Respectful Insolence

After having blogged about cancer quackery for more than four years and having spent at least five years before that on the Usenet newsgroup misc.health.alternative seeing virtually all manner of quackery, cancer and otherwise, I thought I had seen it all. Indeed, I thought that there was no form of cancer quackery that I hadn’t head about at some point before.

I was wrong.

Perusing the Skepchick blog the other day I saw a wonderful story related by Masala Skeptic about how a group of skeptics in Mississippi attended a talk by a cancer quack named Robert Dowling, who apparently claims that dental pathology is the cause for all cancer and sells a “cure” for breast cancer called Quantum Health Management and triumphed. This is how:

After the steaming piles of pseudoscience flew right and left, the skeptics in attendance asked our questions: what bacteria cause this? Why would doctors cover up a cure for cancer? What studies have you done? Where were they published? How long have you followed your patients? Are you a doctor? We asked far more questions than the rest of the audience combined, even though they outnumbered us six or seven times. I doubt that Randi, Dennis, Brad, Don and I were the only ones skeptical of his claims – but we were the only ones voicing that skepticism.

Dowling did not have our answers. After claiming to have published studies, after claiming a 100% cure rate, after calling himself a doctor, he said that he had the proof. And when we asked for it, we got dodgy answers, evasions, and even the confession that he was not in fact a doctor. Of course, he was only a few semesters away from a medical degree in the Caribbean.

This is not surprising. What is surprising is the cultish, exploitative manner in which Dowling operates. In order to get the cure for cancer, you have to jump through a lot of expensive hoops.

Actually, there is nothing at all surprising about the cultish exploitive manner in which Dowling operates. That is par for the course for many quacks. He is also very much like cancer quacks in that he does something that makes me laugh out loud when I hear proponents of “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM) when they claim that they “individualize” therapies–unlike, of course, that nasty, reductionist “allopathic” scientific medicine: He claims that cancer is caused by one thing and that one treatment will “cure all cancer.” Think Hulda Clark, who claims that a liver fluke is the One True Cause of All Cancer (and AIDS and many other diseases as well) and further claims that she can cure it with her “Zapper.” The only difference is that Robert Dowling claims that all cancer is due to something called “cavitations,” and boy does he lay down a lot of woo. It would be hilarious and worthy of being featured on Your Friday Dose of Woo, except that it isn’t funny to think that cancer patients may be taken in by this. More interesting (to me at least) is that it is an actual form of cancer quackery that I haven’t seen before–or, if I have, I don’t remember it. Given that I would be remiss if I didn’t take a closer look as only Orac can.

After having seen the account of this lovely slapdown on Skepchick and Living Better Skeptically, I headed straight over to Robert Dowling’s website, CancerCured.org, which forwarded me to BreastCancerCured.com. The website claims to be something called the North Carolina Institute of Technology, and, boy, oh, boy, is there some pseudoscientific woo there! However, showing that even quacks are glomming on to the whole “stimulus package” line of advertising that so irritates me:

Will South Carolina be given the honor of hosting the first International Breast CancerThe North Carolina Institute of Technology is investigating 7 sites, one of which will be chosen in 2009 to become the first international breast cancer cure center.

The Facility must be capable of handling 100 or more new breast cancer cases daily as women from around the globe seek the cure. The cure requires a minimum 5-day stay at the center with some requiring up to 30 days. The cure is generally accomplished during this short period of time because women are not subjected to traditional chemotherapy, radiation or radical surgery. Procedures are now FDA-cleared and many women have already participated in the technology. Presently, 100 percent of participants who followed the technology are now cancer-free. Case studies of these participants can be found inside the May 2009 issue of NCIT’s Journal of Applied Quantum BioPhysics.

It is estimated that the new center will create 1000 or more jobs for the area chosen by NCIT. Not only will the site benefit from increased employment, but additionally from tourism opening up opportunities for local businesses to meet the needs of families who accompany the patients to the cure center.

At present, four sites are under study in the USA and three in Latin America. Diplomatic missions are being planned for late-summer 2009 to potential off-shore sites under consideration. In the USA, two sites has been visited and toured and governors of the states involved have been notified.

Even in this advertising, note multiple red flags for quackery. First, there’s the usual claim for curing cancer “without chemotherapy, radiation, or radical surgery.” Then there’s the claim that “100% of participants” are now cancer-free. Then, of course, there’s the fake journal to publish the “results” of these “studies.” Then, of course, there’s the promotional video:

So what does QHM involve? Well, it’s actually rather hard to figure out exactly, at least from the NCIT website. It actually took me some searching, but the closest to an “executive” summary can be found under “10 steps.” The first thing I note is that QHM touts thermography as being far superior to mammography or other screening modalities in detecting early breast cancer. I’ve been meaning to do a comprehensive post on thermography because lots of purveyors of “alternative” breast cancer cures tout it as being so much better than mammography. Personally, I could never understand why thermography would even be considered “alternative,” given that it requires technology even more complex than mammography in order to work, but, then, hey, I’m not an altie. I suppose it has something to do with not using radiation, but ultrasound doesn’t use ionizing radiation,either, and I don’t see alties claiming ultrasound as being somehow “alternative” or natural. In any case, the bottom line is that thermography is no more “natural” than either of these technologies. It still involves a lot of electronics and scanners. But it sure does make pretty pictures. Whether those pictures actually tell us anything reliable about the presence or absence of breast cancer, however, is a matter of some debate.

Until I get around to doing a more detailed post on thermography, I’ll just summarize what it is. It is in essence infrared scanning of the breast, looking for signs of extra blood flow resulting in heat. It was considered a promising modality back in the 1960s and 1970s but was abandoned because the resolution of the scanners just wasn’t very good at all. Lately, with better technology, sensors, and computer imaging, there has been mild renewed interest in thermography, but in reality technology and time have passed thermography by. Specifically, breast MRI has become the dominant imaging modality that looks at blood flow. It has achieved that position because it shows everything thermography shows but in a lot more detail–along with actual anatomic detail that allows for detailed 3D reconstruction. True, it’s expensive, and it’s possible that thermography might be a cheaper, “poor man’s” (or “poor woman’s”) alternative to MRI, but the evidence just isn’t there. Certainly it’s not there for the claim is that thermography can identify cancer ten years before mammography. I’ve even had some direct experience with it, having been involved in a research project involving an infrared scanner that was in essence a modified thermography machine. Even the company that made the machine insisted that any of its images had to be correlated with mammography, as the intent of the machine was not to replace mammography but to complement it by predicting whether abnormalities found on mammography were more or less likely to be cancerous.

Moving on, looking at the series of photos there, one thing jumps out at me. Steps #5-7 show what appears to be CT scans and a CT scanner.

STEP 5
This step is taken by a QHM® interventional radiologist to verify the exact area of this early cancer mass which was missed weeks earlier by mammography. Prior to her appointment with the radiologist, she was sent for a breast MRI which also showed the mass that mammography had missed.

STEP 6
This step was taken solely for the benefit of those individuals who would try to discredit this technology. QHM doctors wanted to prove that the mass was, in fact, cancer — and, of course, it was. With QHM® technology, a biopsy is no longer necessary. A “guiding” CAT scan is used for the proper placement of the ablation device to kill the tumor. The CAT scan is a second proof of the cancer.

STEP 7
This FDA-cleared procedure destroys the breast mass in approximately 15 minutes without chemotherapy, radiation or major surgery. While other practitioners are performing this procedure, it is incomplete as a cure unless oral pathology is corrected. This explains why the majority of cancers return — except in patients treated according to QHM protocols. Correcting oral pathology and applying QHM® technology is the ultimate cure!

So what’s this about “oral pathology”? Well, Dowling takes thermography beyond the breasts. His “screening” also looks at the head and neck. The reason? Simple. To Dowling, The One True Cause of Breast Cancer is…dental cavitations. And, yes, that fancy thermography machine will not only detect your breast cancer but will detect the “dental pathology” that supposedly causes the breast cancer. More on that later. Suffice it to say now that, if this fancy “thermogram” sees “pathology” in the jaw on the right, then Dowling will claim that there will be pathology in the right breast. Why the all-purpose altie “toxins” leeched into the blood by these “cavitations” would confine themselves to only one side of the body is never explained.

But back to the photos. Look at the photos next to those steps. Those are CT scans, and the photo by Step #7 is a woman going through a CT scanner. Here’s a hint: We don’t use CT scanners to diagnose or identify breast cancer. The reason is that most early breast cancers don’t show up on CT scanners very well. In general, for a a breast cancer to show up on CT scan, it has to be at least 1-2 cm in size unless very thin cuts are done and IV contrast is used. Indeed, looking at the CT scans there I don’t see anything even resembling a breast cancer where the biopsy needle is being placed. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t necessarily one there, but from the images shown I’d be damned hard pressed to identify one. Of course, in this case, Dowell appears to “correlating” with thermography, but there’s no way to do that as far as I can tell.

So what are the QHM people doing to treat these “breast cancers” without surgery? I can’t really figure it out for sure. My best guess is that they’re doing something decidedly “non-alternative,” namely ablating whatever it is they think to be a “tumor” using a cryoablation (freezing the tumor) or radiofrequency ablation (cooking the tumor with radiowaves). I make that speculation on the basis of the frequent claims that QHM is using an FDA-approved device, and cryoprobes and RFA devices are FDA-approved–just not for breast outside the context of a clinical trial. I could be wrong, but that’s what it looks like to me. If that is the case, then any claims of a “cure” are highly overblown at best. While it’s true that various non-surgical ablation techniques, such as RFA or cryoablation, are under active study (including at my own institution), at best such ablation techniques would be the equivalent of the surgical removal of the tumor, which, as any breast cancer surgeon can tell you, doesn’t work “100% of the time” even for small tumors. That’s not even considering the fact that expensive CT scans aren’t needed for cryoablation or RFA. Rather, they are almost always done with inexpensive ultrasound as the guide. Ablation techniques are also anything other than “alternative.” They’re well within the realm of “standard” medicine but currently are experimental for breast cancer.

The cavitations part, however, is pure quackery, and the thermography scan is apparently meant not just to detect breast tumors but to find those nasty cavitations. As described by the Jackson Skeptical Society:

According to Dowling, oral pathology is the magic cause of all disease. He said it caused cancer, heart disease, and alzheimers. And when people asked what else might be caused by the bacteria in your mouth, well, Dowling was pretty sure that those pesky bacteria were the culprits. Lupus. Fibromyalgia. Parkinsons. Diabetes. Never mind that his brother is dying of Parkinsons and doesn’t trust Dowling to give him a treatment. Never mind that Dowling himself has diabetes. Never mind that these diseases have completely different causes, mechanisms, and treatments. If your doctor offers you blood pressure medication for your cancer and chemotherapy for your parkinsons – RUN.

When someone says something works every time, you should be skeptical, unless it’s Billy D. Williams with a Colt 45. And when the oral pathology that’s killing you is caused by cavitation in old dental work, well, sound the alarms.

Dowling claimed that neurotoxins from oral bacteria travel through the body, causing diseases. He has a simplistic manner through which he knows this: if his thermal cameras find this “oral pathology” in the right side of your head, then the cancer is on the right side of your body. If it’s on the left side, the cancer is in your left side. These pesky bacteria are literally killing you in a very symmetrical manner.

Hilariously pathetic is the “science” section of Dowling’s website where he tries to convince you with actual autoradiographs and graphs that his woo is true. How does Dowling do this? He cites “research” like this:

To distinguish which toxins in particular, we tested 36 lanes on Affinity Labeling gels. Specifically, as we set the protocols for this research project we used toxicity samples from over 900 extracted root canal teeth as a composite and over 4000 bone fragments obtained from biopsy samples as a separate composite. Root canal toxins and cavitation toxins were tested separately to determine how each toxin individually inhibited the binding ability of the protein. Establishing published cellular weights (amounts) of these proteins, we proceeded to inject Affinity Labeling gels with amounts of human protein as to the stated amount found in each individual cell. So, therefore, using toxins extracted from human samples and human proteins, we were able to exhibit extreme or severe inhibition of these individual proteins by chronic exposure to these toxins. We then ran additional lanes on the same Affinity Labeling gels to determine the effects of blio toxins (fungi) and also mercury from dental amalgam. As you will note during my lecture, the cavitation toxins from a composite of 100 or more cavitations was much more toxic than root canal toxins.

Here’s where the hilarity comes in for anyone with an actual scientific background. Robert Jones, the “researcher,” then shows a series of blots and graphs that, according to him, show that the “toxins” from the “cavitation extracts” and mercury from amalgams are inhibiting the binding of key cellular proteins known as tumor suppressor genes. As the name implies, tumor suppressor genes suppress tumors, and tumor growth is often associated with loss of function of different tumor suppressors. Naturally, Jones can’t resist looking at the granddaddy of all tumor suppressor genes, p53. He also makes all sorts of claims that “amino acids are inhibited from binding to the chromosome ladder and or just one of the examples of damage incurred by these dental toxins,” a nonsense that still has me scratching my head over exactly what he means. In any case, what’s unclear to me is why Jones used photolabeling to look at p53 “functionality.” The correct thing to do would have been to look at its ability to bind DNA, specifically the consensus DNA sequences that p53 normally binds to. He does the same thing with other proteins, including p21/H-ras, CDK2, and p27raf, which, while not DNA binding proteins, are not generally studied with photolabeling. Of course, the best part of this whole page is this:

Now we have noted that all 3 proteins are greatly inhibited at even 5ul from being able to function properly, and that we have produced 3 distinct markers for the start of cancer:

  1. Inhibition of P53 due to these dental toxins is unable to suppress tumor start or growth.
  2. Inhibition of P21 causes uncontrolled cell replication.
  3. Inhibition of CDK2 creates uncontrolled cell growth.

These 3 markers positively identify the diagnosis of any cancer!

Um, no they don’t. Not all cancers are driven by these three proteins. Mutations of these genes are very common in a wide variety of cancers, but by no means to all three of these markers “positively identify the diagnosis of any cancer.” Indeed, what’s more interesting to me is that p21/H-ras is an oncogene. That means it is protein that promotes cell growth and, indeed, mutations that turn on H-ras inappropriately drive many cancers, not “inhibition” of ras. In fact, if these “toxins” (which, of course, don’t exist) actually did inhibit H-ras, that would arguably be a good thing. Ditto CDK2, which promotes cell cycle progression. Of course, none of this “evidence” shows that dental “cavitations” cause cancer and that removing them “cure” cancer, but even if the “toxins” from “cavitations” did what Jones says they do, at least two of their actions would be inconsistent with “creating uncontrolled cell growth.”

But that’s not all. As I read this page, something bothered me. It’s something I should have caught immediately but did not, perhaps because I was reading too quickly and didn’t look closely at the illustrations. After I looked at his illustrations it appears to me that Jones is mixing up two different p21 proteins. He refers to his magic cavitation protein extracts and evil amalgam mercury as inhibiting p21/H-ras, which (as I mentioned before) is an oncogene and promotes cell growth (and, by the way, is not a target of p53). But in his illustrations showing various cell cycle pathways, what he appears to mean in actuality is p21WAF1/CIP1, which is a cyclin kinase inhibitor, a target of p53, and an inhibitor of cell cycle progression. (It’s also a protein that I have published on as recently as 2008.) In fact, I almost didn’t notice that that’s what Jones had done until I did a double-take looking at the illustrations. Here’s a hint: H-ras is a very different protein from p21WAF1/CIP1.

Not surprisingly, I don’t see any evidence that any of this “research” has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. But it sure does look and sound “science-y,” doesn’t it?

The beautiful thing is that this small band of skeptics, through relentlessly polite questioning, totally exposed this charlatan. It just goes to show that hot skeptical action can have an effect. They even got in touch with the authorities in Mississippi to get a cease-and-desist order in the state. Unfortunately, that’s unlikely to stop Dowling in other states.

Comments

  1. #1 Jojo
    May 8, 2009

    So based on his “theory” wouldn’t having all of your teeth removed early in life be the logical method of preventing cancer?

    Oh, and to support this approach, you could remove only the teeth from the left side of the sample’s jaws and see if they only developed cancer on their right side.

  2. #2 catgirl
    May 8, 2009

    At present, four sites are under study in the USA and three in Latin America. Diplomatic missions are being planned for late-summer 2009 to potential off-shore sites under consideration. In the USA, two sites has been visited and toured and governors of the states involved have been notified.

    $100 says he opens his clinic in a different country that has fewer regulations, if he builds one at all.

  3. #3 louise
    May 8, 2009

    It’s clear that the woman in the video has never actually been diagnosed with anything. These quacks are telling patients they have cancer and then claiming to have cured it – the same method used by frauds like Hulda Clark. Patients go away happily convinced that they are ‘cured’ of a cancer they never had in the first place.

  4. #4 emote_control
    May 8, 2009

    The amount of effort that must have gone into fabricating all this garbage is kind of mind-boggling. I’m an ecologist, so I wouldn’t have caught some of the mistakes in the explanation of the molecular stuff, although the overall document strikes me as a half-rotten pile of ape droppings. A layperson has to be very careful with this sort of thing, because I’m sure it’s very difficult to tell this kind of jargon-laden humbug from a real explanation of real science. The question that non-scientists should ask themselves is this: if this treatment is so all-powerful and revolutionary, why is this guy the only one on earth who is promoting it? Shouldn’t the entire medical community be on it like flies on the aforementioned ape droppings?

