My poor, neglected blog. These last few weeks have been killer workwise; I still have another post in the wings in pandemic influenza that might have to wait until next week (unofficially extending pandemic flu awareness week), and I have another one I'm working on regarding some recent Iowa events, but in the meantime, I can't let this go un-commented upon. I asked resident germ theory denier jspreen this question:
...if germs don't cause disease, what's the function of our immune system? Why is it evolutionarily conserved?
The immune system is just a theoretical representation but warmongering germs have no biological reality. The sole function of the immune system is to keep the germ theory of diseases from falling apart.
Don't even need to comment on that one, I don't think.
Comments
Wow. Just wow.
Posted by: John Lynch | October 13, 2006 2:00 PM
Um, ...okay...I'm speechless...
Posted by: afarensis | October 13, 2006 2:08 PM
Geez and here Woodward thought Bush and company are in a State of Denial. This guy makes them look like pure amateurs :-)
Posted by: Doug Alder | October 13, 2006 2:17 PM
What!?
Posted by: coturnix | October 13, 2006 2:19 PM
Can we put him in touch with Larry Fafarman? Those 2 are very special!
Posted by: J-Dog | October 13, 2006 2:43 PM
Oh, please. Give me a break.... I could go on and on about this, but such statements as his do not warrant any additional (or serious) response.
Posted by: Lenn | October 13, 2006 2:48 PM
And that's Intelligent Desgn... I just knew the immune system was useful somehow.
Posted by: VJB | October 13, 2006 2:55 PM
I think laughter is a perfectly warranted response.
And if it causes you to laugh so hard that you hurt yourself, that might be serious.
Posted by: Davis | October 13, 2006 2:57 PM
Leen writes: "I could go on and on about this, but such statements as his do not warrant any additional (or serious) response."
I agree. At some point the dialog is over. Beyond that, it's all strictly for entertainment purposes.
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | October 13, 2006 4:24 PM
Creationists often say that strange fossils have been put into rock when God created rocks, 4000 years ago, to test the faith of peoples of weak faith.
For JSpreen, the human immune system is just another thing to explain away. Since he has to explain out large swathes of all moder biological knowledge, that one comes easy for him.
Anything that conflicts with his vision can be dismissed in a couple of sentences: no research needed. If need be, any spur-of-the-monent explanation can be used to invalidate decades of medical research that he's blissfully unaware of.
Posted by: _Arthur | October 13, 2006 4:29 PM
Wow.
What a pathetic bunch of bullies.
Why does Jan Spreen get under your skin?
Posted by: DB | October 13, 2006 4:36 PM
Ah! Once again, the gathering of the brave. So that's where the herd of lazy brain sheep is hanging out, giggling together. Hey Tara, why didn't you post your answer to the thread where it belongs? If you go on like this you'll smear my heresies all over the place and the more you rub it in, the more people might not think my ideas are as stupid as you want everybody to believe.
Well, what the heck. I'm very proud of becoming one of the main subjects of your blog, together with sympathetic Charles Hoy who seems to know me better than I know him. You know what? I bet that with a little help of us heretics your blog will become one of the all time Internet hits within in a year or two. Wilhelm, Liam, Charles, Hank et al, let's party!
Here, a link. Now everybody can read what we're talking about and hop from ignorant tittering to intelligent giggling. If such a thing exists that is.
js
Posted by: jspreen | October 13, 2006 4:48 PM
"If you go on like this you'll smear my heresies all over the place and the more you rub it in, the more people might not think my ideas are as stupid as you want everybody to believe."
--------------
jspreen, among the few things I can guarantee you is that no one is afraid that you will gain converts by talking in our company. Trust me on this, next to people like Robster, you come across as amazingly ignorant, not just of the human body, but of the entire world. And so... delusional. So delighted with yourself, for so little reason. Its sad, really, that you have such an exagerrated feeling of self-importance and yet are so manifestly full of shit.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 13, 2006 5:33 PM
js -- do you ever wash your hands before you eat?
You shouldn't.
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 13, 2006 5:33 PM
"Why does Jan Spreen get under your skin?"
------------
Because this is skeptics turf, DB. Its not like we're commenting on his blog, or seeking him out. He came here to be kicked, and we're obliging him.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 13, 2006 5:36 PM
He came here to be kicked, and we're obliging him.
How noble of you. Really take the high road, don't you?
Posted by: DB | October 13, 2006 5:43 PM
js:
"The immune system is just a theoretical representation..."
Of what? What does it represent?
Some good jokes could be made here, but I'd really instead like to know what you think. (Likely because I'm new to this conversation and am not entirely irritated and jaded with what you have to say.)
Posted by: Edmund | October 13, 2006 5:52 PM
"The immune system is just a theoretical representation..."
Of what? What does it represent?
Don't you know? It's part of the representation of nature as a battle field. Of a world according to George "Double You" Bush and consorts.
