Dr Sebi: Man Found “Cures For All Diseases” AND Has The Supreme Court Ruling To Prove It
People who liked this video also liked
Comments
22 comments posted so far. Login to add a comment.
42
2. Austin commented 9 years ago
Sigh. Homeopathy, swaddled in a faith based framework, and the clever use of the placebo effect has been scientifically proven to show, in some cases, short terms improvements (aka positive near term results). The devil is always in the longitudinal and empirical details. Every single well designed and properly controlled (double blind) scientifically rigorous empirically grounded study and/or experiment has unequivocally shown that ‘healers’ of Dr. Sebi’s pedigree (he doesn’t not have a recognized medical degree btw) and their miracles claims, using the homeopathic / faith cocktail, are longitudinally bunk. And this is junk healing is pedalled to the most desperate masses. The placebo effect is real and powerful and important (and utilized by proper doctors in some instances) but it should not used in place of actual medicine or in lieu of actual medical science. Dr. Sebi is peddling junk science and sadly false hopes. And he may actually be hastening deaths or denying people actual cures or treatment or extended lifespans in some cases.
41
4. ughlah commented 9 years ago
and this is why the rest of the world is getting a bad impression of the united states of awesome. I doubt there is more people in the us falling for this bullshit than over here in europe, but these kind of videos make the impression the us is a country of dumb witted religious fanatics.
42
5. Austin commented 9 years ago
Just a little context – I had never heard of this man or his pseudo-science and related claims before this video. A tiny bit of research has revealed legions, literally legions of cult like followers who troll anyone who questions Sebi’s practices, claims or results AND (most telling) Sebi has a very lucrative business selling homeopathic cures, components, and purification nonsense. He is a wealthy huckster and has developed a cult like following. I had no idea.
#3. It appears Sebi won the court case on a technicality. He was found not guilty of practicing medicine without a license (in New York state) because he was a self-described and practicing herbalist and NOT a medical doctor therefore he could not be found guilty of practicing medicine without a licence. He won on a technicality. A critical point ignored by his followers.
And yes he paraded 70 plus character witnesses in front of the court testifying to the efficacy of his treatments. That is NOT scientifically or legally proving that his methods ‘cure’ any of the things he claims – see my previous post. Again, the cult of personality spins this falsely. Scientific validity cannot be decided in a court of law, that is for peer review research and follow up studies, and Sebi’s methods were not verified. Not guilty of practicing medicine without a licence using an herbalist technicality is a far cry from supporting any ANY of his ridiculous and unproven claims. The man preys on the most desperate members of society, the sick, ill, infirm and those without hope and has made a ton of money out of it.
#3. It appears Sebi won the court case on a technicality. He was found not guilty of practicing medicine without a license (in New York state) because he was a self-described and practicing herbalist and NOT a medical doctor therefore he could not be found guilty of practicing medicine without a licence. He won on a technicality. A critical point ignored by his followers.
And yes he paraded 70 plus character witnesses in front of the court testifying to the efficacy of his treatments. That is NOT scientifically or legally proving that his methods ‘cure’ any of the things he claims – see my previous post. Again, the cult of personality spins this falsely. Scientific validity cannot be decided in a court of law, that is for peer review research and follow up studies, and Sebi’s methods were not verified. Not guilty of practicing medicine without a licence using an herbalist technicality is a far cry from supporting any ANY of his ridiculous and unproven claims. The man preys on the most desperate members of society, the sick, ill, infirm and those without hope and has made a ton of money out of it.
52
6. Natan_el_Tigre commented 9 years ago
45
7. Gringo_el_Diablo commented 9 years ago
http://youtu.be/pqcYpIFiwOk
In case anyone is wondering....
In case anyone is wondering....
56
9. dushan commented 9 years ago
#8 darn autocorrect it's not dr.serbia it's dr.sebi
while i'm against aggressive medical treatments commonly known as "shooting a chicken with a cannon", i would never rely on any "dr." when matters are serious. there are thousands of herbal remedies ( for common health problems ) that are quite effective and mostly side effects free, but claiming that you have a "cure for all diseases" should immediately rise a red flag, if you have a decent level of common sense...
while i'm against aggressive medical treatments commonly known as "shooting a chicken with a cannon", i would never rely on any "dr." when matters are serious. there are thousands of herbal remedies ( for common health problems ) that are quite effective and mostly side effects free, but claiming that you have a "cure for all diseases" should immediately rise a red flag, if you have a decent level of common sense...
44
11. kirkelicious commented 9 years ago
#10 Herbal remedies are not side effects free. Due to softer regulations, they are merely less studied than conventional medicine, that in many cases is an purified form of the active ingredients you find in varying quantities in herbs. So the side effects are not identified in clinical trials. As a rule of thumb one could say, the more potent a cure, the more side effects it has. "Natural equals better" is a fallacy that snakeoil salesmen eagerly exploit.