    Before signing up for any kind of “alternative” anything, people should ask themselves why it’s alternative, and not mainstream, in the first place.

  5. #5 Angel
    May 8, 2009

    Ummm, they should have co-opted a better word than “cavitation” as that word already has an entirely different meaning which has bupkis in common with cavities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavitation

    I am sure they can cook up a reasonable fluid dynamics theory to complement their quackery though…

  6. #6 jenl1625
    May 8, 2009

    I know I’m picking on a minor thing here, given the overall level of woo, but the statement that

    “Presently, 100 percent of participants who followed the technology are now cancer-free.”

    makes me wonder if he thinks he can define anyone who actually has cancer after his “treatment” as someone who didn’t “follow the technology”?

  7. #7 Calli Arcale
    May 8, 2009

    Angel — “dental cavitations” are a whole ‘nother minefield of woo, and if you see a dentist who claims to diagnose and treat them, run, don’t walk, to the nearest post office so you can mail a complaint to the relevant licensing board.

    On another note, Orac, here’s the latest kid with lymphoma refusing treatment after learning that chemo isn’t all that pleasant and then winding up in a battle with the state:
    Sleepy Eye parents, teen fight to refuse chemo

    New development: this isn’t based on Christian fundamentalism but on the kid being a medicine man in some Native American religion. (Though you’ll see from their picture in the article that they’re not natives at all.) Apparently he’s refusing chemo so he can live a “virtuous life” or something, rather nebulously stated.

  8. #8 Calli Arcale
    May 8, 2009
  9. #9 Happeh
    May 8, 2009

    Let’s try talking about this instead of pointing and laughing.

    A skeptic asked “Why would doctors cover up a cure for cancer?”

    Easy answer. Money. How much money does cancer treatment make for doctors, hospitals, and researchers? What would those people and institutions do if cancer was cured with a $5 bottle of pills?

    ——

    Orac then dismisses thermography and touts MRI as better. Perhaps MRI does produce better images. My scientific question to the scientist Orac would be “What is the impact of thermography on the health of the breast or the body, compared to the impact on the breast and body of being subjected to the high level magnetic fields of MRI?”

    From my understanding, no one on Earth really knows for certain what exposure to high level magnetic fields like MRI do to a human being. Claiming that no ill effects have been found yet is not proof there are no ill effects. MRI has not been in use long enough for anyone to be absolutely sure what the long term effect it has on the human body might be.

    ——-

    The scientist Orac then ridicules the idea of “oral cavitations”. I agree with Orac that this idea does not seem plausible.

    Unlike Orac though, as a scientist I must wonder what is going on. This man claims to be linking oral cavitations to breast cancer. Instead of being rude and making fun of him, as a scientist I would like to know what the links between oral cavitations and breast cancer are. Are they simply coincidental links, or might there really be something there?

    It is my position that this man has stumbled on part of the the reality of health and the human body. I do not believe that oral cavitation cause the health problems he has noted.

    I believe that the oral cavitation and breast cancer are both symptoms of a THIRD health problem within the body. That third health problem is located in a completely different area of the body than the jaw or the breast, yet it is causing those health problems in the jaw or breast.

    Orac and everyone here else has a choice now. You can point at me and laugh, or as scientists you can discuss the possibility that some unknown health problem is causing the symptoms of both breast cancer and oral cavitation.

    ——–

    To spur you on, I will tell you there is no doubt. Somewhere within the body of those people is a health problem that is causing breast cancer and oral cavitation. That health problem is not a breast health problem or a mouth health problem, so don’t go looking there.

    If you guys actually thought about the science you learn in school, what I say would be clear as a bell to you. How many of you remember basic physics?

    “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.

    What is equal and opposite to oral cavitation? That is what is causing oral cavitation. What is equal and opposite to breast cancer? That is what is causing breast cancer.

    You all know that is MY Nobel Prize winning medical contribution to human history don’t you? So don’t try stealing it. I have posted it elsewhere so you will easily be revealed as a plagarist.

  10. #10 jen
    May 8, 2009

    Orac and everyone here else has a choice now. You can point at me and laugh

    Works for me.

    My scientific question to the scientist Orac would be “What is the impact of thermography on the health of the breast or the body, compared to the impact on the breast and body of being subjected to the high level magnetic fields of MRI?”

    Seems to me, the proper comparison would be “what’s the impact of the increased chances of misdiagnosis, in comparison to the maybe-possibly-potentially reduced impact on the body?” After all, that MRI might have some weird freaky impact on my body that shows up 30 years later. But if the MRI allowed the diagnosis in time for the docs to save my life and *give me* those 30 years? I’ll take the potential impact of an MRI.

  11. #11 Joseph C.
    May 8, 2009

    What would those people and institutions do if cancer was cured with a $5 bottle of pills?

    First they would celebrate that a very difficult medical problem has been fixed. Then they would go find other jobs just like anyone else who is out of work.

    The idea that researchers don’t want to make advances is stupid on its face. People who make big discoveries tend to get fame, money, speaking engagements, Nobel prizes, etc.

  12. #12 goatgirl
    May 8, 2009

    And then there is this family:

    http://www.nujournal.com/page/content.detail/id/506813.html?nav=5009

    Do they really think their child’s cancer will be cured with ionized water?

  13. #13 bob
    May 8, 2009

    I’m not sure “woo” is a strong enough word to describe Happeh’s comment. Is timecube-ish a word? Ooh, how bout timecubic? I like it.

    Hate to bring it all back to vaccines, but I wonder how those ever got out into the open? You’d think the evil MD cabal would have suppressed them to keep the preventable-diseases cash cows alive. They really dropped the ball on that one! I should have become an MD … I really like to cackle maniacally. Muah-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

  14. #14 T. Bruce McNeely
    May 8, 2009

    “…as a scientist I must wonder what is going on.”

    I’m pointing.

    AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

    whew…

  15. #15 The Crack Emcee
    May 8, 2009

    “‘We asked far more questions than the rest of the audience combined, even though they outnumbered us six or seven times,…What is surprising is the cultish, exploitative manner in which Dowling operates,…”

    Actually, there is nothing at all surprising about the cultish exploitive manner in which Dowling operates.”

    Nope, nothing at all. It’s exactly as I said – even the part about being outnumbered by the cultists. And those people are spreading the message as far and wide as possible, but, as we know, they’re not telling their doctors about it. So the doctors are acting like this rampant cultism isn’t really happening. They’re surprised by it – and labeling me (or allowing me to be labeled) a kook. Whatever.

    It’s not me they’re after,…

  16. #16 The Crack Emcee
    May 8, 2009

    “The beautiful thing is that this small band of skeptics, through relentlessly polite questioning, totally exposed this charlatan. It just goes to show that hot skeptical action can have an effect. They even got in touch with the authorities in Mississippi to get a cease-and-desist order in the state. Unfortunately, that’s unlikely to stop Dowling in other states.”

    So – what? – they drop it now? Or do they hunt him down and end his “career” (as I did Wohlfahrt’s) and then move to the next one? Come on, Orac, I know it’s hard but Think Man!

  17. #17 rob
    May 8, 2009

    happeh:

    as a physicist, i would like to point out that your use of Newton’s 3rd Law is completely out of proper physical context.

    Newton’s laws are applicable to the kinematics of motion and not to cause/effect of disease. your misapplication of the third law reveals that *you* have no understanding of basic physics.

  18. #18 Scott
    May 8, 2009

    I strongly suspect Happeh to be a spoof. Check out his page – either he’s ten times as loony as Deepak Chopra, (non-MI) Dawn, cooler, and Jenny combined (truly testing the outer limits of human insanity without losing the ability to type) or it’s not real.

  19. #19 Joseph C.
    May 8, 2009

    I strongly suspect Happeh to be a spoof. Check out his page – either he’s ten times as loony as Deepak Chopra, (non-MI) Dawn, cooler, and Jenny combined (truly testing the outer limits of human insanity without losing the ability to type) or it’s not real.

    I wondered the same thing, but it’s hard to tell for sure. Gene Ray, the Time Cube guy, is 100% for real. He’s even “debated” at MIT and Georgia Tech.

  20. #20 Karl Withakay
    May 8, 2009

    About Happeh,
    Who can say? It’s like the Woo Corollary to Poe’s law.

    It is impossible to create a parody of woo that can be definitively distinguished from actual woo.

  21. #21 Brian
    May 8, 2009

    That dental pathology thing sounds familiar… I think I recall reading in Discarded Science about focal sepsis being a popular theory (well, relatively so) in the early 20th. Here is a paper about the teeth as it’s source:
    http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2476882&blobtype=pdf (warning:pdf)
    The idea being untreated infections in various places caused all sorts of stuff. Teeth were popular, and their removal as a preventative measure common. One chap tried removing lots of other stuff too:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Cotton_(doctor)
    Not exactly the same woo, but parallels.