Posted by: jspreen | October 13, 2006 6:29 PM
I'm happy to advertise your ideas--why do you think I promote them as separate posts? It shows how vacant and ridiculous they are. As far as an "answer," I don't have one to post--I wouldn't even know where to begin. It's like arguing with my children about fairies or something.
Posted by: Tara C. Smith | October 13, 2006 6:38 PM
ason,
So why have we had a an increase in intestinal ilness this last month or so if it was not caused by the E-Coli H-0157 we found in the spinich and the people who ate it?
Posted by: KevinC | October 13, 2006 6:39 PM
How noble of you. Really take the high road, don't you?
Don't bother, DB. They have no idea of how many of them I can handle as long as, of course, no physical arguments are used. It's like going to a meeting of people who are convinced that 40 mph is deadly for the human corps, try to advance that it might not be the case, be ridiculed and laughed at and then, after an hour of fooling around with a couple of hillbillies, drive back home a 120 MPH in your sports car.
Posted by: jspreen | October 13, 2006 6:40 PM
Sorry Jason. Lost the first letter of your name coming back from spell check.
Posted by: KevinC | October 13, 2006 6:41 PM
jspreen: have you considered proving your point by injecting some incredibly deadly microbe into your body? If you live, you would get a teensy bit of respect. If you died, we can all stop arguing. win/win
Posted by: Baratos | October 13, 2006 6:48 PM
"They have no idea of how many of them I can handle"
--------------
Well, if by handle you mean "refute with logic or fact", since we've never seen you use either, I guess you would be right there.
As for you, DB, I haven't called him a hillbilly, dummy, or sheep, or anything like that... so, yeah. I do take the high road. I've actually learned a lot by looking into cancer and other things to figure out whether he is making any valid statements. So far--as far as I know--he hasn't made a single factual claim, which considering the volume of posts is pretty amazing.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 13, 2006 7:17 PM
Of what? What does it represent?
Don't you know? It's part of the representation of nature as a battle field. Of a world according to George "Double You" Bush and consorts.
I do want to say that it makes me feel warm and fuzzy to see a scienceblogs threat making fun of a left-wing nut-job. Most of the time around here, it's the right-wing nut-jobs who get made fun of, since those tend to be the sorts of nut-jobs who most blatantly display ignorance about science.
(Unless js is in fact somebody who thinks W is too liberal or something like that?)
js, given that the germ theory of disease makes large numbers of predictions that have been borne out -- like, say, the fact that hygiene is crucial for preventing disease, and for healing wounds and so forth -- thereby increasing lifespans, and given that the individual small little thingies that cause the dieseases in many cases have been specifically identified, in what way does denying the germ theory of disease not make you as delusional as a flat-earther?
Or are you a flat-earther too?
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 13, 2006 9:32 PM
Seth, I am incredibly honored and humbled. Thanks.
jspreen. 40 mph is indeed lethal to humans under certain circumstances. It isn't the speed that is dangerous. It's those sudden interactions with either nigh immovable bodies or fast moving ones with enough mass.
Posted by: Robster | October 13, 2006 10:51 PM
I don't have one to post--I wouldn't even know where to begin. It's like arguing with my children about fairies or something.
Don't worry Tara, I know where to begin, just give me a hint the day you're ready to listen to the story. I can even make a fairy tale of it, if you wish. I bet your children will prefer it to dumb horror pictures like the one about the avian flu bullshit.
My story might start like this:
Once upon a time, in dark times when people were still very afraid of the same bacteria and viruses we know now we cannot live without, a man lost his son. The son, Dirk, was shot accidentally by a furious Italian prince, Emmanuel, and died four month after the fatal gunshot. The father of Dirk, Geerd was his name, was a very strong man who had never been sick before. Strange enough, he fell seriously ill only some month after what had been the most tragic and darkest moments of his life.
Geerd was a medical doctor but unlike almost all of his colleagues, he was also a very curious man and not afraid to let new and unheard off ideas enter his brain and think them over. "Lo!", Geerd said to himself. "I'm a strong man and have never been ill in my whole life. And now, within a couple of month of deep sorrow over the loss of my son, what do I have? Cancer in my balls! That is not a coincidence!"
40 mph is indeed lethal to humans under certain circumstances.
It's not the speed, it's the collision.
js
Posted by: jspreen | October 14, 2006 3:10 AM
"And now, within a couple of month of deep sorrow over the loss of my son, what do I have? Cancer in my balls! That is not a coincidence!""
--------------------------
Lots of people will have a son die without developing testicular cancer. Other people get testicular cancer without having a son die. Having a son (child, relative, good friend) die is non-predictive of developing testicular cancer. Getting testicular cancer at that time was a coincidence.
All of use experience events that could be called shock events all the time. But these events are not predictive of health in the same way that exposure to smallpox or plague or even the common cold is. And lots of us get over internal conflicts as well, reconcile ourselves to life after divorce, learn to cope with our fear of heights, and so forth. But this isn't predictive of health either, not in the same way that antibiotics are. And spectacular single cases aside, for the majority of people who take them, the antibiotics are going to clear up that bronchial infection.
Hamer is a scam artist, like any astrologer or cold reader or whatever. He can't tell you that you are going to get sick. And he can't tell you, cold, what happened to make you sick. But if you tell him enough about you, he can seize on some event and make up a story about why that made you sick. He can't tell you if you're probably going to get well, or even what you need to do to get well. But if you do get well under his "care", he can take the credit. And if you don't.. . well, you didn't do it right.
Among the many people who did not use Hamer's methods when they had testicular cancer, we can count Hamer himself, alive today thanks to real doctors. Its sickening and sad when guys like Hamer--who have benefitted so much from western medicine--spit on people who have truly dedicated their lives to finding out why people get sick.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 14, 2006 10:46 AM
How was his testicular cancer treated? What stage and type was the tumor? Testicular cancer is one of the most curable types...
Posted by: Unsympathetic reader | October 14, 2006 11:11 AM
js -- in 1996, I was riding a Unicycle, and got hit by a car, breaking my left wrist.
How many people does that happen to?
A year later, I had a PhD in Physics.
This can not be a coincidence.
I urge everybody else out there to try it. Go on. Ride a unicycle in front of a car. Within a year, you'll have a PhD in Physics. We have solid, irrefutable anecdotal evidence that it will work, or at least good enough evidence that this hypothesis should be taken seriously. Anybody who laughs at this evidence is clearly closed minded and refuses to directly engage the evidence rationally, and is caught up in the groupthink of the establisment.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 14, 2006 11:39 AM
Rob, a lot of the people criticized by ScienceBlog bloggers are either of unknown affiliation (who knows what the likes of the thimerosal causes autism crowd belongs to), or are known to be on the left side of the US political spectrum (for example several of the posters over at the Huffington Post). It's only when it comes to the Intelligent Design movement, that it seems to be mostly right-winged people who are in the line of fire, simply because it seems most people who tries to promote teaching it, are Republicians.
Posted by: Kristjan Wager | October 14, 2006 3:16 PM
Can I believe my eyes? Ha, ha, ha, what a pathetic bunch of hillbillies you are. I tell the first two paragraph of a one thousand pages story and already you folks try to hysterically hush me and proof I'm wrong.
Who are you? What big bones do you all have in the fight? Are you the people who are supposed to take care of patients, with tons of sympathy and love to spend? Hey Seth, you really are some kind of stupid scumbag to talk like that of someone you know nothing about at all but a few lines you read on the Internet. If I were to be severely ill, I'd certainly ask people like you for help. Seth, the doctor from hell, poison and hate for all occasions.
Maybe you have truly dedicated your live to finding out why people get sick but the way you speak I can tell you that you have not yet found out anything. At all.
js -- in 1996, I was riding a Unicycle, and got hit by a car, breaking my left wrist. How many people does that happen to? A year later, I had a PhD in Physics. This can not be a coincidence.
Hmm... I can eventually see some kind of relation between "death of son" and "father's testicular cancer", but between your accident and your PhD in physics...? Lemme see... hmm... hmm... Gotcha! Nobody ever broke his wrist after having been hit by a car and you became really interested in physics because of your accident, principally to find out which particularly rare mechanism broke your bones. Hence your degree.
But, why do you per se have to come up with baby talk to wave away the beginning of my story? At this moment I'm not trying to prove anything at all.
How come you feel threatened by a joke-blower like me? Why argue? You beat me hands down, all you need to do giggle.
Posted by: jspreen | October 14, 2006 4:47 PM
And I suppose coconuts are migratory....
Posted by: complex_field | October 14, 2006 5:17 PM
"Seth, the doctor from hell..."
"Maybe you have truly dedicated your live to finding out why people get sick but the way you speak I can tell you that you have not yet found out anything. At all."
--------------
Let me be the first to say that I haven't dedicated my life to finding out why people get sick. I was referring in a general way to how spreen calls doctors and medical researchers (like Tara, to pick one of the many on this blog out of a hat).
ahh... jan spreen. Never one to use facts or reason when insults and proclamations of superiority will do.
There are web pages (translated from the german) with lists of the dead from Hamer's treatment. Perhaps someone who is fluent in the language could do better research on this, but I have found no documented case where a Hamer patient survived serious illness, and many cases where he either almost killed or actually killed a person with his advice.
He was released from prison recently, I suppose because simply giving deadly advice to adults isn't a crime. But his claims are ridiculous... many people lose children and do not get testicular cancer. Many people get testicular cancer without losing a child. Hamer's theory is not useful in understanding testicular cancer. He is a quack.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 14, 2006 6:23 PM
"Maybe you have truly dedicated your live to finding out why people get sick but the way you speak..."
