Posts by bluemason3

hollowtrucker77 said:My bad, I wasn't quite sure if you were being sarcastic or actually serious there.
🙂
Look, people have every right to make their own choices, but nobody has the right to fill someone else's head with nonsense about how mainstream medicine is some kind of poison, suggesting instead that it's better to go visit some local guy at a diner to drink detergent and sit on a washing machine to "detox" the body.
It's just as absurd as telling someone they should run off into the woods to play hide-and-seek instead of showing up before a judge to pay the fine for riding a dirt bike without a helmet.

I honestly don't see how you can separate the two. 🤷If someone opts out of conventional medicine in favor of alternative medicine, or even believes the whole medical establishment is some massive conspiracy and posts about it here, that's automatically going to be viewed as "incitement." Every public discussion is a form of influence once it's posted online. And let's face it, people aren't going to add a "this is just my opinion" disclaimer to every single post, which is exactly why we have the site's terms of service. 🤔

There’s always the option of shutting down the sub if things get too volatile, but I don't see how we can have our cake and eat it too—meaning, having an alternative medicine section without the inevitable content that comes with it. 🤷

dustypuma5 said:I think we need a rule. And Jose White18, you're being rude. People who start an initiative that actually makes sense aren't just starting petty arguments; maybe they just want to make this place better.
I’ve been here forever, and lately, things on the forum only move forward when someone takes charge after an initiative (thanks to the admins 🙏), which is why I've started some stuff myself. One thing I did was push back against radical extremists, and now the site is at a higher level because its rules forbid denying anyone's sovereignty. Even the communication is slightly less trash now.

Maybe you don't remember the days when people were openly selling juice cleanses, emetics, and other homemade concoctions in the alternative medicine section. Remember how many fights it took to get that banned? Back then, the admins didn't care; they’d show up once a month just to ban people or lock threads. Now, we have hollowtrucker77 with a stance that's actually right, we have mellowraven22 who isn't even allowed to say what he thinks because it brings the bulldozer 😬, and we actually have a chance to apply that same kind of rule to the alternative section.
Tomorrow or the day after, some admin will show up who doesn't give a damn, and the space for posting nonsense will still be there. Just like any rule will stay if hollowtrucker77 just stuffs it into some paragraph somewhere.
That warning everyone talks about? That was a three-month battle over on PZK. The female admin finally wrote it, but it was basically just a compromise where certain people were told: "Fine, we'll put the warning up, but you can never talk about this again." So they're effectively silenced to this day.
So, stop acting like it's easy. Let people who actually care choose what's best for themselves.

Why is it that you, as a moderator—who should actually care about the forum's health—won't let users do what they think is good for the community? Instead, you just label them as troublemakers. And why are you defending the very claims that the troublemakers are attacking?

The alternative medicine subforum is a place that can get dangerous, and honestly, it's great to say everyone chooses their own path. But the moderators and admins here still have responsibility in those choices. If they could stop someone from ditching chemotherapy to go follow Braco, then they share the responsibility for that decision. It's the same as the mod who allowed a thread about a bomb that actually blew someone up.
When you start taking your job seriously—and yeah, you aren't getting paid, but you should treat it like a job—then maybe we can talk. As long as you don't care whether people forge their own luck or get talked into risking their lives or their kids' lives because of this forum, there's no point in discussing this. You're still a mod on this board. Some long-time users feel that responsibility even if they aren't on the staff, simply because they view this place as "theirs" and care about how it looks. That's why the petty wars happen and why there's constant conflict in the alternative section between real medicine and hocus pocus.

We're talking about one specific subforum within the alternative section that needs different rules because there's a real risk of someone giving advice that actually hurts someone.
You're saying it's not worth fighting for?

I think it is.

You don't have any right to be deciding things like that. You aren't anyone's yardstick, and you certainly don't have the authority to set the standard for anything.

If you’re looking to "clean up the forum" by hiding behind some lofty, universal moral high ground, be my guest. As for me stepping into a moderator role? That’s not happening unless there’s an actual legal issue on the table.

So, you've got a few ways to play this:

1 - Prove that it’s actually illegal (like I mentioned, I'll send an inquiry to a law firm "off the record" and wait to see what they say).

2 - Shut down the PDF or the entire PDF sub-section.

3 - Swap out the moderators, though I highly doubt that’s going to happen. It was already a struggle finding someone willing to try and maintain some semblance of balance between two extremely polarized, high-strung factions.