  22. #22 catgirl
    May 8, 2009

    A skeptic asked “Why would doctors cover up a cure for cancer?”

    Easy answer. Money. How much money does cancer treatment make for doctors, hospitals, and researchers? What would those people and institutions do if cancer was cured with a $5 bottle of pills?

    This particular quack stands to make just as much money as any doctor from his fraudulent treatment. His “cure” is more than a $5 bottle of pills. He will require patients to stay at his clinic from 5 to 30 days. That alone will be expensive, but then he’ll do a lot of useless tests and other procedures and charge for them too.

    If doctors were really in it just for the money, and cared nothing about people’s health, then they would never prescribe antibiotics. They would make more money if people end up with complications and had to come back for more visits, or even require a nice, long, expensive hospital stay.

    What would those people and institutions do if cancer was cured with a $5 bottle of pills?

    Easy answer. Celebrate. Then they’d move on to the next miracle.

  23. #23 happeh
    May 8, 2009

    Jen – “But if the MRI allowed the diagnosis in time for the docs to save my life and *give me* those 30 years? I’ll take the potential impact of an MRI.”

    So you are seriously saying that if MRI exposure was found to cause dementia 5 years after use, you would still go ahead and have an MRI to find out why you have headache? Even if it meant you would live from 30 years old until 70 years old with dementia, because the MRI magnetic field ate your brain?
    ———-

    Joseph C – “The idea that researchers don’t want to make advances is stupid on its face.”

    I feel what is stupid is acting like a researcher is the person who makes the decision. I feel you live in a fantasy world where people make discoveries and humanity lives happily ever after.

    Did you know there was research done that proved that Palestinians are like 98% genetically the same as Israelis? Because Israelis do not want to be like Palestinians, that study was repressed.

    Scientific discoveries are covered up all of the time.
    —————

    Rob – “Newton’s laws are applicable to the kinematics of motion and not to cause/effect of disease. your misapplication of the third law reveals that *you* have no understanding of basic physics.”

    Hey! Someone talking like a scientist! Wow!

    You say you are a physicist Rob, so you must be able to explain yourself to other scientific people. Can you please explain why Newton’s laws do not apply to the cause and effect of disease? The guy at the bus stop can say “Laws of physics do not apply to disease”. You need to explain why they don’t apply if you want a scientist to believe you.

    Go ahead Rob. Don’t be embarrassed. You claim to be a physicist so the explanation should be child’s play.

    When your explanation fails to appear or doesn’t make sense, I promise to take it easy on you because at least you tried to talk like a scientist. I won’t point and laugh at you.
    ———–

    A note for anyone who goes to my website. I am a genius, not a file clerk. If you went to Alexander Graham Bell’s website if they had websites then, it would probably have been a mess.

    It is a proven fact that geniuses are messy. Our minds our too busy with genius to organize things for the slower minded people.

    I talk to people to help them learn. I find out how they think and talk to them in a way that fits their way of thinking. Find something you want clarification on and I will talk your ear off. Or maybe make a webpage or video to answer you.

    Or you can go rummage in my closet(webpage) and hope you find what you are looking for somewhere in the mess.

  24. #24 T. bruce McNeely
    May 8, 2009

    Direct quote from Happeh’s website: “Asymmetry of the human body and it’s affects on health”

    “it’s affects”???

    Yeah, you’re a genius, all right.

  25. #25 Scott
    May 8, 2009

    OK, maybe not a spoof.

    So you are seriously saying that if MRI exposure was found to cause dementia 5 years after use, you would still go ahead and have an MRI to find out why you have headache? Even if it meant you would live from 30 years old until 70 years old with dementia, because the MRI magnetic field ate your brain?

    Learn to read. The risk that there is some side effect nobody has ever noticed or been able to find is greatly outweighed by the benefits.

    I feel what is stupid is acting like a researcher is the person who makes the decision. I feel you live in a fantasy world where people make discoveries and humanity lives happily ever after.

    Pot. Kettle. What you feel is irrelevant to boot.

    Did you know there was research done that proved that Palestinians are like 98% genetically the same as Israelis? Because Israelis do not want to be like Palestinians, that study was repressed.

    If Palestinians were 98% similar to Israelis, then they would be substantially less closely related than to chimps. So no such (credible) research was done.

    Can you please explain why Newton’s laws do not apply to the cause and effect of disease? The guy at the bus stop can say “Laws of physics do not apply to disease”. You need to explain why they don’t apply if you want a scientist to believe you.

    Any scientist, or indeed anyone with any understanding of high school physics, understands that Newton’s 3rd applies to forces. Disease is not a force (in the physical sense).

    A note for anyone who goes to my website. I am a genius, not a file clerk. If you went to Alexander Graham Bell’s website if they had websites then, it would probably have been a mess.

    You are a moron who would be completely unqualified as a file clerk, is closer to the truth. You claim to be a scientist, yet at every turn betray utter ignorance of the scientific method – and even greater ignorance of how science actually works in practice.

  26. #26 Scott
    May 8, 2009

    Let’s go through post #9 point by point and see just how thoroughly it proves you are nothing even vaguely approaching a scientist.

    >Easy answer. Money. How much money does cancer treatment make for doctors, hospitals, and researchers? What would those people and institutions do if cancer was cured with a $5 bottle of pills?

    Applaud and move on to new areas.

    Orac then dismisses thermography and touts MRI as better. Perhaps MRI does produce better images. My scientific question to the scientist Orac would be “What is the impact of thermography on the health of the breast or the body, compared to the impact on the breast and body of being subjected to the high level magnetic fields of MRI?”

    Wrong question. You must first demonstrate that there is a health concern with MRI before such a question has any value to consider.

    From my understanding, no one on Earth really knows for certain what exposure to high level magnetic fields like MRI do to a human being. Claiming that no ill effects have been found yet is not proof there are no ill effects. MRI has not been in use long enough for anyone to be absolutely sure what the long term effect it has on the human body might be.

    Proving even more conclusively that you know nothing at all about science. No one on Earth really knows for certain ANYTHING. In the absence of data indicating any risk, there is no reason to presume that any risk of MRI is greater than that of thermography.

    Unlike Orac though, as a scientist I must wonder what is going on. This man claims to be linking oral cavitations to breast cancer. Instead of being rude and making fun of him, as a scientist I would like to know what the links between oral cavitations and breast cancer are. Are they simply coincidental links, or might there really be something there?

    No, a SCIENTIST would first ask if there ARE any links. And in the absence of cause to believe there is one (e.g. data indicating a correlation, or even just a proposed mechanism of action), no scientist would consider it worth time or money to investigate whether a link exists. Asking what they ARE is several steps ahead (aka Tooth Fairy Science).

    It is my position that this man has stumbled on part of the the reality of health and the human body.

    Because he says so, it must be reality, eh?

    I believe that the oral cavitation and breast cancer are both symptoms of a THIRD health problem within the body. That third health problem is located in a completely different area of the body than the jaw or the breast, yet it is causing those health problems in the jaw or breast.

    Entirely without data. Again you prove a complete opposition to science.

    Orac and everyone here else has a choice now. You can point at me and laugh, or as scientists you can discuss the possibility that some unknown health problem is causing the symptoms of both breast cancer and oral cavitation.

    Not even worth discussing the possibility without data pointing to it. It’s in the same realm as discussing the possibility that the incidence of colon cancer is determined by the rotational periods of the moons of Jupiter.

    To spur you on, I will tell you there is no doubt. Somewhere within the body of those people is a health problem that is causing breast cancer and oral cavitation. That health problem is not a breast health problem or a mouth health problem, so don’t go looking there.

    Way to make absolute statements in the absence of data. Doubly opposed to the entire concept of science.

    “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.

    What is equal and opposite to oral cavitation? That is what is causing oral cavitation. What is equal and opposite to breast cancer? That is what is causing breast cancer.

    Utterly irrelevant, and proves you to be the one with zero understanding of high school physics. Neither oral cavitation nor breast cancer is a force so Newton’s 3rd does not apply in any way.

  27. #27 KeithB
    May 8, 2009

    I recently had an X-Ray done with an injected contrast solution. Based on the paperwork they gave me, 1 out of every 20,000 people who do this have an allergic reaction and some die. I had the test done. The phospho-soda prep the night before was much worse than the test. 8^P

    All medical procedures involve risks, as does leaving medical problems to solve themselves.

  28. #28 RevRon
    May 8, 2009

    “I am a genius”

    Have you folks ever noticed that whenever someone makes this claim, it is inevitably proven false when the person begins talking (or writing)? But I guess it’s easier on the ego than calling one’s self a crackpot, even if it is less truthful.

    Don’t blame me for being snarky… I have a cavity. And I got an MRI about 14 years ago, and well, you know… :-)

  29. #29 sailor
    May 8, 2009

    Have you heard the hot new quackery with reference cancer and soursop tree leaves and bark?

  30. #30 bob
    May 8, 2009

    Wow! Another genius commenting on Respectful Insolence! I hope the Crack Emcee shows up here to talk to this guy; who knows what wonders will come from these intellectual luminaries conversing with each other. Us epsilon-minuses are looking forward to being awed.

  31. #31 Gordon Brown
    May 8, 2009

    Re Happeh Theory. Scroll down the “Happeh Theory Nude Site”
    http://www.happeh.com/
    Towards the bottom it will become abundantly obvious that this site is serious and certainly not a spoof.
    You need to get past the dicks to see what I mean.

  32. #32 Emp
    May 8, 2009

    Happeh,

    You profess to be a scientist: what is your field? It’s certainly not physics or biology. (I suspect sandwich-assembly science.)

    Newton’s laws of motion apply to forces and only forces. Please keep in mind that “force” is not some nebulous concept that you can define however you like. Cancer is not a force. Cavities are not forces. If you try to argue this any further my faith in humanity will be crushed. D:

    Your gross misunderstanding of this extremely basic physics concept (and your assorted delusions of grandeur) are the main reason that no one is taking you seriously, and the reason I honestly hope you’re a joke.

  33. #33 Matthew Cline
    May 8, 2009

    I suppose it has something to do with not using radiation, but ultrasound doesn’t use ionizing radiation,either,

    I remember one altie saying that ultrasound was a form of radiation.

    Personally, I could never understand why thermography would even be considered “alternative,” given that it requires technology even more complex than mammography in order to work,

    Mammography does something to the patient (puts ultrasound through their tissues) while thermography only looks at the patient, though this particular quack uses CT, so in this case that can’t be it. This is just a wild guess, but maybe modern day, high-resolution thermography will show patterns, shapes and tiny hot-spots that can be read like tea-leaves?

    @bob: Hate to bring it all back to vaccines, but I wonder how those ever got out into the open? You’d think the evil MD cabal would have suppressed them to keep the preventable-diseases cash cows alive.

    Among the alties who think that vaccine don’t work, that’s probably why they think it doesn’t work. After all, if vaccines worked, the evil allopaths would be suppressing it, and vaccination would be a form of alternative medicine.

  34. #34 Matthew Cline
    May 8, 2009

    I suppose it has something to do with not using radiation, but ultrasound doesn’t use ionizing radiation, either,

    I remember coming across one altie who claimed that ultrasound was radiation.

    Personally, I could never understand why thermography would even be considered “alternative,” given that it requires technology even more complex than mammography in order to work,

    Among some alties, it might be that mammography does something to the patient (passes ultrasound through their tissue) while thermography just looks, but that’s not the case this particular quack, who uses also uses CT. This is just a wild guess, but maybe moder-day, high resolution thermography produces shapes, patterns and tiny hot-spots that can be read like tea-leaves.

    @bob: Hate to bring it all back to vaccines, but I wonder how those ever got out into the open? You’d think the evil MD cabal would have suppressed them to keep the preventable-diseases cash cows alive.

    Among the alties who think that vaccines don’t work, this is probably why they think that. After all, if vaccines actually prevented disease, then vaccination would be a persecuted alternative treatment which the evil allopaths would refuse to use.

  35. #35 idlemind
    May 8, 2009

    Nice to see them giving the other end of the alimentary canal equal time. But excuse me if I think that anyone who believes in this cavitation woo has a hole in their head.

  36. #36 The Crack Emcee
    May 9, 2009

    Hey RevRon,

    How about “I am a Buddhist obsessed with a ‘crazy’ black man on the web?”

    Man, I must be some kind of special to warrant this. And the Buddha must be some kind of lame, because he obviously failed the day you and I met. All those lessons about self-control just went right out the window.

    Damn.

  37. #37 Happeh
    May 9, 2009

    Scott – “You are a moron”

    No real scientist would talk to another person like this. A real scientist would try to understand the other person. They would try to communicate. They would try to see where the misunderstandings were.

    You are just a hater spewing hate. (Wow. Just noticed Scott went to the trouble to make two hate filled worthless posts. )
    ———

    Emp – “You profess to be a scientist: what is your field? It’s certainly not physics or biology.”

    Why is it certainly not physics or biology?

    Emp – “Newton’s laws of motion apply to forces and only forces. Please keep in mind that “force” is not some nebulous concept that you can define however you like. Cancer is not a force. Cavities are not forces.

    You are like Scott. You are talking about things I never said. I never said Cancer is a force. I never said cavities are a force. So why are you saying they are not forces?

    Cars are not caterpillars. So what? What is the bearing on this conversation?
    ————————-

    That is it for the replies? Yikes! Just out of curiosity, do colleges give just anybody a degree these days?

    In the past few years I have come across more than a few individuals claiming to be degreed professionals. These degreed professionals talk like the gang boys on public transportation. They curse people like gang boys. They aggress people like gang boys. Their thinking level is about 3rd grade like gang boys. Their communication skills are about 6th grade like gang boys.

    What happened to American education? Don’t they train people with degrees in human interaction anymore? How to be polite to your fellow professionals? How to show courtesy and respect to your fellow professionals?

    From my perspective, it seems like these institutions are selling degrees to anyone with the money. If some gang boy has money and can pay tuition, they sell him a degree, call him a scientist, and unleash him on the unsuspecting world.

    When did scientists become full of hate, looking for a victim to attack? Science used to be a refuge from those kinds of people.

  38. #38 Anton Mates
    May 9, 2009

    What would those people and institutions do if cancer was cured with a $5 bottle of pills?

    Uh, make an absolute shitload of money?

    Even if they couldn’t patent the formula and jack the price up to $10,000 a bottle, just think about all the fortunes that have been amassed thanks to cheap but wildly popular products. Like Coca-Cola. Now imagine that one of those products can cure cancer.

    Imagine how many people would willingly drop a few extra dollars to add a shot of Cancer-B-Gone to their daily Coke or Frappucino. Even if they didn’t have cancer yet, who wouldn’t buy it just as a preventative measure? Hell, you could market it as helping with everything from hangnails to AIDS–if it’s proven to cure cancer, people will believe it can cure anything.

    With profits like these, you wouldn’t even notice the million bucks coming in from your Nobel.

  39. #39 MartinB
    May 9, 2009

    What would those people and institutions do if cancer was cured with a $5 bottle of pills?

    Heal all of their friends and relatives that are dying from cancer, perhaps?
    Do people really believe that doctors are so greedy that they prefer to let their loved ones die just to keep the secret?

    I am a genius

    Anybody else reminded of “Calvin, certified boy genius”?

  40. #40 RebeccaF
    May 9, 2009

    What happened to American education? Don’t they train people with degrees in human interaction anymore?

    Because the internet = America. Hint: Not everyone commenting here is from America. Personally, I am an evil European. They don’t teach us manners over here.

    No real scientist would talk to another person like this. A real scientist would try to understand the other person.

    Interesting how you get to define who counts as a scientist and who doesn’t. Who gave you that authority?

    Why is it certainly not physics or biology?

    Because you completely lack understanding of both?

    I never said Cancer is a force. I never said cavities are a force. So why are you saying they are not forces?

    Let me quote what you said:

    If you guys actually thought about the science you learn in school, what I say would be clear as a bell to you. How many of you remember basic physics?

    “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.

    What is equal and opposite to oral cavitation? That is what is causing oral cavitation. What is equal and opposite to breast cancer? That is what is causing breast cancer.

    You applied Newton’s Third Law of Mechanics to something that isn’t a force. It only applies to forces. That is why people are telling you these things aren’t forces. Because you can’t apply it to things that aren’t forces.

    I suppose that still isn’t clear enough to someone like you, though.

  41. #41 Shae
    May 9, 2009

    Are “cavitations” supposed to be cavities?

    My entire extended family is full of people (even elderly people) who have never had a cavity. People without cavities are common enough. Is it really being suggested that such people never get cancer (or breast cancer)?

    I guess counterexamples would only lead to the claim that they have some other undetected dental distress.

  42. #42 Emp
    May 9, 2009

    Happeh,

    I actually never once claimed to have a degree or be a scientist. You were the one who did that – try not to get confused. :) I am a junior biochemistry student/lowly research intern. Most of the people on this comment thread claiming to have degrees at least have the knowledge to indicate that they do, in fact, know what they are talking about.

    Rebecca has already kindly (re)explained why what you said is complete nonsense that any high school physics student would recognize as a failure to comprehend the basics, so I won’t bother trying to explain it further. It’s been made as clear as possible to you.

    I’m still curious to know what you claim your field is.

  43. #43 T. Bruce McNeely
    May 9, 2009

    Happeh sez: “What happened to American education? Don’t they train people with degrees in human interaction anymore? How to be polite to your fellow professionals? How to show courtesy and respect to your fellow professionals?”

    So, Mr. Happeh, I guess we should follow your example. To quote you:
    “A skeptic asked “Why would doctors cover up a cure for cancer?”

    Easy answer. Money. How much money does cancer treatment make for doctors, hospitals, and researchers? What would those people and institutions do if cancer was cured with a $5 bottle of pills?”

    I am a doctor, involved in cancer diagnosis. You have casually accused me and my colleagues of mass murder by fraud. Then you have the gall to berate us for being disrespectful to a “fellow scientist”.

    Fuck you. Fuck you very much.

  44. #44 Tsu Dho Nimh
    May 9, 2009

    @9 Happeh said, “I would like to know what the links between oral cavitations and breast cancer

    You are leaping to the conclusion that oral cavitations exist.

  45. #45 Scott
    May 9, 2009

    Scott – “You are a moron”

    No real scientist would talk to another person like this. A real scientist would try to understand the other person. They would try to communicate. They would try to see where the misunderstandings were.

    Actually, we to tend to call people on their BS quite firmly.

    Why is it certainly not physics or biology?

    Because you have demonstrated total ignorance of those fields.

    You are like Scott. You are talking about things I never said. I never said Cancer is a force. I never said cavities are a force. So why are you saying they are not forces?

    You attempted to apply Newton’s 3rd to them. Therefore, either you have zero conception of physics or you are arguing them to be forces. Either way, you’re a moron.

  46. #46 c 0tt3r
    May 9, 2009

    I can hardly stop laughing. I just bopped over to happatherapy and it is SOOOO worth it.. and I don’t know where to begin but, Happa, dude, whatever you’re doing, just keep doing it. It is some of the most hilarious wierdness I’ve ever encountered and I actually cherish stuff this funny….as they say “you can’t make this stuff up!”, Well, maybe some of us can, but very few are as original as you. And please don’t re-design your web page…it’s perfect, really. I appreciate your getting those ideas down in the most straightforward and visually interesting way that you have. And by the way, I do kinda agree with you about some of the unkindness, dismissiveness and something almost bordering on hostility that goes on, there’s probably no need for that, but hey, people like to flame. Helps to vent the spleen every once in a while and the comment section is usually a good place to do it….but really, I’ve got happatherapy on my favorites and can hardly wait to share it with friends of mine who will also love it…way better than timecube.
    And uh…you’re not on medication, right?
    You are gloriously mad, regardless.
    c 0tt3r out!

  47. #47 Happeh
    May 9, 2009

    MartinB – “Heal all of their friends and relatives that are dying from cancer, perhaps? Do people really believe that doctors are so greedy that they prefer to let their loved ones die just to keep the secret?”

    Martin B knows about reality. Pay special attention to how he said “heal all of their FRIENDS AND RELATIVES…”. He did not say they would heal everyone, just their friends and relatives.

    That is the reality of life I am talking about. Thanks for the corroboration.
    ——————-

    Rebecca F – Oh lord. You want to play word games instead of trying to see what I mean? What happened to cultural anthropology where a scientist has to interpret what someone from a different cultural background is saying?

    Rebecca F – “What is equal and opposite to oral cavitation? That is what is causing oral cavitation. What is equal and opposite to breast cancer? That is what is causing breast cancer.

    You applied Newton’s Third Law of Mechanics to something that isn’t a force. It only applies to forces. That is why people are telling you these things aren’t forces. Because you can’t apply it to things that aren’t forces.

    I suppose that still isn’t clear enough to someone like you, though.”

    I did say all of that Rebecca. My confusion stems from the fact that you and I guess the others are thinking that by saying “What is opposite of oral cavitation”, I am saying oral cavitation is a force.

    I am saying what is the opposite DIRECTION of oral cavitation. You know. “Force in an equal and opposite direction” from the LOCATION of the oral cavitation.
    ———————–

    Emp – “Rebecca has already kindly (re)explained why what you said is complete nonsense that any high school physics student would recognize as a failure to comprehend the basics, so I won’t bother trying to explain it further.”

    I know you coward. Make a claim and then run away when someone tells you to own up. “Rebecca did it so I don’t have to”. More like “I couldn’t, so I will hide behind Rebeccas post”.

    So why don’t you show us you really know things by responding to the reply I gave to Rebecca, before Rebecca does?
    —————–

    T Bruce McNeely – “I am a doctor, involved in cancer diagnosis. You have casually accused me and my colleagues of mass murder by fraud. Then you have the gall to berate us for being disrespectful to a “fellow scientist”.

    Fuck you. Fuck you very much.”

    You are a doctor and you say to people in a public forum “Fuck you. Fuck you very much”? You are not a doctor. You are a scum bag with medical training. With people skills like that, you should be banned from medical practice.

    Mr McNeely. Please respond to the FACT that your fellow scientists and medical personnel murdered people with the Merck drug Vioxx. Please respond to the FACT that you and your fellows gave unknown numbers of babies birth defects with the drug Thalidomide.

    You Mr McNeely, and your fellows, have actually murdered untold numbers of human beings with your quack medicine.

    Instead of telling people who confront you about it “Fuck you”, why don’t you take the lesson that you don’t know everything, and maybe you should listen once in awhile?
    ————–

    Scott – “You attempted to apply Newton’s 3rd to them. Therefore, either you have zero conception of physics or you are arguing them to be forces. Either way, you’re a moron.”

    No Scott. You are continuing to prove you are a moron.

    Only a scientist claiming to be smart would think that someone talking about forces and oral cavitations was trying to say force and oral cavitation is the same thing. Smart scientist are the only ones stupid enough to do that.

    A sane and normal person educated in the science of physics would know that forces require a direction in their calculation, and would assume that the reference to oral cavitation was a reference to the base point for a calculation of the direction of some forces.

    Really Scott. You are embarrassing yourself in front of the world. Hope your boss doesn’t read how foolishly you think.

  48. #48 joe blow
    May 9, 2009

    The coward Orac is now moderating replies from me?

    Come on Orac. Don’t be afraid. Let me say what I want.

    You attacked me publicly. Come out and talk like a man.

    If you think you can take Happeh down, why are pre approving what he says?

    What has Happeh said that you are deleting?

  49. #49 Joe Blow
    May 9, 2009

    Rebecca,Scott,EMP and others. I wrote a nice long reply for you. Maybe Orac will post it, maybe not.

    Instead of foolishly assuming I am saying oral cavitation is a force, why not use common sense?

    You took physics and did physics problems didn’t you? Don’t physics problems require locations and directions?

    So why don’t you all assume that I am saying that the oral cavitation is a location, instead of foolishly assuming I am saying oral cavitation is a force?

  50. #50 Chris
    May 9, 2009

    Mr. Blow, any comment with more than two URLs is immediately put into moderation. It is late on a Saturday evening, Orac is obviously not online to bring your comment out of moderation.

    When were you attacked personally? Is it because he did not buy a t-shirt from you, or are you someone else above like Happeh or Robert Dowling?

  51. #51 happeh
    May 10, 2009

    Chris says – “any comment with more than two URLs is immediately put into moderation”

    That is a weird thing to say Chris. My post had no URL’s in it, so your suggestion the post was moderated for including URL’s has nothing to do with reality.

    I think you are trying to cover up for Orac.

    You want people who come in here to think Orac is not moderating me. You want them to think my post is only moderated because it includes too many URL’s. You want them to think that the post was moderated “by accident” and not part of an “all posts by Happeh will be moderated” policy by Orac.

    I am now going to press the post button. This message has no URL’s, so according to Chris, the post should go through with no problem.

    On the other hand, if Orac is moderating all Happeh replies, then this message will not go through. It will say it needs to be moderated first.

    Let’s see who is right. Honest Happeh, or the suspicious sounding reasoning from Chris.

  52. #52 RebeccaF
    May 10, 2009

    Let’s see who is right. Honest Happeh, or the suspicious sounding reasoning from Chris.

    I think this calls for a very dignified…

    *lol*

  53. #53 Joseph C.
    May 10, 2009

    You want people who come in here to think Orac is not moderating me.

    Who gives a crap? I wish he would moderate you just because it really seems to annoy you.

  54. #54 bob
    May 10, 2009

    I love it when people write things like “pfft, well, this comment is never going to show up because I’m being CENSORED!” Without fail, the person never acknowledges the egg all over their face when the comment does indeed show up, nor do they ever apologize for the unwarranted and obnoxious accusations of censorship.

    I don’t doubt that these morons do occasionally lose comments, of course. Based on how inept they are regarding science and reason, it wouldn’t be terribly surprising if they couldn’t always successfully hit the “Post” button.

  55. #55 Orac
    May 10, 2009

    That is a weird thing to say Chris. My post had no URL’s in it, so your
    suggestion the post was moderated for including URL’s has nothing to do
    with reality.

    God, you’re dense. Your comment was caught in the spam trap, and I just published it, as inane as it was. Believe it or not, I do have somewhat of a life. I was out last night and haven’t looked at the blog or my e-mail in probably 18 hours.

    It is, however, tempting to ban you, not because you are a threat but because you are so utterly, relentlessly, wankingly tiresome. Your idiotic comments irritate my other readers, but, even worse than that, they now bore me to tears.

  56. #56 Emp
    May 10, 2009

    Happeh,

    I am not “hiding” behind Rebecca’s post, I simply see no point in posting the exact same explanation that someone else already has. In light of your most recent attempt to explain how Newton’s third law in any way applies to cavities or breast cancer:

    You have successfully recognized that force is a vector quantity. However, you have still failed to understand the definition of the concept. I will try one last time to explain.

    Newton’s third law of motion describes phenomena such as this: gravity pulls you down to the earth. The force you exert on the earth is equal to your mass times the acceleration due to gravity (F=ma). The earth, due to Newton’s third law, exerts a force of equal magnitude on you in the opposite direction (“up”).

    You can see from this example that force does indeed have both magnitude (or “amount”) and direction. Cavities do not have either magnitude OR direction. They are not accelerating in any direction, so acceleration = 0. And since cavities are by nature empty space, they do not have mass, so mass = 0. 0 times 0 is 0, and thus cavities are able to exert no force at all!

    One last thing. If you’re going to call people out on the basis of their being less than polite to you or cursing, you should refrain from using insults and calling people “cowards” in the same post. It doesn’t reflect very well on you.

  57. #57 Prometheus
    May 10, 2009

    Orac,

    Please don’t ban Happeh! He is not only an excellent example of an “alternative medicine” pseudo-intellectual, he’s a great deal of fun to read. For example:

    “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.

    What is equal and opposite to oral cavitation? That is what is causing oral cavitation. What is equal and opposite to breast cancer? That is what is causing breast cancer.

    You all know that is MY Nobel Prize winning medical contribution to human history don’t you? So don’t try stealing it. I have posted it elsewhere so you will easily be revealed as a plagarist [sic].

    Priceless! You can’t make up stuff like that; it takes a real aluminium-foil-hat intellect to write that.

    Did you know there was research done that proved that Palestinians are like 98% genetically the same as Israelis? Because Israelis do not want to be like Palestinians, that study was repressed.

    Here, Happeh is saying that a repressed “study” found that Israelis and Palestinians are as genetically related as chimpanzees and humans. Considering that both groups are modern humans, I’d say that the study deserved to be tossed in the dustbin, not “repressed” (and shouldn’t the word have been suppressed?). Again, it takes a certain type of “genius” to come up with this stuff.

    I am a genius, not a file clerk.

    That confirms it, I guess. It is a pity that genius without education or direction often spends itself in futilely repeating the errors of the past. One only has to visit the local MENSA group to see this. On the other hand, schizophrenics and tertiary syphilitics often believe that they are geniuses despite evidence to the contrary.

    Martin B knows about reality. Pay special attention to how he said “heal all of their FRIENDS AND RELATIVES…”. He did not say they would heal everyone, just their friends and relatives.

    It’s amazing how insular, how hermetic this “genius” can be – faced with incontrovertible evidence that doctors and “Big Pharma” execs don’t have The cure for cancer (i.e. that they and their friends and relatives continue to die of cancer), Happeh perceives that as proof positive that there is a cure and that doctors and “Big Pharma” are conspiring to hide it from us. Yet another example of the futility of trying to reason with the irrational.

    You want people who come in here to think Orac is not moderating me. You want them to think my post is only moderated because it includes too many URL’s. You want them to think that the post was moderated “by accident” and not part of an “all posts by Happeh will be moderated” policy by Orac.

    I am now going to press the post button. This message has no URL’s, so according to Chris, the post should go through with no problem.

    What can I say – epic fail in all its paranoid glory!

    These are but a few of the amusing bits of prose that Happeh has gifted us. Please don’t cut us off from this artesian spring of idiotic and paranoid rambling, Orac, I beg of you!

    Prometheus

  58. #58 Chris
    May 10, 2009

    Orac said

    Your idiotic comments irritate my other readers, but, even worse than that, they now bore me to tears.

    Seconded… I had no idea “Joe Blow” was the hapless Happeh, whose rambling screeds I just skipped or at most skimmed through.

  59. #59 Happeh
    May 10, 2009

    Let’s see. Orac says – “God, you’re dense. Your comment was caught in the spam trap,”

    We are scientists. Scientists are curious. Why was that one post caught in a spam trap, when none of my other posts were caught in the spam trap? The post had no URLs as suggested by Chris. I would like to know so I can avoid having any future posts accidentally ending up in the spam trap.
    ———

    Emp – What a manipulator! You say “You have successfully recognized that force is a vector quantity.”

    What! I have successfully blah blah as if I have measured up to something? You were the one that thought I was saying a force was an oral cavitation. If you knew that a force is a vector quantity, why didn’t you immediately know that I as talking about the location of the oral cavitation?

    Holy Cow! Now look at what EMP is saying!!!!

    Emp – “However, you have still failed to understand the definition of the concept. I will try one last time to explain. ”

    You never explained anything to me. Are you certain you are not confusing this conversation with another one? Or is that statement some manipulative ploy to make it look like you answered the question previously, and I am some troublesome, not very bright person, bothering you for the explanation again?
    ———-

    Since there seem to be not to many people with knowledge of science AND the ability to think originally with their knowledge, maybe I better check the intelligence and education level of the audience. I might have to dumb down my conversation.

    Does the audience of this post believe or disbelieve that there are forces defined by the science of physics, present in the body of a living human being?

  60. #60 Orac
    May 10, 2009

    We are scientists.

    No, I am a scientist. You are a woo.

  61. #61 T. Bruce McNeely
    May 10, 2009

    Happeh thinks my people skills are deficient.
    He should know.

    Thalidomide? I was a kid when that happened. Vioxx? I never prescribed it. What’s that got do do with cancer? What’s that got to do with me? By the same token, I’m sure you’ll accept the blame for the hundreds of thousands of AIDS cases in South Africa because of the influence of your fellow altie geniuses.

    Actually, I did listen to you, enough to judge that you’re a malicious, brain dead, egomaniacal, pompous sock-puppeting troll. Sometimes, home truths are required. Sometimes it’s necessary to say “Fuck You.” You don’t like it, snowflake, tell my Licensing Body.

  62. #62 idlemind
    May 10, 2009

    Martin B never said he would not cure anyone if he could, even you, happeh-man. Your reliance on wordplay and baiting of your adversaries bespeaks a puny and undisciplined intellect, albeit one driven by an outsized ego. You repeatedly speak of “science” and “scientists” but I see no evidence of either in your posts.

  63. #63 Emp
    May 10, 2009

    Happeh,

    You failed to address anything in my post but that which you interpreted as an insult. If you scroll up you will see where I (and many others) attempted to explain previously. Please see post 32 for evidence of this. You are the one getting confused.

    Newton’s laws of mechanics apply to forces within the body, yes. No one is saying the body violates the laws of physics. There are many forces acting in and on the body. But nothing to do with cavities is a force. Absolutely nothing. A cavity is not accelerating and does not have mass. It has no force. The statement you made is wrong and you look like a fool floundering around trying to prove it’s not. A mature person would recognize his mistake and own up to it.

    Please take science classes or stop posting your horrendously uninformed “theories” on science blogs. You’re obviously not a scientist or anywhere near it, and you’re not fooling anyone. I would not be surprised to hear that you are in high school. Based on that, I refuse to engage you any further. Realize that everyone here (most of whom, myself included, have taken physics and biology classes) find your logic to be risibly flawed and your arguments to be completely lacking in scientific merit. You are not a misunderstood genius. You simply don’t grasp science.

    If you post any more it will merely be for our amusement. I won’t bother with you any more as it’s clearly pointless to do so, since you obstinately refuse to accept that you are wrong on a demonstrably false claim you made earlier in the comment thread. I have to say, for all the bother you’ve caused, my friends (even the non-science majors) were pretty amused by the glaringly obvious errors your silly comments.

    Carry on with your insanity, then. I’ll be making some popcorn to enjoy the show.

  64. #64 catgirl
    May 11, 2009

    I am a genius

    Also, Milhouse Van Houten’s mom says he’s handsome.

  65. #65 jen
    May 11, 2009
    Jen – “After all, that MRI might have some weird freaky impact on my body that shows up 30 years later. But if the MRI allowed the diagnosis in time for the docs to save my life and *give me* those 30 years? I’ll take the potential impact of an MRI.”

    So you are seriously saying that if MRI exposure was found to cause dementia 5 years after use, you would still go ahead and have an MRI to find out why you have headache? Even if it meant you would live from 30 years old until 70 years old with dementia, because the MRI magnetic field ate your brain?

    No…. If you actually put both of my sentences together (rather than taking only the one you chose to respond to), I said something rather different. I said that I’d get an MRI if I had a choice of two risks where risk 1 is not getting the MRI and risking dying *now*, and risk 2 is getting the MRI so the docs can save my life now. That leaves me facing the risk that maybe just possibly all the anti-MRI cranks are right and it’s going to mess me up 30 years from now.

    Given those choices, I’d put a lot more weight on the now. If my symptoms now are sufficiently severe (not your headaches, but maybe symptoms that suggest a possible brain tumor), I’m going to accept that small potential future risk because the failure to act now is a greater, more immediate risk.

    After all, failing to get the MRI might simply mean I die now. Great way to avoid a potential risk that no one’s proven even exists! Woo-hoo! I showed “big medicine” there, didn’t I?

  66. #66 Scott
    May 11, 2009

    Only a scientist claiming to be smart would think that someone talking about forces and oral cavitations was trying to say force and oral cavitation is the same thing. Smart scientist are the only ones stupid enough to do that.

    Let’s see, what did you actually say:

    “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”.

    What is equal and opposite to oral cavitation? That is what is causing oral cavitation. What is equal and opposite to breast cancer? That is what is causing breast cancer.

    Not even related to what you’re trying to claim you said.

    A sane and normal person educated in the science of physics would know that forces require a direction in their calculation, and would assume that the reference to oral cavitation was a reference to the base point for a calculation of the direction of some forces.

    A sane and normal person educated in the science of physics would know this claim is garbage. Vectors HAVE no “base point”.

    Really Scott. You are embarrassing yourself in front of the world. Hope your boss doesn’t read how foolishly you think.

    I rather think you’re the one embarrassing yourself. But I won’t comment on your boss, because the odds that you’re able to actually do any job are negligible.

  67. #67 catgirl
    May 11, 2009

    For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction

    This is a law of physics, not medicine. What it means is if your weight is pushing down a floor, the floor is pushing back with the same force in the opposite direction.

  68. #68 LovleAnjel
    May 12, 2009

    Happeh, I don’t know if you are serious or a spoof, but god bless ya either way. I truly enjoyed your website. Keep up the good work.

  69. #69 Impatient Patient
    May 15, 2009

    That’s one of the funniest things – I see it suggested all the time in alternative circles – dental problems, either before treatment or BECAUSE of their treatment, cause problems. Many alternative practitioners recommend pulling every tooth you’ve ever had worked on to eradicate those “poisons.”

    I suspect that the majority of Americans have had at least one filling in their lives… what an easy target for their “cause.”

  70. #70 Michael
    February 7, 2010

    To completely dismiss all of Dowling’s claims is nonsense. Please read the following derogatory comments by Quackwatch and the Skeptical Society and my rebuttals.

    QUACKWATCH http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/ncit.html
    QUACKWATCH: The program was claimed to treat cancer “even before it becomes symptomatic and before it can be identified positively through traditional techniques.” Although the site did not describe the treatment in detail, it did offer a “new metabolic procedure” that selectively shuts down “cancer cells’ ability to do mitosis through the destruction of ATP synthesis and through sufficiently blocking the excretion of lactic acid of these abnormal cells to kill them in their own acids.” It further claimed that “Cancer cells have extreme difficulty controlling their pH” and that Biological Terrain Management can “take advantage of this weakness without hurting normal cells.” There is no plausible reason to believe that any of these statements are true. Scientific research has shown that the underlying cause of cancer is genetic, not metabolic, and that the metabolic pathways of cancer cells do not differ significantly from that of normal cells.

    my rebuttal: Yes it is generally agreed that cancer is due to genetic damage to cells, but that damage is the end result of some other process. Radiation, toxins, and cancer-causing microbes are what do the damage. The “terrain”, or condition, of your body can be the determining factor in whether or not it becomes toxic or full of microbes. Too much meat and too little vegetables in the diet cause the body to become toxic. A toxic body has weakened immunity which allows microbes to proliferate. Removing sources of dental toxins/bacteria and returning to a natural diet can stop the development of a cancer tumor before it can be large enough to be seen on a x-ray photo. And there are natural supplements that affect cancer cells ATP synthesis and pH.

    QUACKWATCH: “The Quantum site states that through digital infrared thermal imaging he discovered that “oral pathology is the primary factors for causing most, if not all degenerative disease and cancer.” (Digital infrared thermal imaging—commonly referred to as thermography—has very little if any legitimate medical use. Moreover, the idea that the problems in the mouth could have such a broad effect is preposterous.) ”

    my rebuttal: see my first rebuttal to the Skeptical Society which covers this same topic. And go to http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm to read Tim Bolen’s assessment of Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch.

    SKEPTICAL SOCIETY http://jacksonskepticalsociety.com/2009/04/26/robert-dowling/
    “According to Dowling, oral pathology is the magic cause of all disease. He said it caused cancer, heart disease, and alzheimers. And when people asked what else might be caused by the bacteria in your mouth, well, Dowling was pretty sure that those pesky bacteria were the culprits. Lupus. Fibromyalgia. Parkinsons.”

    my rebuttal: Anything that lowers overall body immunity can allow the presence of any disease that should be disallowed by the immune system. That’s basic logic. See http://northcarolinainstituteoftechnology.com/gpage5.html to see the science behind the claim that dental infections can suppress the bodys immunity.Dr. Robert Jones, who has had his research paper accepted by the FDA, wrote: “As I have explored the causes of cancer it has become apparent that the real cause of cancer is genetic protein based, in other words, toxic inhibition of proteins within the cell structure allows or encourages a cell, or group of cells, to become malignant. ” Dr. Gerald H. Smith, author of “Reversing Cancer: A Journey from Cancer to Cure” wrote: “It is estimated that 70% of all medical illnesses are directly or indirectly caused by human intervention in the dental structures (teeth and jawbones).” (see http://www.icnr.com/cs/cs_21.html)

    SKEPTICAL SOCIETY: “Dowling claimed that neurotoxins from oral bacteria travel through the body, causing diseases.”

    my rebuttal: The Skeptical Society has their head in the sand so deep that they can’t see the obvious. Ask anybody how crappy they felt when they had an obvious dental infection and how well they felt after it was eliminated and their answer will show how profoundly dental bacteria and their neurotoxins affect overall health and disease. Dr. Jones wrote: “P53 is specifically a tumor suppressant protein. When P53 is normal or not inhibited, tumor growth or start is depressed. [referring to the graph;] If you will note on P53 at 5 ul
    injection of the cavitation extract, the inhibition is already at 58.5%, any inhibition at over 12% will render functions to be ineffective. [A cavitation extract is rich with bacteria and their neurotoxins.] Root canal extract inhibits P53 at 29% at 5 ul, continuing on at 40ul at 87.5%. The interesting thing about these toxins is, it is estimated that a molar root canal
    produces 45ul each 24 hours!”

    SKEPTICAL SOCIETY: “Dowling would not identify the bacteria, claiming only that they were the same ones in your mouth as always (giving you a mouth full of neurotoxin, all the time). Even if such a mechanism were real, then the blood leaving your “cavitation” with the lethal payload would travel throughout the body – or at least concentrate the cancers near the source of the infection.”

    my rebuttal: Dr. Jones, in his research paper, only referred to extracts from cavitations and root canals which are full of bacteria and their neurotoxins. He did not isolate and test individual ones which would of been too time consuming. Instead he kept it practical and tested the same complex (bacteria and toxins) that we experience when we have dental infections. The Societies asumption about the bacteria completely dispersing or just affecting the area around the infection is just that, an assumption. Their assumption implied that where cancers manifest have nothing to do with the area of the body that each tooth affects. see http://www.healthcarealternatives.net/toothbody.html to understand the relationship between teeth and body areas.

    SKEPTICAL SOCIETY: “After claiming to have published studies, after claiming
    a 100% cure rate, after calling himself a doctor, he said that he had the proof.”

    my rebuttal: Dowling does not claim to have published studies himself. He refers to Dr. Jones and others who have published studies. Dowling does not claim a 100% cure
    rate. He says that dental infections cause cancer, which is backed up by the research of Dr. Jones, and that if the infections are eliminated that the bodys immune system
    will not be suppressed in its effort to destroy the cancerous cells. A narturopathic doctor is a doctor, although not the kind of surgery and drug pushing doctor that skeptics prefer. Dowling does have the proof of what he claims. Read it.

    Other supporting literature on the internet: http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james34.htm
    http://curezone.com/dental/root_canal.asp
    http://www.hugginsappliedhealing.com/articles_cavitations.php
    http://jada.highwire.org/cgi/content/full/136/6/716
    http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/oralsystemic.asp#general
    http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=1442
    http://cmr.asm.org/cgi/content/full/13/4/547
    http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/search?fulltext=relationship+of+dental+and+oral+pathology+to+systemic+illness

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!