------------
Got a comment on this in the spam filter, but real quick, let me say that I am not a doctor and never claimed to be one, not even the PhD kind.
I love it when guys like Jspreen, who think nothing of calling people names and writing out his laughter get all huffy because I use a few strong words. If he says "What a bunch of hillbillies" its supposed to be clever, but if I say that Hamer is a scam artist (which he is) this is "poison and hate for all occasions."
A fact, jspreen. Lets hear from you one, single, verifiable fact. It won't prove your case, but it will be a start.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 14, 2006 6:32 PM
I continued my research into this today, rather than working on my homework. What the hell, my job isn't that bad, why did I want that masters anyway? (and yes, for the experienced academics, I am nearing thesis phase... when procrastination becomes a true art)
I digress.
Jan Spreen, do you read German, right? Go here. Read the story, of how Erik took his friend Karmen to see Dr. Hamer, how for a year, her cancer went untreated. Read about how he asked for help on a "new medicine" forum, but how Carmen died anyway. Look at the pictures, Jan. See what breast cancer looks like. I warn you, it is truly horrifying.
If you do not read German (I don't) Google can translate this page for you, and you have to scroll WAYYYYY to the side on each set of comments. Its worth it, although some words don't translate.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 14, 2006 7:21 PM
I managed to find some more cases. One of these is on a cancer support board, where a doctor brings up a patient he got after she had been with Hamer. To quote:
Could this be the same case where Jspreen claims the hospital handed this child back to her father with the injunction, "We cannot save the girl, maybe Hamer can, but you must promise not to tell anybody that I said this to you."
Or did Hamer let TWO little girls be eaten by Wilms tumors?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 14, 2006 10:39 PM
This will be it for the breast cancer cases. They are quite upsetting. Anyway, you can take the following link to translate.google.com to see it in english.
http://www.ariplex.com/ama/amamicha.htm
Apparently, Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert died horribly on November 12th, 2005, two days before her 41st birthday. The photographs on this page are pretty horrifying, but not as bad as the ones on Carmen's page. The story is worse, though.
Anyway... what Jan Spreen will say is "dummy, idiot, fool, sheep, poison tongue guy person, Michaela Died of the pain killers they gave her in hospice" or some such thing like that. This is the same Jan who told us that you could, without ill effect, shoot coca-cola. I don't expect much lucidity from him anyway.
Just think, Jan. Maybe you were part of this case! Maybe she read one of your articles, and it motivated her, as you so fervently hoped it would, to drive to see Hamer in Spain. And he convinced her to stop her chemo, and her cancer became the horrible, creeping mass that you see in these photos. And then, when she was weeping with pain, and the tumor had torn open her skin, her back open and rotting, stinking of dead meat, she finally found the only surcease available to one who has taken your advice and died.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 14, 2006 11:16 PM
Hmm... I can eventually see some kind of relation between "death of son" and "father's testicular cancer", but between your accident and your PhD in physics...? Lemme see... hmm... hmm... Gotcha!
If only you had a clue about what anecdotal evidence was, as well as how irrelevant it is to supporting any case, you might actually see the connection.
However, "clue" is kind of an advanced concept for fringe nutcase theorists, so I won't expect it out of you.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 15, 2006 3:54 AM
But, why do you per se have to come up with baby talk to wave away the beginning of my story?
Perhaps because it's obvious only from the beginning that your story is junk, and perhaps because the level of cognition behind your position suggests that baby talk may be the appropriate level of discussion?
I mean, treating your arguments seriously and trying to do a lot of work to refute them point by point would be absurd. Kinda like trying to seriously debate a flat-earther in this day and age; there just is no point. Some levels of tenacious willful ignorance warrant only laughter, not serious debate. Save the serious debate for issues where there acutally is some doubt.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 15, 2006 3:58 AM
Save the serious debate for issues where there actually is some doubt.
How wrong you are. Issues where there seems to be no doubt at all should be most seriously discussed when questioned.
Apparently, Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert died horribly on November 12th, 2005, two days before her 41st birthday.
I had not heard of this case so I'm glad you informed me. Olivia Pilhar's case cannot really be used against Hamer anymore. She's alive and well some ten years after the events, her father has set up a huge Internet site to inform the world about Hamer's New Medicine and millions know now what really happened. Now the "scientific" cancer community needs another case in its war of hate against heresy. Michaela went to Hamer. She died. What happened to her before she went to Hamer? You can't tell. But it doesn't matter, who needs to know? Hamer killed the woman: nobody ever died of cancer or anything else in a hospital exclusively equipped with doctors who never doubt about regular treatment.
Yes, I read German. I found some more information you might try to translate with Google. If you question, look for answers on both sides.
Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 7:15 AM
Save the serious debate for issues where there actually is some doubt.
How wrong you are. Issues where there seems to be no doubt at all should be most seriously discussed when questioned.
Apparently, Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert died horribly on November 12th, 2005, two days before her 41st birthday.
I had not heard of this case so I'm glad you informed me. Olivia Pilhar's case cannot really be used against Hamer anymore. She's alive and well some ten years after the events, her father has set up a huge Internet site to inform the world about Hamer's New Medicine and millions know now what really happened. Now the "scientific" cancer community needs another case in its war of hate against heresy. Michaela went to Hamer. She died. What happened to her before she went to Hamer? You can't tell. But it doesn't matter, who needs to know? Hamer killed the woman for sure because nobody ever died of cancer in a hospital exclusively equipped with doctors who never doubt about regular cancer treatment.
Yes, I read German. I found some more information you might try to translate with Google. If you question, look for answers on both sides.
Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 7:42 AM
Save the serious debate for issues where there actually is some doubt.
How wrong you are. Issues where there seems to be no doubt at all should be most seriously discussed when questioned.
Apparently, Michaela Jakubczyk-Eckert died horribly on November 12th, 2005, two days before her 41st birthday.
I had not heard of this case so I'm glad you informed me. Olivia Pilhar's case cannot really be used against Hamer anymore. She's alive and well some ten years after the events, her father has set up a huge Internet site to inform the world about Hamer's New Medicine and millions know now what really happened. Now the "scientific" cancer community needs another case in its war of hate against heresy. Michaela went to Hamer. She died. What happened to her before she went to Hamer? You can't tell. But it doesn't matter, who needs to know? Hamer killed the woman for sure because nobody ever died of cancer in a hospital exclusively equipped with doctors who never doubt about regular cancer treatment.
Yes, I read German. I found some more information. Interesting, you might want to have a look: http://www.faktor-l.de/viewtopic.php?t=929
If you question, look for answers on both sides.
Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 7:45 AM
A fact, jspreen. Lets hear from you one, single, verifiable fact. It won't prove your case, but it will be a start.
Facts? I can give you thousands.
Here's one: A woman has a cancer in the left breast (mammary gland). Take a brain scan. Look at the outer right part of the cerebellum. You'll find the Hamer focus.
Beg your pardon? Artefact? Yeah, that's what people often say. You see, there are no facts, clear-cut one-way evidence does not exist. For anything. It all depends on how you look at things, what you let in, what you leave out. Everything can be explained away. That's why people have always been fighting, and will always continue to fight.
Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 8:03 AM
You see, there are no facts, clear-cut one-way evidence does not exist. For anything. It all depends on how you look at things, what you let in, what you leave out. Everything can be explained away. That's why people have always been fighting, and will always continue to fight.
So is the world flat or not, eh?
Can you make a credible argument that the world is flat? Do you have thousands of facts to back that up?
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 15, 2006 10:59 AM
"Olivia Pilhar's case cannot really be used against Hamer anymore"
---------
Olivia Pilhar was rescued by the authorities. She underwent surgery, which removed a 6 liter tumor. The doctors involved are all on record as saying she would certainly have died without their intervention. I can use Olivia Pilhar's case against Hamer, because he almost killed her. There's actually a comment in the spam filter that addresses that.
Michaela's tumor was reducing under the chemotherapy. When Hamer convinced her to stop, it ate her alive and she died a horrible and painful death. The website you sent me too had exactly one critique, which is that there might be one wrong date in the narrative.
By the way, you skipped the story of Carmen. Her friend Eric posts to the new medicine discussion board how they are wondering why she isn't getting better, and whether anyone has gone through this and can tell them what to expect. No answers, of course, because anyone who ignores major breast cancer is going to die, which she does. Good job, Jan.
Hamer is a a serial killer, and you help him kill. Not one single person with a verified malignant tumor has ever survived Hamer's treatment unless they also recieved chemo and surgery. Not one. And oddly, thousands survive cancer with chemo and surgery every year without ever even HEARING about Hamer.
How do you explain that to yourself when you're trying to get to sleep at night, Jan? With pathetic psuedo facts about CT scans that aren't true, and wouldn't prove anything if they WERE true? Or do you just like killing people?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 11:18 AM
Someday a cure for altie beliefs will be discovered, and become widely used. Shortly after, those of us who routinely heap textual abuse on alties be recalled with the same mixture of horror, shame, and revulsion that is today applied to the managers of 19th century asylums for the mentally ill.
Posted by: llewelly | October 15, 2006 11:33 AM
"those of us who routinely heap textual abuse on alties be recalled with the same mixture of horror, shame, and revulsion that is today applied to the managers of 19th century asylums for the mentally ill."
----------------
What, because we are holding them in tiny cages filled with human shit and beating them senseless? Sure, thats an apt comparison.
