Robt Mann wrote:

>         A widespread reaction of the medical trade when Reston reported in
> the NYT during Nixon's famous visit to China that acupuncture anaesthesia
> works: "you say this phenomenon occurs, but you got no hypothesis for *how*
> it might work, so I say the phenomenon cannot occur".

This is a straw man. If something happens and there is no scientific
explanation then most scientists I know would not react as described.

The problem is in determining what is and what is not "fact". I can say
that my bees do well because I use pressed tinfoil as foundation. The
reason they do well is because of the galvanic action between the foil
and honey which sets up temporal harmonics influencing the metabolic
thrombosis of tacheon emitters found within the global genome.

My fact, that my bees do well, can be accepted or rejected. Someone
first needs to observe my bees and report that they are doing well. But
that "fact" does not substantiate everything else.

With limited funding, most scientists will stick with the known or
reasonable to research and will not check out my practices. Which is
wonderful, because then am in the perfect position to condemn science
because it does not test my findings. I have the best of all possible
worlds. No testing, no proof and my word to convince the masses.

BTW. I use the leftover tinfoil to make hats.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine