* accountability, *and* objectively measurable results that makes
> >> his/her practice valuable.
A doctor should use those things, but all of them don't all of the time
& most of them haven't done the research themselves.
> >> >A surgeon doesn't schedule surgery to coincide with the best
time for
> >> >the person unless it's an emergency, & then it's often whoever is on
> >> >call. He schedules it to fit in best with his schedule. (Other
> >> >surgery, sometimes golf, etc.) They would have better results if they
> >> >did schedule surgery using astrology. And it would also benefit their
> >> >reputation$!$
> >> >
> >> >Marsha
> >>
> >> These same doctors who you so unfairly malign,
> >
> >Not unfairly, & if malign means talking about mistakes made by doctors,
> >you must be living in a different country under a different form of
> >government than I am.
>
> You're upset about your experiences...justifiably. Condemning
> medicine in general, or comparing it to astrology are not justifiable
> responses. Medical boards police the quality of their practitioners.
And also protect them.
> The nurse who doped you up was immediately fired. Who fires a bad
> medical-astrologer?
They don't practice medicine unless they happen to be MD's.
> Who certifies them? What court holds them
> responsible? What evidence is there that *any* of their methods work?
Post your birth info & maybe someone will give you that evidence.
>
> >> save thousands of
> >> lives every day. They provide services of a quality which is
> >> unmatched in almost any other profession.
> >
> >Not unmatched, everyone makes mistakes--theirs are just more serious
> >when they make them.
>
> Name the profession which saves as many lives or even a small fraction
> of the lives that modern medicine saves.
>
> >> Your claim that they would
> >> have better results using astrology is a mindless appeal to
> >> superstition and ignorance
> >
> >One form of ignorance is putting authority figures (medicine,
> >law-enforcement, government, parents...) on pedestals & not questioning
> >them.
>
> Medicine is not based on authority.
But is put on a pedestal as if it were--including by you. That's the
problem.
> It is based on the more rigorous
> standards of evidence than any other human endeavor.
But not always practiced as such.
> Astrology, on
> the other hand, is based *entirely* on authority. And that authority
> is not only unable to describe any mechanism by which astrology works,
> it is unable to show that astrology *does* work.
I disagree, I've seen that astrology works. I didn't take anyone's word
for it.
>
> > and I just hop there aren;t a lot of people
> >> who listen to it.
> >
> >And I hope a lot of people don't listen to you.
>
> I wish there was some way to verify what you do the next time you have
> a serious injury or illness.
I don't believe I will.
> If I encourage people to follow the best
> medical advice available, my conscience is clear because it is the
> very best our species can offer...and provably so. Astrology, on the
> other hand, never has been and never will be anything but a bogus
> interference with the best available treatments. Put your money on
> astrology if you wish,
I don't gamble.
> but when you give someone advice to do the
> same,
I've never given this type of advice. I've just related my experiences.
The only thing I've said that may be considered advice is to question
authority. Question doctors, question government, question
law-enforcement, question parents. Find out for yourself. Don't take
anyone's word for truth unless you've questioned them. Either by
talking or observing.
> you'd better be prepared to show how your suggestion was based
> on verifiable knowledge of astrology's worth.
Or else what? Sorry, but I lose the meaning of what you're saying when
you put yourself in an authoritarian position by making statements that
sound like threats.
My advice is to question. It's not based on astrology. But astrology
works for me.
> I can do that with
> medicine...
Are you a doctor?
you can't even begin to do it with astrology.
I could begin, but I'm not an astrologer.
>
> BTW, why not advise people to seek out a faith healer or voodoo
> witchdoctor?
Who knows, maybe they work? Some people believe they do. Who are we to
discredit these beliefs?
> >The facts in my personal experience is the only evidence I need.
>
> You can do whatever ill-advised thing you want with your own body.
Yes, like trust doctors without question.
> But when you start advertising alternatives to medicine
My daughter has been offered a position with the National Institute of
Health doing research in Alternative Medicine. Yes, the NIH has an
Alternative Medicine Department. Her Master's was in Medical Sociology
(BS in Psychology), PhD will be in Medical Anthropology. Ed Wollman's
recent post reminded me that the research she had been doing for her
Master's was qualitative not quantitative-- which works best in the
Social Sciences since they're dealing with human beings. Read Ed's post
about this.