Jan Spreen aids and abets a serial killer. He makes up stories in his head to make that okay, to make himself special. But it isn't okay, and he isn't special, and I guess I just don't find him funny anymore. I put a couple of faces and names together and really got a grip on what he is doing, and it is no joke.
Jan needs to ask himself some tough questions, like, why is it that no one with a serious cancer lives without chemo and surgery, but many people with serious cancer live without ever hearing of Dr. Hamer? Why do all of Hamers patients either die, or go through standard medical procedures and live?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 12:22 PM
I'm well aware of that. Now, do you have any evidence that said textual abuse has prevented people like Jan from aiding serial killers?
I've been watching these kinds of arguments for years, and I've participated in much the same you have (though with somewhat less knowledge of the material). I began doing so, because at one point I believed such arguments would change people minds.
But I've seen no minds changed.
Posted by: llewelly | October 15, 2006 12:43 PM
I began doing so, because at one point I believed such arguments would change people minds.
But I've seen no minds changed.
Even if no minds are changed... it's probably worth the heaping scorn. If somebody else comes along and doesn't see it, they may come to believe that there is a legitimate debate.
If, on the other hand, a blog site populated by legitimate scientists dogpiles with score people like jspreen, it may help send the message to the un-knowledgeable lurker that they should not consider taking the nutty ideas of people like jspreen seriously.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 15, 2006 12:51 PM
"I'm well aware of that. Now, do you have any evidence that said textual abuse has prevented people like Jan from aiding serial killers?"
-----------
No. But like Rob says, you have to show how silly it is to believe such things! So the lurkers will know.
I'm not knowledgeable, I'm tenacious. Finding this information has taken a lot of research. I don't read german and ALL the information is in german. Most people are not as obsessive as me, and wouldn't bother, but somebody probably needs to point out that Jan is a friend to murder so that the lurkers can know that too.
But I'm not heaping scorn. I'm just asking tough questions and showing people the bodies. And the tough questions are, why is it that no person who has ever had a malignant tumor survived Dr. Hamer's advice? In every case where a patient has survived Hamer, real Doctors had to intervene with surgery and chemo. In every case where there was no intervention, the patient died. Why is this? And why is it, if Hamer is correct, that thousands of people survive chemo and sugery with no Hamer, and go on to live extraordinary lives?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 1:20 PM
Is there anyone who takes seriously the "You're arguing with me, therefore I'm right" line?
Posted by: Alon Levy | October 15, 2006 2:18 PM
Is there anyone who takes seriously the "You're arguing with me, therefore I'm right" line?
"Teach the controversy."
It's been shown to be a distressingly powerful line of argument. Perhaps not, "You're arguing with me, therefore I'm right," but people do seem to buy, "you're arguing with me, therefore my position as the same weight as yours."
That's why lots of otherwise rational people might say, yeah, I accept the evidence evolution, but we have to be "fair" and let the ID folks have equal time in our science classes.
Of course, by and large, most people here aren't arguing with js; they're making fun of him.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 15, 2006 2:41 PM
Of course, by and large, most people here aren't arguing with js; they're making fun of him.
Yes, I'm sure you are! And since I'm making fun of all of you, let's have fun together for a year or so, OK? Let's try to find out which party will finally outwit the other. Because, after all, it's not definitely settled yet. You think that you win hands down but I think that you don't have a snowball's chance in hell against my ideas, preaching the funny stuff you believe in. HIV=Aids, avian flu bullshit, once a year flu vaccination. Ha, ha, ha, vaccination. A long time ago the nonsense started as a once in a lifetime thing, soon it'll be every week! Flu vaccine, get yourself a shot once a year. Don't be late but you must not shoot too early either, it might not protect you anymore after a couple of month, when you realy need the protection! ROTFWL, what a crap! Unless one's the manufacturer, of course. Which I am. That's why I write the things I write. Nobody will ever suspect me of being behind the monster poisoning campaigns.
With pathetic pseudo facts about CT scans that aren't true, and wouldn't prove anything if they WERE true?
You see? I show a fact and you bite my finger. You're ten times sillier that I'd already figured out. No, maybe you're not that stupid after all. Quit a shrewd formulation you have there. facts about CT scans that aren't true, and wouldn't prove anything if they WERE true That's bullet-proof reasoning as far as I can judge!
So is the world flat or not, eh? Can you make a credible argument that the world is flat? Do you have thousands of facts to back that up?
Did I mention something about my flat-earth beliefs somewhere? Why do you hop around from one subject to another on your Skippy ball? We'll never get anywhere like that!
Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 4:19 PM
Thank you, Rob.
Seth - and anyone else who was offended - I appologize for the comparison to 19th century asylums for the mentally ill.
Posted by: llewelly | October 15, 2006 4:20 PM
You sound like a 5-year-old taunting the local gangster who doesn't order a hit on him simply because the kid is too amusing to kill.
Posted by: Alon Levy | October 15, 2006 4:55 PM
After such a deafening applause I cannot possibly get away from telling the next two paragraphs of my fairy tale. Here they are.
~/~
One day Geerd decided to talk it over with some colleagues. He told them what he'd figured out and ended his talk saying: "That is not a coincidence!". A short silence followed. Then his colleagues burst out in laughter. "Oh come on Geerd! That's nonsense. Of course it's just a silly coincidence. What are you? A crackpot or something? If only you had a clue about anecdotal evidence!" End of story.
End of story? No, beginning of story. Geerd couldn't stop thinking about the remarkable coincidence. A cancer, anywhere else, OK. But in the balls? Isn't that about the closest a father biologically gets to his son? "I must find out more about this, see if there's something in it", Geerd thought. "Maybe I am indeed just being silly but maybe not. I want to know. Might there be some kind of relationship between disease and feeling? Between not wanting to see and becoming blind?"
Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 5:03 PM
You sound like a 5-year-old taunting the local gangster who doesn't order a hit on him simply because the kid is too amusing to kill.
Glad you gave me the role of the kid. Now we also know where you place the other party. But aren't you just a littlebit exaggerating there? Doctors like gangsters shooting the five year old? OK, chemo and radiation are horrible but they're not like shooting bullets, are they?
Anyway, you got it wrong. It's not the funny kid and the gangster. It's David and Goliath. Mark my words.
Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 5:14 PM
"I show a fact and you bite my finger."
------------
Sorry about that. What I should have said was something like this: Jan, it is well known that older scanners, if out of calibration, can produce ring artifacts. The few documents that Hamer produces seem to describe only these "ring artifacts." In addition, no known, large scale study of breast cancer patients CT scans supports your assertions. So, this doesn't seem to qualify as a "fact", but simply an unfounded assertion.
In addition, even if it were true--which it isn't--that there was an effect on the brain of breast cancer detectable by a CT scan, this is not supportive of Dr. Hamer's theory. It does not show a causal relationship between the brain and the tumor at all, and without a real investigation with controls, you cannot simply jump to this conclusion.
I'm curious, Jan... as Hamer's death count rises, have you noticed that more people than ever are surviving cancer, thanks to modern medicine? Don't you have trouble sleeping at night, knowing that you may have contributed to the death of Micheala Jakubczyk-Eckert and others? Why do you think it is that no patient has ever come to Hamer with a medically diagnosed tumor and survived to tell the tale... except those treated with surgery and in some cases chemotherapy?
Jan, you are helping a serial killer find victims. Maybe you should consider doing something else with your life.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 5:18 PM
In addition, no known, large scale study of breast cancer patients CT scans supports your assertions.
I didn't tell you to search for studies, you dummy. I told you to look at patient CT scans. And you should read this again. Carefuly and without getting upset. Anger will get you nowhere.
Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 5:31 PM
"A cancer, anywhere else, OK. But in the balls?"
------------------
Jan still hasn't addressed the fact that many people lose a son and do get testicular cancer. Many people get testicular cancer without losing a son. So, yes, Hamers cancer (treated with modern medicine, I believe) is obviously a coincidence. Death of a son is non-predictive of testicular cancer.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 5:36 PM
"I didn't tell you to search for studies, you dummy."
--------------
Jan, your claim is simply not supported by any evidence. If I can't verify it, why should I believe it? Furthermore, it isn't true. There is nothing in that letter to add to my understanding of ring artifacts except one unsubstantiated claim that Siemens broke off testing that would have validated Hamer. But didn't. Because they broke it off. Whatever.
I may be a dummy, Jan, but I'm a dummy who does my research. Sadly, you cannot say the same.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 5:53 PM
Hamer, of course, claims that he has successes. But I have never seen any case of this. Jan claims in his letter that there are 8 patients (a far cry from the 3500 usually claimed on Hamer Hero sites) who actually survived Hamer's process back in 1981, but provides no other information beyond the simple claim.
On the other hand, there are real names and faces to attach to Hamer's victims. Care to explain that, Jan?
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 6:01 PM
If I can't verify it, why should I believe it? Furthermore, it isn't true.
You can't verify so you can't tell.
... a dummy who does my research. Sadly, you cannot say the same.
Yes I can. Say the same. Word by word. But I won't. I may do my research but I'm not a dummy.
Posted by: jspreen | October 15, 2006 6:04 PM
"You can't verify so you can't tell."
-------------
Right. Whatever. Jan, what you are presenting is simply not a fact, it is an unverified and unverifiable claim. Furthermore, those who have studied this claim consistently state that the images in Hamer's books are merely ring artifacts, and you have no evidence to the contrary.