44
13. kirkelicious commented 9 years ago
#12 Right, when i noticed it was to late to edit. You're probably the wrong guy to lecture about naturalistic fallacies
42
14. Austin commented 9 years ago
#11. With all due respect this statement ‘As a rule of thumb one could say, the more potent a cure, the more side effects it has’ is simply untrue to the point of being total bullocks. For example in antibody therapy, aka targeted therapy, very specific antibodies are used to aggressively attack (for example a tumour) and they are designed to do very little collateral damage to the surrounding tissue. The goal of a good therapy is to make it highly specific and have few side effects. This is what doctors try to achieve. Perhaps you are thinking about more broad brush chemotherapies or radiation therapy which indeed are designed to destroy everything in hope of getting to the dangerous cells but this is the exception and not the norm. There is very little actual relationship between potency of cures and side effects. Such a generalization is erroneous to the point of being flat out false.
44
15. kirkelicious commented 9 years ago
#14 Thanks for pointing that out. Let me rephrase: The bigger the effect of a chemical on a biological process, the more potential for side effects (that have to be identified in clinical trials) there is. Better?
42
16. Austin commented 9 years ago
#15. (kirkelicious). Sadly, no, well substantively on slightly better ground but you have now broadened your claim to such a degree that it is, for all intents and purposes, not terribly accurate. Hence the no. ‘The bigger the effect of a chemical on a biological process, the more potential for side effects’ In medicine plenty of chemicals (for example the antibody Herceptin / Trastuzumab used to agressively target specific breast cancers) have a very large effect on the target – breast cancer tumour cells) but it does not necessarily automatically entail any greater potential for a side effect. Such relationships are often and usually far more complicated. The correlation between say dosage size and/or strength or calculated ‘effect’ does not automatically correlate, as you broadly suggest to ‘bigger or larger’ potential side effects. It can, in some cases, but it does not automatically lead to as you have suggested. This is yet another example of the causation correlation conundrum. It may intuitively feel right but it is simply not accurate.
Your question - Better? My answer is no.
Your question - Better? My answer is no.
44
17. kirkelicious commented 9 years ago
#16 I guess you have an important point there. Under closer examination it seems wiser for me to fully retract that statement, which i hereby do. I hope you agree with the rest of my initial post, and if not, please dont make me look like an idiot again.
This guy sums up the issue more accurately:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/herbs_are_drugs
This guy sums up the issue more accurately:
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/herbs_are_drugs
42
19. Austin commented 9 years ago
#17. (kirkelicious) I honestly and perhaps naively expected better from you. You made two claims that are simply unsupported by medical science and actual empirical research: 1) ‘the more potent a cure, the more side effects it has’ and 2) ‘The bigger the effect of a chemical on a biological process, the more potential for side effects’. I pointed this out and provided actual counterexamples. Your response was not to rebut with empirical evidence or references to peer reviewed studies or engage in discourse designed to further the discussion but to sadly degenerate into snark and sarcasm. I gave you the benefit of the doubt but this is all too common with the ‘true believers’ who feel threatened by critical (self) examination. Civil discourse and an appeal to actual medical science, the scientific method, testability, verifiability and replication of results and EVIDENCE is ultimately (and predictably and sadly ) countered by you sticking your fingers in your ears, stomping away and discursively throwing a temper tantrum. What a trite, clichéd and unfortunate ending – attacking and denigrating the messenger. This is sadly predicable but nevertheless disappointing.
You wrote in #17 ‘please don’t make me look like an idiot again’ No need, you are doing an excellent job all on your own.
You wrote in #17 ‘please don’t make me look like an idiot again’ No need, you are doing an excellent job all on your own.
44
20. kirkelicious commented 9 years ago
#18 What do you think is more likely: The efficacy of a treatment that isn't compatible with all we know from medical science, or a case of spontaneous remission or a misdiagnosis of the initial condition?
Sadly, there are a lot of people out there who take medical advice from a guy on the internet, on whose aunt a cure supposedly worked. But anecdotal evidence and personal experience is not how the effectiveness of a treatment is established.
Anyway, I am glad your aunt is ok.
#19 Haha, I honestly admitted defeat and realized that my argument didnt hold water. I admit it is unbelievable to change somebodies mind in an online debate in the commentary section, but it sometimes happens, you know.
Sadly, there are a lot of people out there who take medical advice from a guy on the internet, on whose aunt a cure supposedly worked. But anecdotal evidence and personal experience is not how the effectiveness of a treatment is established.
Anyway, I am glad your aunt is ok.
#19 Haha, I honestly admitted defeat and realized that my argument didnt hold water. I admit it is unbelievable to change somebodies mind in an online debate in the commentary section, but it sometimes happens, you know.
44
22. kirkelicious commented 9 years ago
#21 Apologies accepted. I know the frustration that comes up if one argues in the comments bellow bullshit science videos
-2 1. Gringo_el_Diablo commented 9 years ago