Do you put these fields in the same category as astrology?
> in such a
> manner that others may follow your advice,
Again, the only advice I've given in this thread is to QUESTION
authority.
> I not only welcome you to show evidence, I demand it.
Who the hell are you to DEMAND. I am not a professional astrologer. I'm
getting tired of telling you this, aren't you tired of asking for
evidence? See if it works for you. It works for me. That's all the
evidence I need. I don't care if you want more. Do the work yourself.
> This is the only way to get others to see
> their folly, as the promoters of astrology will be utterly unable to
> demonstrate the legitimacy of astrology.
>
> >> Go ahead,
> >
> >make your day?
> >
> >> show the evidence which
> >> demonstrates the astrological effects which you feel doctors should
> >> consider in scheduling surgery.
> >
> >I'm not a professional astrologer as I told you above. And these
> >considerations were mentioned in the original post in this thread. I
> >was responding to what in my opinion looked like your blind trust in
> >authority figures (in this instance MD's)--
>
> My trust is not blind, nor is it in authority. What about your trust
> of astrology?
Astrology has worked in a positive way for me. I don't need research.
I'm not trying to convince you. I'm just trying to learn more about
astrology & get my point across to question tradition & authority--see
above.
> >> Heck, just show ONE!
> >
> >Raising your voice won't intimidate me. I know, it's hard to use
> >physically aggressive tactics in writing.
>
> Nice dodge. You didn't show one, did you?
It wasn't a dodge. I told you a few times. I'm not a professional
astrologer. I have the evidence I need to know that astrology works for
me. I also have the evidence I need to know that medicine very often
doesn't--in life-threatening situations.
>
> > If you can do
> >> it, James Randi will *gladly* make you a million dollars richer. (Oh,
> >> that's right...your intentions are purely magnanimous.)
> >
> >What's my ulterior motive? A bit of projection here?
>
> You could take the million and give it to astrological-medical
> research. Now let me see, what was the address of one of those
> research facilities?...
> >>
> >> In the meantime, you can only hurt anyone who listens to you.
It could hurt the bank accounts of some doctors if people question them
and then decide not to have elective surgery or go to another doctor
that they believe they can trust. But it can't hurt the people that are
doing the questioning & making the decision for themselves.
> >> Brant
> >>
> >
> >All I was trying to get across was that some people are competent &
> >sincere & some are one or the other or neither. No matter what they
> >do--medicine or astrology. I was responding to your statements that
> >appeared to be saying that no astrologers are competent or sincere but
> >that all medical doctors are. It's not as simple as you would like it to
> >be.
>
> I said nothing about sincerity, but now that you bring it up, one
> thing that I am intent on finding out is the proportion of astrologers
> who are sincere and those who are outright frauds. Frauds in medicine
> are rare, as doctors have to pass a strict gauntlet of professional
> evaluation...something that no astrologer has to do. As far as
> competence, I *will* say that *all* astrologers are medically
> incompetent to the degree that they depend on astrology. It is the
> astrology that is incompetent.
>
> In the case of astrology, it *is* as simple as I want it to be.
Anything can be as simple as you would like, especially when you don't
know anything about the subject.
>
> >I don't need an outside "authority" (Randi?) to validate my beliefs.
>
> It's amazing how many paranormalists just have no need at all for a
> million dollars!
No one NEEDS a million dollars. Paranormalist--that's a new word.
What's a normalist, you? Actually, everyone is paranormal. Normal
doesn't exist.
>
> >If I were a competent astrologer
>
> You would be in a class by yourself.
I disagree.
>
> >I would use my chart to point out the
> >influences that signify my medical experiences. In fact I would be
> >willing to split the million dollars with you. Heck, you could have the
> >whole million. But first of all you would have to prove to me that you
> >are open-minded
>
> Alas, I could prove no such thing because I am *not* open-minded where
> astrologically divined medical advice is concerned.
What if it's not medical?
> There is no
> evidence of its success, no explanation for its methods, and no system
> for accountability. There is no need to be openminded, no matter how
> fashionable that is these days
Geez, fashionable?
...not when the evidence is so clear.
> Still, if the evidence were to be shown, I would have to change my
> mind. I predict that the evidence will never be shown, except through
> the same unreliable sources and inconclusive methods that it has
> always been. I am as certain of this as I am that the earth will not
> be shown to be flat, and my reasons for believing that are just as
> good.
>
> >& I don't think that you have left room in your beliefs
> >to allow for even the possiblity that astrology may work. A competent
> >astrologer would be welcome to use my chart for this, but then I have a
> >feeling you would not accept any positive results after the fact?
>
> You make the all-important "after-the-fact" exclusion. Well done!
> Now why do you suppose someone would not be impressed with
> after-the-fact comparisons?
>
> > Even
> >though that is how we learn sometimes, after the fact, from experience.
> >I know I sure did.
> >
>
> I believe you are 100% sincere. Now before you get others to abandon
> medical advice for astrological advice, make the determination of how
> *right* you are.
Medical advice works great for some people, but it wouldn't hurt them to
question their doctors. That's the only advice I've given. I never
told anyone to abandon medical advice for astrological advice. I'm 100%
right for me. In fact in studying astrology (after the medical
experiences I've mentioned) I read that a particular placement in my
chart indicates that I would not be interested or helped much by
traditional medicine.
> Some thoughts on parting...who determined that you didn't need
> surgery?
My childhood doctor when I was visiting home & pregnant I went in for a
routine check-up & he asked what the scar was from. He said it hadn't
been done like that for years.
> Do you still have ovarian cancer?
It wasn't ovarian cancer. It was a simple cyst.
> Who fired the nurse?
The nurse who replaced her must have told whoever fired her, when I told
this nurse about it.
> What system set the standards for providing you with compensation for
> medical malpractice,
I wasn't given compensation, I didn't sue anyone, this was in 1968 & not
the first thing that came to people's minds. I was 19 and naive.
I didn't realize for awhile what had been done.
(if that's what it was)?
Are you saying I'm not telling the truth?
> What was your
> alternative to jaundice...death, perhaps?
The alternative to jaundice was Rh- blood for an Rh- person. Not Rh+.
I knew my blood type. They could have asked me if they felt they didn't
have time to run the test. I put up a fuss when they brought the blood
in and wasn't thinking clearly after surgery & anesthesia but I somehow
knew I didn't want it. They gave me a shot of something to calm me
down. They believed they were doing the right thing and assumed I was
delerious or something. I wasn't allowed to tell them.
> And only you will know this
> one: in what ways have doctors performed healing procedures for
> yourself and members of your family?
I am sorry, but any successful "healing procedures" performed on someone
else will never justify what was done to me, or lessen the errors and I
again refuse to be pacified by regarding myself as being in the
minority.
I did go to a doctor once after that. I woke up one morning & could
only turn my head to one side--a lot of pain if I tried to move it the
other way. The doctor prescribed pain-killers & muscle relaxers. When
I asked him what it was & what caused it, he said he didn't know, but
that it was "something I discovered over in Africa". :)
I think that one is funny.
It did go away on its own. And still is a mystery.
These experiences aren't with the same doctor. Each one was a different
doctor, and in 3 different states!
>
> >Marsha
>
> Brant
>mindspring.com
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 06:02:07 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson)
wrote:
> The reason beliefs throughout history have almost all been
>overturned is because of science and the technology which allow us to
>observe and evaluate the world in ways not possible before. It is
>also due to a philosophical ideal which acknowledges objective,
>observable reality which is accessible to anyone with the interest and
>acumen. The ideal also requires rigor and standards of acceptance
>which assure greater certainty. These principles, by the way, are
>fundamentally antithetical to your belief system. We have advanced,
>in other words, because of a system of thinking to which you are quite
>antagonistic, (or oblivious.)
>
> So whenever you feel like mentioning how much our knowledge has
>changed, please realize that astrology has been abandoned by most
>because we know better now. Ancient "wisdom," based on intuition and
>authority alone, (like astrology), has been almost entirely replaced
>with a better world view, this is true, so don't get all excited about
>history changing our present ideas until you learn how it has changed
>our antiquated ones first.
>
><gratuitous quotes snipped>
>
> Brant
>
You know, Brant, your're doing pretty good in the rigid department
yourself. I've posed several questions that I think blur the lines
here a bit, such as why, if science and medicine have so clearly
defined our existence for us, about half of every dollar spent on
health care goes to alternative methods? Are that many people really
that stupid or unenlightened? But, I haven't heard back on those.
This, and some of your other responses, leads me to believe you don't
really want to contribute here, because you don't want to know if the
subject of this group- astrology- could enrich your life. You'd
rather try to tear down people's beliefs, and to a greater or lesser
degree, the people themselves. This is called off-topic. Do you
understand that concept? Part of usenet etiquette is if you don't want
to add to proceedings here in a positive way, stop cross-posting and
take it somewhere else, okay?
- - - - - - - -
Ken Kizer
ki...@mindspring.com
http://www.mindspring.com/~kizer
Dr. John Tlon
kizer@<remove>mindspring.com wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 06:02:07 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson)
>wrote:
>>
.>> So whenever you feel like mentioning how much our knowledge has
.>>changed, please realize that astrology has been abandoned by most
.>>because we know better now. Ancient "wisdom," based on intuition
>>and authority alone, (like astrology), has been almost entirely
.>>replaced with a better world view, this is true, so don't get all
.>>excited about history changing our present ideas until you learn
.>>how it has changed our antiquated ones first.
>>
>><gratuitous quotes snipped>
>>
>> Brant
>>
>You know, Brant, your're doing pretty good in the rigid department
>yourself. I've posed several questions that I think blur the lines
>here a bit, such as why, if science and medicine have so clearly
>defined our existence for us, about half of every dollar spent on
>health care goes to alternative methods? Are that many people really
>that stupid or unenlightened? But, I haven't heard back on those.
I don't suppose you'd care to provide a source for this statement, as
well as defintions of "alternative methods." Otherwise, I believe
one reason why he would not respond is because it isn't true.
>This, and some of your other responses, leads me to believe you don't
>really want to contribute here, because you don't want to know if the
>subject of this group- astrology- could enrich your life. You'd
>rather try to tear down people's beliefs, and to a greater or lesser
>degree, the people themselves. This is called off-topic. Do you
>understand that concept? Part of usenet etiquette is if you don't want
>to add to proceedings here in a positive way, stop cross-posting and
>take it somewhere else, okay?
I find him to be a breath of fresh air, and if he discomfits some of
the charlitans mountebanks around here, all the better. Anyway, he
looks to be far more on topic than 90% of what the resident net
psychics post.
>mindspring.com
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 02:36:10 GMT, Gyps...@juno.com (Dr. John Tlon)
wrote:
>>You know, Brant, your're doing pretty good in the rigid department
>>yourself. I've posed several questions that I think blur the lines
>>here a bit, such as why, if science and medicine have so clearly
>>defined our existence for us, about half of every dollar spent on
>>health care goes to alternative methods? Are that many people really
>>that stupid or unenlightened? But, I haven't heard back on those.
>
>I don't suppose you'd care to provide a source for this statement, as
>well as defintions of "alternative methods." Otherwise, I believe
>one reason why he would not respond is because it isn't true.
The last time I heard that statement made in public was a report on
various non-traditional healing methods on CNN, about two or three
months ago.
Part of what was remarkable was it was one of the first times they
weren't critical of the subject.
>I find him to be a breath of fresh air, and if he discomfits some of
>the charlitans mountebanks around here, all the better. Anyway, he
>looks to be far more on topic than 90% of what the resident net
>psychics post.
Not according to the charter of this group...