Look, if I’m acting as a moderator down there, and it turns out there isn't a legal issue—and I'm saying this strictly because I don't want the Forum getting sued, not because I agree with him—then I won't allow the "alternative skeptics" (which is a total misuse of the term anyway) to constantly try to hijack the PDF's policy.

We should have a legal opinion within the next few days. If it doesn't align with what you're hoping for (and, frankly, I don't think it will), then your options are to launch new "campaigns" to either replace the mods or shut the PDF down. There is simply no way I'm going to penalize users for having alternative views, even if I am privately laughing my head off at them. 🙂

hollowtrucker77 said:Look, I'll be blunt, but people have every right to decide what works for them, even if they end up making a mess of things personally.
The only thing you shouldn't be doing is trying to steer someone away from legitimate medical science.

I still haven't heard a solid argument against that. The article being cited is about practicing medicine without a license, which is a different story entirely. To get the full picture right—as I mentioned, I'm waiting to hear from my lawyer—it shouldn't be a legal issue given the disclaimer on the PDF. As for the idea that one person can't share their own perspective on why mainstream medicine might fail them? That hasn't been proven either. I'm just a layman sharing my thoughts and experiences.

silverpuma542 said:Some people act as the true architects of fortune for their children and those else they look after. It’s a heavy responsibility, really. That's why I think it would be incredibly helpful if someone could remind us all that the principles of alternative treatment in refuls actually carry over directly to RiD.

On those Alternative forums, people are always so quick to jump on anything they can write off as a placebo effect—it’s like their absolute last resort for an explanation. But the second you bring up the nocebo effect? Suddenly, everyone loses interest and shuts down. It's funny how that works, isn't it? 🙄

Honestly, until someone actually takes that right away from them, it's their business. Parents do all sorts of stupid things, yet we still don't require a license or formal training just to raise a child. I wouldn't want to live in a country that tries to micromanage every corner of private life—including parenting—no matter what nonsense people might potentially get up to.

As for this "spillover" you mentioned, that sounds like a you problem. I'm not sure how that's supposed to "spill over," or how one thing relates to the other? If someone gets hooked on alternative medicine and starts posting about it on RiD, I highly doubt that has anything to do with the existence of the Alternative PDF or the site's moderation policy.

On the Alternative side, everything is always conveniently blamed on the placebo effect, but the moment you mention the nocebo effect—suddenly it's off-limits, right? :rollehyes:

Yeah, it's the same way medical professionals lose their cool when you start bringing up the same concepts within mainstream medicine, even when I cite actual studies. In reality, your average doctor probably struggles more with negative suggestions than your average alternative medicine enthusiast.

Jose Barrett said:Look, please don't go blurring the lines between actual medicine and quackery, or suggesting that people here should just "choose" whichever version suits them better.

What kind of counterpoint is that!?
comparing a PhD researcher like Ivan Đikić against Braco from Srebrenjak 🤣

Even if alternative medicine is nonsense, being foolish isn't illegal.
🙂

The Chang 245 situation is a perfect example, just like I mentioned before. You see all sorts of supplements being sold everywhere—noni, aloe, and even that MMS stuff. As long as they don't label it as a medicine, the authorities won't touch them. They'll keep selling out of pharmacies; look at Citrofite, for instance, which medical studies have proven to be totally useless. If someone decides to take it as a cure, that's on them.

It’s the same deal with a healer who doesn't claim to be a doctor. They won't face any sanctions.

But hey, that's just my take on it. Let's wait and see what the experts say.🙂

Quackery probably isn't actually illegal. What's illegal is practicing medicine without a license. It’s basically the same loophole as dietary supplements—they don't have to meet the same rigorous standards to hit the shelves as actual prescription drugs. If that weren't the case, pharmacies would be packed with the same stuff you see in online ads right now.

I highly doubt sending someone to a bioenergy healer or something similar is against the law; you're just trying to manipulate the definition. You can't legally define everything. Someone provides a "service," and suddenly a bill "happens" to land on their desk. Who's going to police that? Or they could just register the business under some vague umbrella like "consulting services." As long as they don't claim to be a doctor (when they aren't), they likely fall outside the legal definition of practicing medicine without a license. But hey, that's just me speculating, so I won't get too carried away.

The comparison just doesn't hold water, no matter how you slice it.

A software pirate is someone selling protected software without permission. A pirate isn't someone who wrote their own code and you paid them to install it. We're talking about copyright infringement here, which is an entirely different category. Dragging this specific argument into it feels both biased and pointless.

