Added: 2 years ago
From: michaelcweir
Views: 1,758
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (8)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • gay go die old man

  • what...

    

  • i see the same dude all pics... :l

  • What is this liquid?

  • Pseudoscientific nonsense.

  • You are a pseudoScientist. You condemn without examining, just like the Catholic Church did to Copernicus. How do you like being lumped with them?

  • Weeeeeeeeeeell. Let's see. There's no way to falsify this product at all, since it's based on not only pictures, but pictures that could be photoshopped, shown in reverse, and more. Etc. PLUS I've encountered pseudostuff like this before, so it's no stretch!

    But by all means, if I'm calling you out on your anti-science, feel free to call me anti-scientific for it, but that's somewhat ironic, since I'm not the one proclaiming supernatural capabilities from a liquid!

  • Lets get some facts on the table, so that the discussion is meaningful. On the face of it (pun), Google has time stamped all of my movies. You agree that Google is a record in that way? So look at my face before April 2009 and look after. that date. You can stop anywhere and enlarge the picture. Compare and contrast. In order to use digital changes, I would have to use Photomall, not just Photoshop, with a fleet of computers.

  • The process of the scientific theory says that first gather data. To jump to a conclusion before you even gather facts is anti-scientific. The conclusion I have come to is that yo are laboring under a misconception, an error in thinking. It is the same as the person walking along the road at dusk and sees a coiled up mass on the road and thinks it is a snake. He would be right normally, but upon further inspection he sees that it is a rope. This is the mistake you have made and it is bad science

  • Again, you're attempting to provide circumstantial evidence (at BEST) and trying to argue that, because of pictures you may easily have edited, posted out of order, or whatever (so many different options at your disposal), that you're somehow following a scientific method is silly at best, and you know it. The default of scientists is skepticism, and if you're not okay with that, feel free to appeal to the un-scientific audience. Which you're doing anyway by using youtube.

    Cheers.

  • When you can't attack the argument, attack the person instead. You cannot argue that Google had some part in this supposed fraud, so you are saying that I altered the Google data in some way? Darwin mostly collected data, and then proposed the theory of evolution. Darwin then wrote a book, the internet of his day. The default for good science is to keep an open mind, not a closed one. You can question facts and theories, but you are just manufacturing objections based on incorrect perception.

  • So my question to you, where are the facts to support that I altered the movies I posted to Google? Once posted, there is no way to alter the video, except to remove it. To repost it will put a different time stamp on it. So when I say examine the video before April 2009, that video data was posted before April 2009. So my face, which was posted then, could have been altered to look older then, and I really look younger now. But I can refer to people who know me and are using the water now.

  • I've still asked you for some evidence, perhaps organic chemistry?, of why this liquid would do anything but stimulate the placebo effect.

    And where'd I attack google? That's a silly little ad hominem ;)

  • If you bothered to look at some of my earlier videos, there are links to sites that sell dried blue-green algae, with analysis and test information, going back twenty years. Even if they had not provided evidence of their claims, the placebo effect wears off after 4-6 months. 20 years is a long time for the placebo effect, especially since the product is $20 or more per month. Don't rely on my say-so, look for yourself.

  • I've thought extensively why I claim the effects that I do, because none of the of the other products make claims that I do for PRANA Water, or are pale comparisons for the claims I make. In nature or even in farms, the blue-green algae is a best exposed to 1% of the available light possible. The way I grow the algae, all of the algae receives 100% of the sunlight for algae to process at night. Second, when the algae is dried by others, they oxidize micronutrients in the process, Who are you?

  • I have posted another video showing the difference over time to today. check it out.

  • I have started a blog to answer these and other questions. Go to Blogspot, search for prana-water.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more