Forums IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ Beyond Human Michael Hutchison and Holosync

Interesting thoughts on this thread!

However, as I read, two thoughts come to mind:

1. As noted earlier, Michael Hutchinson sounds as though he is in dire straits--my prayers go out to him. One of his earlier books inspired some of my explorations, for which I will always be grateful!

2. His letter could end up being fodder for litigation as his claims, if unproven, are damaging to CP and perhaps others who use the same or similar technology.

I can't imagine the CDs I have causing brain damage, but then I used them as advised in the instructions. Even with "over" use, the results he mentions seem unlikely at best.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeanne:
Interesting thoughts on this thread!

However, as I read, two thoughts come to mind:

1. As noted earlier, Michael Hutchinson sounds as though he is in dire straits--my prayers go out to him. One of his earlier books inspired some of my explorations, for which I will always be grateful!

2. His letter could end up being fodder for litigation as his claims, if unproven, are damaging to CP and perhaps others who use the same or similar technology.

I can't imagine the CDs I have causing brain damage, but then I used them as advised in the instructions. Even with "over" use, the results he mentions seem unlikely at best.

---

You clearly have a bias. Just because you "can't imagine the CDs I have causing brain damage" doesn't mean they won't, your speculation on whether such potential or actual damage is unlikely is groundless, it's only your speculation with bias, unless you have more supporting evidence to share with readers.

Bill Harris discredits Hutchison of not being a scientist or expert in the brain research, but is he himself a scientist or expert in brain science? Hutchison researched extensively 20 years ago when he wrote the megabrain book, he interviewed and worked with many scientists and experts in the field. Binaural beat paper was published around the turn of the century and there were a lot of research papers and studies done by the time Hutchison conducted his research, Bill Harris didn't have more scientific data on binaural beat studies than what was available to Hutchison, there has not been any significant new discoveries about binaural beat technology now than 20 years ago to make Hutchson an uninformed or outdated expert in this field.

Regarding your second thought, I wonder why you didn't apply that same logic to Bill Harris' unproven claims? Such claims "could end up being fodder for litigation", don't you think?

peace and love to all.

[This message has been edited by Fear Not! (edited February 03, 2005).]

Her claim wasn't groundless, it was based on her personal experience of using the CD's. And perhaps even knowing others who are using the CD's. YOU are the one DEFENDING Michael Hutchison's claims that holosync causes brain damage; where is your evidence?

[This message has been edited by garics (edited February 03, 2005).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by garics:

Her claim wasn't groundless, it was based on her personal experience of using the CD's. And perhaps even knowing others who are using the CD's. YOU are the one DEFENDING Michael Hutchison's claims that holosync causes brain damage; where is your evidence?

[This message has been edited by garics (edited February 03, 2005).]

---

Actually I am not defending the "brain damage claim", I mearly pointing out that the poster 's "thoghts" that these cds cannot cause brain damage is groundless, just because she or people she knows didn't have brain damage does not exclude the possibilty that they COULD!

Let me illustrate: an alleged rapist was caught and was put on trail, a female came to his defense: I know this man, he is hramless, I also know other people who said he is harmless, we actually all found him very friendly and very helpful, none of us was ever rapped or even slightly offended by him, therefoe, I would like this court to consider my THOUGHT that this man can not be a rapist. Even though what she said is true, would you agree that her conclusion that this man can not be a rapist is indeed GROUNDLESS?

I am pazzled why so many "logical minds" in this forum all in a sudden became illogical? Where in my post that I voiced my view that Holosync cds WILL in deed damage the brain?

peace and love to all.

[This message has been edited by Fear Not! (edited February 03, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Fear Not! (edited February 03, 2005).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fear Not!:
Actually I am not defending the "brain damage claim", I mearly pointing out that the poster 's "thoghts" that these cds cannot cause brain damage is groundless, just because she or people she knows didn't have brain damage does not exclude the possibilty that they COULD!

I am pazzled why so many "logical minds" in this forum all in a sudden became illogical? Where in my post that I voiced my view that Holosync cds WILL in deed damage the brain?

peace and love to all.

---

You were defending Michael Hutchison's credentials, for some reason...if not to defend his claims against those of Bill Harris, them please explain why?

It is not groundless because there are a lot of people on this forum who have used holosync and not a single one of them seems to conclusively think that holosync has produced brain damage in their case. That DOES constitute evidence. Not ultimately conclusive evidence, but it certainly is more
convincing than the other side of the argument if you ask me.

And yes, there is no way to prove that it absolutely COULDN'T produce brain damage. There is also no way to conclusively prove that eating cereal for breakfast COULDN'T ever produce brain damage, but I'm sure not going to waste my time thinking about it unless prompted by someone like you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by garics:
You were defending Michael Hutchison's credentials, for some reason...if not to defend his claims against those of Bill Harris, them please explain why?

---

Yes, because I read Bill Harris' attacks on Hutchson's credentials, his claims that he has access to scientif papers that were not available to Hutchson, I mearly pointing out to readers that if Hutchson does not have the credential and expertise, what kind of expertise and credentials Harris has? Again, it's about fairness and objectivity, I point out the flaws in Harris' arguement, I invite objective response and reasoning from readers or Harris himself, this is objective discussion. This is not "defend his claims against those of Bill Harris".

peace and love to all.

[This message has been edited by Fear Not! (edited February 03, 2005).]

Fear Not,

You claim to be objective and rational (if at least by implication) while you apparently fail to see the emotionality and subjectivity of your point of view.

You may be worse off that the people you criticize.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babayada:
Fear Not,

You claim to be objective and rational (if at least by implication) while you apparently fail to see the emotionality and subjectivity of your point of view.

You may be worse off that the people you criticize.

---

thank you for your "honesty".

1. could you be more specific about my "emotionality and subjectivity"?

2. I never criticize anyone being "bad", therefore "worse" has no place in this context. I was not trying to force any views or opinions on people, just pointed out that I do not agree with some opinions expreessed in some posts and expressed my contradicting opinions. Are you suggesting that if I agree with everything that is said here according to your judgement, than I would be "better" as opposed to "worse" than those I "agreed with"?

peace and love to all.

[This message has been edited by Fear Not! (edited February 03, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by Fear Not! (edited February 03, 2005).]

1) Read your own posts and see if you can tell me.

2) These are a series of euphemisms and semantic evasions.

[This message has been edited by babayada (edited February 04, 2005).]

You also never responded to my refutation of the "groundless" claim regarding Jeanne's post. I pointed out that of the (probably 100 or so) folks who post here who have had short to mid term use of holosync, there is no first hand evidence available definitively indicating brain damage, in anyone's case.
There is also no first hand account of such a phenomenon available anywhere on the internet or anywhere else, to the best of my knowledge. And this is a program that has had thousands and thousands of users, a much larger population than the "simple random sample" used by drug companies in the approval process for one of their new products.

So its really not groundless for someone to suggest based on the evidence that they feel brain damage is unlikely.

You never responded to that, as well as a host of other things. So maybe if you truly believe that people ought to stand by what they say, be honorable and "objective" etc, you could get the ball rolling by doing it in your own case.