Beverly Rubik - fruitcake
see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_medicine
.
"Published online" - me too, see this very comment on Poal, the distinguished Online Journal of Flat Earth rEsEaRCh
.
linked PDF "However, none of the observations discussed here prove this linkage. Specifically, the evidence does not confirm causation. Clearly COVID-19 occurs in regions with little wireless communication. Furthermore, the relative morbidity caused by WCR exposure in COVID-19 is unknown"
big lol...
.
The Institute for Frontier Science, appears to be in the same building as a sofa warehouse? 4067 Watts St, Emeryville, CA 94608
.
You trust wikipedia????
You trust wikipedia????
no, I trust my ability to read
from that link: "Beverly Rubik, in an article in the same journal,[39] justified her belief with references to biophysical systems theory, bioelectromagnetics, and chaos theory"
"Physicists and sceptics criticise these explanations as pseudophysics – a branch of pseudoscience which explains magical thinking by using irrelevant jargon from modern physics to exploit scientific illiteracy and to impress the unsophisticated.[13] Indeed, even enthusiastic supporters of energy healing say that "there are only very tenuous theoretical foundations underlying [spiritual] healing"
Okay, to be honest I didn't read past your first line referencing wikipedia, since I know it's a Deep State entity, but I read the rest of your comment now and I still see nothing wrong with biophysical systems theory, bioelectromagnetics, or chaos theory.
Who are the physicists and skeptics who criticize these as pseudoscience, and what's their excuse for writing her off based on their own opinions of those sciences? Your quote just gives their excuse to blow her off by calling them pseudoscience and defines what they mean by that word, and go on to talk about 'energy healing' as though to say that's what she's supporting.
Maybe do better by reading up on those 'pseudosciences', and who these people are they refer to.
As it is, many sciences rely on 'often tenuous theoretical foundations', including all those that are at the forefront of making new discoveries about our physical reality. It's really not a very strong argument to use against her, and typical of wikipedia to say things like this in order to try to destroy a person's credibility.
(post is archived)