Brant Watson
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 16:11:41 GMT, kizer@<remove>mindspring.com wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Jun 1997 06:02:07 GMT, bra...@erols.com (Brant Watson)
>wrote:
<snip>
>You know, Brant, your're doing pretty good in the rigid department
>yourself. I've posed several questions that I think blur the lines
>here a bit, such as why, if science and medicine have so clearly
>defined our existence for us, about half of every dollar spent on
>health care goes to alternative methods? Are that many people really
>that stupid or unenlightened? But, I haven't heard back on those.
I wasn't aware that so much was being spent on alternate
medicine...*still* not, in fact, as I find that figure to be
suspiciously high. As far as I know, most alternative medicine is not
covered by health care, but then, that isn't an area where I have done
a lot of reading. It is also uncertain what constitutes "alternative"
in your data.
For the sake of argument, let's say you are correct. This one fact
should be enough to scare the pants off of most rational people.
Pseudoscience has reached such a pinnacle of popularity that it
presents many threats to our society...in this case, our health care.
Several months ago, I found a web site which listed over 100
alternative treatments, NONE of which has met serious standards of
medical acceptance.
And why *is* that? Is it because psychic surgery, therapeutic
touch, aromatherapy, etc, are really legitimate? No. It is a
consequence of people like some we see here promoting these very
profitable crackpot practices in a society where it is considered
impolite to be skeptical or demand evidence. There are even
astrologers who propose "diagnoses" and offer medical advice right
here in this forum.
>This, and some of your other responses, leads me to believe you don't
>really want to contribute here, because you don't want to know if the
>subject of this group- astrology- could enrich your life. You'd
>rather try to tear down people's beliefs, and to a greater or lesser
>degree, the people themselves.
If a person feel torn down because his or her beliefs are wrong,
then that's their problem. Astrology is basically no different from
any other area of the paranormal. It uses the same kind of special
pleading, makes the same appeals to authority, offers the same excuses
for failure, refuses to be examined skeptically, and obfuscates the
simplest facts in order to avoid the truth. As far as personal
damage, it should be pretty easy to look back and see where most of
the hostility comes from. Countless times, I have ignored ad hominem
attacks in order to pursue the relevant points. On occasion, I have
responded in kind, but with sincerity and always related to the issue.
Let's not complain too much about how people are being feel about
their cherished beliefs, especially if what you say about medical care
is true.
>This is called off-topic. Do you
>understand that concept?
While I recognize that this forum was intended for the discussion of
astrology, I do not feel that it is reasonable to call someone
off-topic for having a skeptical view. Remember, I came here because
contributors to this list posted on sci.skeptic, the only list to
which I subscribed at the time. Then when one member started
manipulating the threads, I signed on to the list. Is the purpose of
this newsgroup to promote astrology or to discuss it?
It is interesting that you would consider my repeated requests for
tests of the validity of astrology, and my offer of $1000, to be off
topic. Is it assumed that such tests would have negative results?
Wouldn't positive results be a good thing for this NG? I do not, and
will not, enroll in any astrology *mailing lists*, as these seem to me
to be the more congenial means of communicating among others of the
same beliefs.
>Part of usenet etiquette is if you don't want
>to add to proceedings here in a positive way, stop cross-posting and
>take it somewhere else, okay?
I feel I am adding something, or at least trying to. I may fail to
influence anyone here, but I believe I have the right to try. I
presume that since there are no forums to my knowledge, specifically
dedicated to the debunking of astrology, that an astrology forum is a
legitimate place to allow skeptical views to be espoused for anyone
curious enough to drop by and see what's going on.
I may also decide to visit a creationist forum sometime in the
future, as this is another subject which I feel needs more rational
criticism.
Finally, as for crossposting, I don't do it. All I do is respond to
a post and hit "send later." I have initiated very few threads of my
own, but when I do, I will post them only to the groups which I feel
would have the most involvement in the topic. Notice, for example,
that this thread is going only to alt.astrology. I have not attempted
to add sci.skeptic, out of consideration for the group.
I just looked back over the thread and guess what...the whole thing
has been going to alt.astrology up until ED WOLLMAN added sci.skeptic.
Not me, not Jim Rogers, another regular of sci.skeptic.
Ed did it.
Brant