What´s up with FFI

[artessa]

Interesting episode.
I sold one of my older cars to someone that had absolutely no idea about mpg.
I sold it with a almost empty tank and as far as my experience has showed you still maintain the effect from MPG at least one full tank after having stopped using MPG and many times even 2 tanks.
Anyway, this guy called me after having consumed 3 tanks claiming that the car performed worth now and as I have promised him to help him with the car if he encountered any difficulties I went to see him and I gave him a set of pills and told him to use it despite is negativity to put anything in the tank.
After only 150km he called me and said that the car was performing the same as when he got it and he was satisfied.
When he had consumed the few pills I gave him I told him to call me again to be properly informed about the pill and of course he was easy to convince. Not so much regarding the consumption benefit, because he had no reference to that but mainly regarding the performance benefit.
Coincidence?

[wserra]

Interesting episode.

I'm going to take one shot at this, then give it up.

You are never going to convince either Tony or me with "episodes". Tony knows far more about the specific subject at hand than I do, but I do understand the scientific method. You will never convince me this way not because I don't believe you, although if you are an FFI distributor your bias is established (as we litigator types put it) as a matter of law. You'll never convince anyone to whom the scientific method matters because you have the classic "trial size of 1" problem.

Do you know how many potential problems I've averted simply by crossing my fingers? Why, just the other day, I was driving down a suburban street when a young child darted out from between two parked cars right in front of me. I slammed on my brakes, but saw that I was likely not to be able to stop in time, so I crossed my fingers. Lo and behold, the child lept back out of the way just in time. Thank God for crossing my fingers, eh?

There's another way of putting it: post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's a fallacy. Taking what Tony wrote one step further, it's not only possible for measured mileage to vary by ten or so percent without apparent reason - if you measure long enough, it's sure to do so for one period or another, simply as a product of probabilities. If you happen to be using something during that time, it is human nature to attribute the difference to what you are using.

And this is not even considering the placebo effect, which you definitely should read about. In controlled, double-blind studies, an average of thirty percent of the control (placebo) group believes in error that it is receiving the active substance. That is not because they're lying, it's because they're human. A study which is not blind (forget double-blind) is simply not a study. And when such a "study" is conducted by someone interested in the outcome, people start to laugh.

Coincidence?

You haven't proven that it's not, and it's your burden. "It couldn't happen by chance" is not proof, because - even with an unbiased tester - it certainly could.

[artessa]

Something happened that I had predicted without the person in question had absolutely no idea it would, regarding the use of the pill. It is very unlikely this could be coincidence.
Anyway I don’t bother trying to convince you that “the pill” will save you 10 or 15 % of fuel. What I rather would like to achieve is to open very narrow-minded people that
something, that apparently seams to be unlikely might actually happen.

This situation is that you have to have proof from for example EPA that the pill has ANY effect and I have to have the same proof that tells me that that the pill has no effect and all indicators that I have perceived are just COINCIDENCE!

[wserra]

I have to have the same proof that tells me that that the pill has no effect and all indicators that I have perceived are just COINCIDENCE!

And that is precisely where you part ways with any semblance of scientific method.

You push a product of a class which both the EPA and the Competition Bureau say generically does not work. Instead of providing proof that your product works, you demand proof that it doesn't. No intelligent person, let alone scientist, will agree that you are entitled to such proof, even were it feasible to prove the negative (which it isn't).

[wserra]

I realize that you're not from the U.S. However, for those of us that are, the idea that the Shrub Administration's EPA has "such high demands on accuracy" borders on the comical.

Illustrating what I was saying, an editorial from today's NY Times (may require free registration):

The Bush administration has proved indefatigable at finding industry foxes to upend the regulatory chicken coops. The result has been an undermining of restraints on everything from strip miners to long-haul truckers and corporate executives intent on consumer-unfriendly mergers.

Any standards you see coming from U.S. regulatory agencies today are strictly the minimum the public will put up with, and they must frequently be forced to do their jobs at all (Massachusetts v. EPA, Supreme Court a month or so ago).

[fuelsaving]

Was in contact with the test lab on wednesday (21 of march), and the test [the Millbrook one that "proves" FFI works] will be ready early next week, approx. 27 of march. Then they are going to do a document on it and send it out.

Well, that's over a month elapsed now and still no sign of this wonderful proof.

Tony's knowledge is of great value to this debate....Unfortunately he is far too self- confident to actually believe in something he hasn’t tried out himself or that he can fully understand easily... I bet you he is just about to feel a little bit uncomfortable about this situation.

Somebody certainly should be feeling uncomfortable now. But it ain't me.

[PonziKiller]

Tony's knowledge is of great value to this debate....Unfortunately he is far too self- confident to actually believe in something he hasn’t tried out himself or that he can fully understand easily... I bet you he is just about to feel a little bit uncomfortable about this situation.

Somebody certainly should be feeling uncomfortable now. But it ain't me.

This one is a typical MLM "argument". You haven't tried. What they easily ignore, is the fact that other people are sceptic or negative to most MLM "product" because they have the knowledge to sort out a scam company and/or product.

But I feel really sorry for those gullible people with lack of knowledge and skills, that believe in the scamartists and scamcompanies like FFI.

I just wonder. If they know that even the vapor of cyanid acid is deadly, do they really put their nose in it and inhale the vapor to prove its deadly for their upline?

[TheBest]

Was in contact with the test lab on wednesday (21 of march), and the test [the Millbrook one that "proves" FFI works] will be ready early next week, approx. 27 of march. Then they are going to do a document on it and send it out.

Well, that's over a month elapsed now and still no sign of this wonderful proof.

Tony's knowledge is of great value to this debate....Unfortunately he is far too self- confident to actually believe in something he hasn’t tried out himself or that he can fully understand easily... I bet you he is just about to feel a little bit uncomfortable about this situation.

Somebody certainly should be feeling uncomfortable now. But it ain't me.

Well Tony, I´m VERY comfortable at the time.
And to the Millbrooks test, they decided to do some extra testing as they got an even better result than expected.
As soon as Millbrook are ready, the TÜV are going to do a test during the summer.

/TheBest

[PonziKiller]

As soon as Millbrook are ready, the TÜV are going to do a test during the summer.

/TheBest

Why not test according to EPA standard?

[fuelsaving]

And to the Millbrooks test, they decided to do some extra testing as they got an even better result than expected.
As soon as Millbrook are ready, the TÜV are going to do a test during the summer.

Until the test results are actually officially released, that just sounds like typical MLM hype (with which regulars to these boards are extremely familiar). You have not offered any independent proof for these claims.

[texino]

I was to the Bodega Nacional to pick up supplies and look at the internet. I have been reading Tony the engineer's web site a long time and I was surprised to see such a long argument about silly fuel devices. Oh well, since I am doing medicine work up in the mountains, I must admit that I have discovered a wonderful fuel additive to get my vehicle to climb higher, faster and for a longer time than on standard fuel. I tell you for free. First I gets two large bottle of beer 1/2 litre each. Next I go and get two large budding of Panama's famous red marijuana. OK?
Then I approach the motive power and tell each mule to open his mouth. They will drink some beer, eat some grass and then finish the beer. When, in a few minutes the two animals kicks up their heels, it means we are going up the mountain Katy bar the door. It don't work on no type of care; nothing does, well maybe a tune up of the motor help.

Texino

[Lambkin]

Mules! Just feed em 40 pounds of beans and you won't have to worry about saving gas.

[wserra]

Was in contact with the test lab on wednesday (21 of march), and the test will be ready early next week, approx. 27 of march.

(Final Jeopardy music.)

[AlexTrebek]All right, time's up.[/AlexTrebek]

If someone tells you otherwise, they don´t tell the thruth.

Does that include you?

[TheBest]

Was in contact with the test lab on wednesday (21 of march), and the test will be ready early next week, approx. 27 of march.

(Final Jeopardy music.)

[AlexTrebek]All right, time's up.[/AlexTrebek]

If someone tells you otherwise, they don´t tell the thruth.

Does that include you?

I´m sorry if I haven´t told you, but maybe it´s because of your lack of interest.
But Millbrook, http://www.millbrook.co.uk , decided to do the test on some more cars as the result was much better than expected on the first one. But it´s on it´s way.

And TÜV, http://www.tuv.com/global/en/index.html , started their test on the 4th of may and it goes on through the summer.

TheBest

[TheBest]

If someone tells you otherwise, they don´t tell the thruth.

Does that include you?

This was bad, wserra, real bad. Shame on you.

/TheBest

[webhick]

But it´s on it´s way.

Like NESARA?

[fuelsaving]

I´m sorry if I haven´t told you, but maybe it´s because of your lack of interest.
But Millbrook, http://www.millbrook.co.uk , decided to do the test on some more cars as the result was much better than expected on the first one. But it´s on it´s way.

And TÜV, http://www.tuv.com/global/en/index.html , started their test on the 4th of may and it goes on through the summer.

Says you. You haven't given us any proof that these tests are even happening, much less that Millbrook got this amazing result.

The usual procedure for this type of test is that (eg) Millbrook are paid a fixed amount of money to do a certain amount of testing and report on it. No way would they, on their own initiative, decide to do a whole load of extra unpaid work. Possibly they issued this amazing report to FFI, who then paid them some more money to do some extra work, but that's not what you claimed - and in any case, why wasn't that first report released to the public, if it is so positive for FFI?

What's the new expected date for the Millbrook report?

[PonziKiller]

And TÜV, http://www.tuv.com/global/en/index.html , started their test on the 4th of may and it goes on through the summer.

Says you. You haven't given us any proof that these tests are even happening, much less that Millbrook got this amazing result.

The usual procedure for this type of test is that (eg) Millbrook are paid a fixed amount of money to do a certain amount of testing and report on it. No way would they, on their own

initiative, decide to do a whole load of extra unpaid work. Possibly they issued this amazing report to FFI, who then paid them some more money to do some extra work, but that's not what you claimed - and in any case, why wasn't that first report released to the public, if it is so positive for FFI?

What's the new expected date for the Millbrook report?[/quote]

I don't think the "test" was any good at all, at least for FFI

I will keep an very sharp eye on Tüv. If they do a test, they normally will make it open to the public. And if there is some questions, they normally answer it. At least to the press...

[TheBest]

I don't think the "test" was any good at all, at least for FFI

Well, PK, what you think or don´t doesn´t matter much. No one pays attention to what you think, says or write anymore.

What's the new expected date for the Millbrook report?

I don´t know the date, but when it comes, you´ll know, for sure.

I will keep an very sharp eye on Tüv. If they do a test, they normally will make it open to the public. And if there is some questions, they normally answer it. At least to the press...

I hope you do. And don´t expect that you´ll like what you get to see. [/quote]

/TheBest

[wserra]

I don´t know the date, but when it comes, you´ll know, for sure.

We won't be able to see it if the sun dies first.

Be sure and start a new thread for us when it comes out. This one's gotten too long.