I did read the article. Like I said, I don't believe what they state to be impossible. I agree that in the scientific method of yours (and mine) you observe, hypothesise and verify. However,
- I'm at liberty to rotfl when a hypothesis ("brings energy to the cell" or whatever) sounds like a sixties mantra
- I think it's pretty lame to correlate this alleged healing stuff to other forms of light therapy that don't have much common ground with the situation at hand(yes, you can "cure" cancer with light...IF you administer a really toxic drug that binds to the cancer cells and starts becoming toxic when lit. This does not prove some super mystical healing property of light beams.)
I did read the article
Like I said, I don't believe what they state to be impossible. I agree that in the scientific method of yours (and mine) you observe, hypothesise and verify. However,
- I'm at liberty to rotfl when a hypothesis ("brings energy to the cell" or whatever) sounds like a sixties mantra
- I think it's pretty lame to correlate this alleged healing stuff to other forms of light therapy that don't have much common ground with the situation at hand(yes, you can "cure" cancer with light...IF you administer a really toxic drug that binds to the cancer cells and starts becoming toxic when lit. This does not prove some super mystical healing property of light beams.)
Then again, maybe so. We'll see.
UV treatment is based on the physical fact that bilirubin (which is exessively present in neonatal jaundice due to immature liver degradation systems) is transformed into excretable fractions by UV light stimulation. This is pretty far from some vague pseudoscience crap like "the LEDs boost energy to the cells".
Not that I consider it to be impossible, but those people will have to be a little bit more convincing than just saying "and he can cure cancer with his LEDs too!" (with a photosensitive drug - duh)
And yes, IAAD
Slashdot Mirror
Crappy HTML button! Let's try that again...
I did read the article. Like I said, I don't believe what they state to be impossible. I agree that in the scientific method of yours (and mine) you observe, hypothesise and verify. However,
- I'm at liberty to rotfl when a hypothesis ("brings energy to the cell" or whatever) sounds like a sixties mantra
- I think it's pretty lame to correlate this alleged healing stuff to other forms of light therapy that don't have much common ground with the situation at hand(yes, you can "cure" cancer with light...IF you administer a really toxic drug that binds to the cancer cells and starts becoming toxic when lit. This does not prove some super mystical healing property of light beams.)
Then again, maybe so. We'll see.
I did read the article Like I said, I don't believe what they state to be impossible. I agree that in the scientific method of yours (and mine) you observe, hypothesise and verify. However, - I'm at liberty to rotfl when a hypothesis ("brings energy to the cell" or whatever) sounds like a sixties mantra - I think it's pretty lame to correlate this alleged healing stuff to other forms of light therapy that don't have much common ground with the situation at hand(yes, you can "cure" cancer with light...IF you administer a really toxic drug that binds to the cancer cells and starts becoming toxic when lit. This does not prove some super mystical healing property of light beams.) Then again, maybe so. We'll see.
UV treatment is based on the physical fact that bilirubin (which is exessively present in neonatal jaundice due to immature liver degradation systems) is transformed into excretable fractions by UV light stimulation. This is pretty far from some vague pseudoscience crap like "the LEDs boost energy to the cells". Not that I consider it to be impossible, but those people will have to be a little bit more convincing than just saying "and he can cure cancer with his LEDs too!" (with a photosensitive drug - duh) And yes, IAAD