Anyway, like I said, I'm hoping to get an answer from a lawyer soon so we can finally put this to rest. If the answer turns out to be what I'm expecting, we can pretty much write this whole discussion off as trolling—especially if people keep popping up in the alternative medicine circles and acting accordingly. 🙂

There’s actually a massive distinction here. In your example, you’re talking about using pirated software, which is a crime. Choosing to bypass conventional medicine is just an exercise of personal freedom. Unless we're talking about people deemed incapable of making their own decisions, there's no legal mandate forcing anyone into a specific treatment.

You can decide to skip medical treatment without breaking any laws. But if you choose to install illegal software, you’re breaking the law every single time.

Why not compare that to a scenario where the government mandates Windows as the only operating system in public schools they fund, and then someone on a forum suggests ditching Windows for Linux?

Okay, maybe that comparison isn't perfect, but it illustrates how biased and nonsensical these arguments are.

Opting out of certain medical treatments isn't illegal in itself, yet you're comparing it to actual criminal acts—like manufacturing explosives or software piracy. I’ll know exactly to what extent, where, and from whom sharing such advice becomes a punishable offense once my lawyer gets back to me. People here seem way too quick to throw around legal threats. I hope the goal isn't to intimidate the forum staff with questionable legalities. As I said, nobody has actually defined what constitutes a crime here, under which specific statute, or in what exact context. It’s all very vague guesswork without a single actual reference. To be honest, it feels more like personal vendettas are at play.

I think there might be some grounds for it, but you’d actually need a lawyer to figure that out instead of just throwing around guesses without citing any specific statutes.

There's no doubt a doctor isn't supposed to prescribe or give advice on anything outside their scope. But I highly doubt anyone could get in trouble just because a neighbor mentioned over coffee that they think modern medicine is a scam. Where exactly the line is drawn remains to be seen.

Personally, I doubt it's legally actionable, though I might have more concrete info soon. If it isn't illegal, then it really just comes down to the forum rules and how the moderators want to handle it.

steelsurfer42 said:Everything, really! Except they’d probably end up offering an alternative to the alternative. Seriously? 😁

Hey bluemason3, there’s absolutely no reason to shut this down. Sure, maybe if too many "naturalists" showed up they'd clear out all the fog, but that's not even the real issue here. The real problem is the people actually creating the fog in the first place!

The real issue here is the off-topic drifting. Just look at what that cancer treatment thread turned into. If these debates are allowed to run wild, any topic could easily morph into a pro-versus-con debate about alternative medicine itself. That's pure off-topic territory. On the flip side, if skeptics swoop in and hijack every single discussion like that, you could call it trolling. 😁 I suppose determining where the actual discussion ends and the chaos begins is just a matter of moderator judgment. 🤷

Look, if this is really such a headache, I suggest we just shut down the alternative medicine subforum entirely. People interested in that stuff will always find their way to niche boards dedicated specifically to those topics anyway. You can't host a space for these ideas and then complain about the content, expecting the board to turn into a testing ground where skeptics get to set all the rules to prove everything is ineffective.

It’s the same logic—you wouldn't have psychologists constantly swooping in to tear down mysticism...

If these subforums are open to people interested in those themes, they should be left alone. I'm not saying there shouldn't be skeptical debate, but you shouldn't be able to ban a specific alternative narrative just because it doesn't fit a certain mold. Either let people talk, or just scrap the subforum. I don't see any point in maintaining a section if the whole purpose ends up being policing anything that doesn't align perfectly with mainstream science or medicine. That kind of scrutiny can happen elsewhere.

You’ve already had your answer on this thread. These kinds of discussions always devolve into a mess of conspiracy theories and finger-pointing. It’s always the same list of villains: the USA, the CIA, Masons, feminists, extremists, aliens, broccoli, lizards, Josipović, Obama, Merkel, or even deli meats... there isn't any logical reason or justification to single anyone out in a situation like this. 🙂

Sarah just dropped her new book. Anyone actually read it? I caught the presentation, but honestly, I checked out halfway through. 🤣

(There are some poems in there, if you're interested: )

Kimberly Mitchell6 said:So, I actually went through one of those non-hypnotic regressions about a year or two back. Honestly, the whole experience is pretty beautiful, and I really don't think anyone needs to be intimidated by it—especially since you’re diving into it with someone who actually knows what they're doing. Personally, though, I didn't walk away with some massive, life-altering epiphany or anything; I just remembered a few random details here and there, nothing that truly blew my mind. If I had the choice, I’d much rather try a full-on hypnotic regression instead. Has anyone else here actually tried that?

To be honest, 😁 there isn’t really a difference between hypnotic and non-hypnotic regression. It's mostly just a marketing gimmick.

mistygull16 said:I know this one guy from the Krishnamurti crowd who (supposedly) could see past lives like some psychic seeing the future—I think his name was Upananda. He used to write for that Karma magazine and popped up at a few occult expos back in the day... what's your take on that kind of thing? And do you happen to know him?

Yeah, he was definitely in the inner circle. My own opinion of him isn't great based on some personal experience—he presents himself as an Ayurvedic practitioner, so I visited him once for some health issues. He talked a mile a minute about all sorts of things, but very little actual Ayurveda. In fact, some of his advice went directly against everything traditional Ayurveda stands for. Still, that might not be enough to form a definitive judgment.

With stories like these, there are several possibilities. A person could be lying, or they might just be lost in their own fantasy. It’s also possible they’re intuitively processing information—picking up on nonverbal cues or body language—and their brain then packages it into this mystical narrative. Of course, there's also the chance they actually see what they claim to see. To me, the only way to verify this would be to gather a group of these "seers" and have them observe the same person independently. Then, put that person through regression therapy and compare everyone's accounts to see if they align with historical facts. I have a feeling it would turn into quite a convincing circus, but maybe I'm wrong. You don't really know until you test it that way.🙂

Betty Palmer8 said:I've read that book myself. I would love to undergo that kind of regression—but in America, there aren't any sessions that cover more than just past lives—specifically the "life between lives" aspect—unfortunately... at least not on the Newton Institute's list.

They have them in Italy:

http://www.spiritualregression.org/

There aren't really any "dramatic" or specialized methods out there. Anyone capable of performing a regression can do it anywhere; it's mostly a matter of whether they want to. A lot of psychiatrists will shy away from recreational past-life regressions or similar things due to professional boundaries, or they might even claim it's all just false memories. That's possible, sure, but not necessarily true—we can't know for certain.
The point is, there isn't much difference between regressing into a past life, progressing into the future, or exploring the gaps between incarnations. The method remains essentially the same. Once you achieve a sufficient level of openness to subconscious content—which isn't actually that difficult—it's pretty straightforward.

Anonymous said:Based on what you’re describing, hypnosis doesn't even exist. Or rather, sure, it exists, but it isn't anything special. I don't really know much about hypnosis myself, so I won't pretend to be an expert. What I am familiar with is usually called non-hypnotic regression, so that's the term I'm using.
The name clearly serves a purpose—it's meant to suggest that you stay fully conscious and remain in total control the whole time (though we both know how much control anyone actually has).
If what you're describing is what people call hypnosis, then I guess I could declare myself a legendary wizard and a grandmaster of hypnotism. Is there an even more spectacular title out there?
Honestly, if that's the case, then hypnosis is nothing more than a common myth.

It’s basically just that. Hypnosis is nothing more than manipulating certain natural psychological mechanisms for specific ends—whether that's medical treatment or just entertainment. The whole point is to bypass the analytical mind so you can more easily plant suggestions into the subconscious or access deeper layers, like regression. It isn't actually anything special or dramatic.

Quincy:

I don't really know much about hypnosis, so I won't pretend to be an expert on it. What I am familiar with is what people call non-hypnotic regression, so that's the term I’ll stick to.

You know her because you were there (regression). 🙂

Quincy:

The name "Mindful" is intended to imply that you’re constantly aware and fully in the driver's seat—though we all know exactly how much control we actually have.

The same logic applies to hypnosis, though there’s one specific method that rarely sees clinical use and is practically unheard of in entertainment settings. It sits apart from the usual trance categories we discuss here—light, medium, deep (which you need for regression), and hypnotic coma. In this particular state, the subject maintains total control. Not only do they stay in the driver's seat, but once they hit that deepest level of coma, they lose all interest in what the therapist is saying. They feel so good that you practically have to bribe them just to get a response to your instructions. 😁 The idea that you lose consciousness during hypnosis is one of those classic myths. It’s exactly the kind of misconception people use to market "non-hypnotic" regression under a different label, when in reality, it’s just pure hypnosis. 🙂
Quincy:

If hypnosis is actually what I think you're doing, then I might as well start calling myself a grand magician or a master hypnotist. Is there anything even more spectacular I could call myself? If that's actually the case, then hypnosis is nothing more than a myth.

Hypnosis isn't some myth.
It’s like so many other things from everyday life that get dragged into fantasy worlds—movies, books, you name it—and blown way out of proportion just to crank up the drama. Real life isn't some James Bond spy thriller, it's not an elite Navy SEAL mission like Rambo, and it definitely isn't a Hollywood Ninja movie. That doesn't mean these roles don't exist; it just means they're being misrepresented for the sake of a good plot. The problem is, all that exaggeration actually ends up undermining how these concepts can be used effectively in real-world therapy.
As for those phenomena people claim hypnosis can trigger—it isn’t actually that deep. Once you bypass the analytical mind, you're basically just opening the door to any number of placebo effects. It works both ways. If you can use suggestion to induce relaxation, you can also use it to numb a part of the body, much like anesthesia. Or, if regression can bring memories back to the surface, it can just as easily be used to suppress them through amnesia. It's all just mechanics.

Anonymous said:Sure, but let's skip the hypnosis. There are people out there who practice it, and honestly, some of them are actually pretty good at it.
The whole point isn't really about dwelling on past lives; it's about finding practical solutions to the problems we have right now. Pretty soon, those past lives won't even matter—they'll just be tools we use to get things done.

There is no such thing as non-hypnotic regression. The only real difference between hypnotic and non-hypnotic regression is the label. People use different names because of general public ignorance regarding hypnosis, fueled by a bunch of urban myths picked up from movies and stage shows. You hear stories about how you don't remember anything during hypnotic regression, or how someone loses control over themselves—just more nonsense. Because of those myths, people try to categorize typical hypnotic experiences as something else entirely. Honestly, it’s not even a bad thing; otherwise, you’d waste half your time explaining what hypnosis actually is. This way, you skip the headache caused by all the misinformation attached to the term. 🙂 Again, the distinction is just semantics, not the actual process...

P.S. Everything you described beyond your own experience fits the definition of hypnosis and hypnotic regression perfectly. That part about "switching off the rational mind" and relaxing? That is essentially the definition. For instance, under American law, it's defined as "bypassing the critical factor of the mind to establish acceptable selective thought." In plain English, it’s bypassing the analytical behavior of the mind (which isn't always the same as rationalization, but that’s a semantic debate for another day) to accept certain patterns or suggestions. The person isn't unconscious—that's a common misconception—and they remain completely free to accept or reject whatever is being said. In fact, you don't even need to be relaxed, close your eyes, or do any of the usual tropes to be hypnotized. People just do those things because it feels better and meets their expectations. 😁

Then there are the various types of regression—emotional, distanced... you can hear about all of them in any hypnotherapy session.

"Non-hypnotic regression" is just a bit of nonsense. If anything, the term exists because fixed, incorrect ideas about hypnosis are so prevalent that even some well-known instructors suggest avoiding the word "hypnosis" whenever possible just to dodge those wrong associations. I suspect the term "non-hypnotic regression" was either coined for that reason or as a marketing tactic. Whoever came up with it clearly knows hypnosis well enough to know there is nothing "non-hypnotic" about it. 😁

Here’s that video I was talking about 😁

granitebadger2 said:I find the people who rushed out to lynch him absolutely hilarious. First off, they’re too lazy to even nudge their own stagnant souls out of neutral, yet they blindly chant away like fanatics, treating some ordinary guy as if he were an infallible icon. And then, suddenly, they decide he needs to be executed just because he had sex.

There is enough social pathology in this mess to fuel an entire series of novels. 🙄

There's truth there, though you could look at it another way. By presenting himself as a monk, he was representing a specific institution and a certain ideal. It’s like when someone shows up in a white coat claiming to be a doctor; they carry a specific authority based on the trust a patient places in them. Or a mechanic when you hand over your car. If it turns out that the doctor is a fraud who ripped you off, aren't you going to feel cheated? They went to someone presenting as a religious figure expecting him to fulfill that "social function," which he completely botched. It's only natural they felt compelled to react. Honestly, given the sheer number of scammers out there in India, having some form of accountability—even this kind—isn't a bad thing.

mistygull16 said:Who are we actually talking about here?
Are there any students of his over in the States?
What kind of school does he run?
Did he ever write a book or something?
🤷Never heard a peep about him, so if you've got a title, let me know.

I have no clue. I saw a few photos and statements, and the whole thing stinks from a mile away. You eventually learn how to sniff out these types. Some are more cunning, sure, but this guy was just a shallow, washed-out cliché. Based on what I've seen, I doubt he belongs to any real tradition; he just sounds like a superficial New Age hack. The question is whether he's actually a monk or just put on the robes without any initiation. Then again, anything is possible. Belonging to a group doesn't automatically make you legitimate.

They should have listened to me. I said he was a fraud a long time ago. 😁