Furthermore, we have yet to see any case where someone was cured by the Hamer method, but we have many millions of cases of people cured by chemotherapy and surgery.
And of course, there are those who tried Hamer and died. Now, plenty of people die of cancer. And no therapy is 100%... but Hamer's therapy seems to have a failure rate of 100%, even for cancers that should be curable.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 6:56 PM
JS:
To my knowledge, there isn't an infectious microbe associated with testicular cancer or breast cancer. (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, please.)
Assuming that is true, then even if a causual relationship between psychological trauma and testicular cancer could be shown, it would still be entirely unrelated to so-called germ theory.
Posted by: Edmund | October 15, 2006 7:27 PM
Edmund,
You are correct there is not an infections microbe associated with testicular cancer or breast cancer. However, jspreen seems to think no illness is infectious and all disease is preceeded by cancer. For example jspreen stated TB is only found in people with lung cancer. You can check out the other thread for more details on that.
I do have a question for jspreen though. I did some reading an according to New Medicine the body creates a tumor in response to a deficiency and that it can be harmful to remove the tumor. I also read that if the tumor is removed then it will grow back to make up for the deficiency. Can you explain how a lesion on the brain leads to said deficiencies and how tumors make up for it?
Not to mention that the more I learn about New Medcine it sounds a lot like Scientology except the problems are caused by recent stresses instead of aliens and the key to health is treating these psychological imbalances. In Scientology treatment is called auditing and vitamins, I have no idea how Hamer treats these cancers.
Posted by: Laura | October 15, 2006 9:37 PM
Did I mention something about my flat-earth beliefs somewhere? Why do you hop around from one subject to another on your Skippy ball? We'll never get anywhere like that!
Well, above you said that:
How wrong you are. Issues where there seems to be no doubt at all should be most seriously discussed when questioned.
Given that there is about as much doubt about the germ theory of disease as there is doubt about the roundness of the Earth, I think it only appropriate that we include a full and serious discussion of the reasons to believe that the Earth is flat together with your beliefs.
After all, it may just be the closed-mindedness and millennia of scientific indoctrination that have led us all to be sucked into assuming that the standard delusion of a round Earth is right, eh? There seems to be no doubt, so it's crucial that we have the discussion.
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 15, 2006 10:44 PM
"I have no idea how Hamer treats these cancers."
---------
Hamer encourages the patient to find the cause of the conflict and resolve it. Essentially, psychotherapy. As I've mentioned, the results are predictably tragic.
Posted by: Seth Manapio | October 15, 2006 11:20 PM
Hamer's methods work for all those people that follow it correctly. If these people died it must mean that they didn't follow Hamer's methods correctly. You can't blame Hamer for that.
Hamer has a 100% success rate in the subgroup that followed his method's correctly.
Isn't that obvious.
You obviously do not have an open mind.
Posted by: Chris Noble | October 15, 2006 11:59 PM
Aha It is similar to Scientology. Auditing or psychotherapy not much difference. Perhaps aliens really are at the root of all that ails us. Just kidding I don't believe in Scientology although curing a celebrity may get Hamer and Spreen some good PR.
Posted by: Laura | October 16, 2006 12:02 AM
Hamer has a 100% success rate in the subgroup that followed his method's correctly.
I believe you are attempting to invoke something like a Dirac delta function? :)
-Rob
Posted by: Rob Knop | October 16, 2006 1:26 AM
Furthermore, we have yet to see any case where someone was cured by the Hamer method, but we have many millions of cases of people cured by chemotherapy and surgery.
Once more you show that you never really read my letter to the Swiss shepherds at SCAC. Or otherwise you simply skipped the Burgau part.
Anyway, you have not one single case of people cured. People with cancer are never cured, at best they are said to be in remission. That's what you folks say.
Hamer's New Medicine shows a quite different picture of what we're used to think. People who start to feel better some time after chemo etc. are not doing so thanks to the treatment, but in spite of the treatment. Every person has several cancers during his life. Cancer mostly comes and go. Only when you start to cut, burn and poison things get really bad.
A man has a cancer in the stomach. Nobody knows how and why it came. But everybody is in panic and what do the doctors do? They cut the stomach away. Because, they say, if we don't, the bad cells will spill all over the place. Some months later the man dies. One more proof that cancer is sooooooo hoooorrible.
But it's not the cancer. It's the panic and the fear and the missing stomach. Metastasis is a tale for the mentally disturbed. It's not the spreading cells. Each different cancer is caused by it's own particular biological conflict.
You cannot help sick people if you don't understand why they're sick. If you haven't got the slightest idea why a man has a cancer in the stomach, you're nothing more than a wizard's pupil if you think you can cure by cutting the stomach away. Plus you're infinitely stupid if you think that's the solution.
Oncology. It's all about cells and mutations and chemical reactions and what do I know. But we're not just a bunch of cells governed by chemistry.
Posted by: