Regular readers out there will already be familiar with the groups of people who deny evolutionary theory, who deny that HIV causes AIDS, even those who deny that germs cause disease, period. Wilhelm Godshalk is even on the record for denying gravity. I don't know what it is about this site, and science blogs in general, that bring people out of the woodwork in this manner, but we have another live one. Witness Charles Hoy's assertion that fear, not smoking, causes lung cancer.
What evidence do you want? Lung cancer is as common in smokers as it is in non-smokers. Where it all gets tricky is when you have to draw the frontier between smokers and non-smokers. A person who has been smoking from his 15th until his 30th birthday and who gets lung cancer at an age of 60, is he in the smoker's or in the non-smoker's stats? Already there are not so many people who never smoked a cigarette in their lives and, of course, today the last barriers to easy statistics are leveled. Secondary smoke! What an amazing trick of the apologist geniuses. Nobody in the whole wide world is save from secondary smoke and today ALL lung cancer can be traced back to cigarettes.
But we should consider things differently. For example, everybody diagnosed with a severe disease like cancer or AIDS will end up having lung cancer. Look it up: Cancer metastasis in the lungs is the most common of secondary cancers. Which is very logical: People who are severely ill are very afraid and the cause of lung cancer is fear. Or, to be more precise, a biological conflict of "fear of death" is the cause if the lung alveoli are concerned.
Someone better alert the tobacco companies--I assume they'll want their settlement money back.
[Edited to add that apparently Hoy also denies the germ theory of disease, like our previous pal jspreen. To ease my mind, I'm going to believe he's just putting me on. Again, don't shatter my illusions...]
- Log in to post comments
Charles, could you point us to a list of scientists who say that neither coal dust, not PAHs, nor asbestos, nor radon decay products cause lung cancer?
Another thought:
To think that all those soldiers in the trenches in WW1 who were scared of being gassed, shelled, shot or bayonetted could have survived had they just sauntered across no-man's-land without
Charles, the Nobel Peace Prize is in the post!
Wow. This is out there. You nailed it, Peter. With all the contributing risk factors that have been documented, I don't think I have seen anybody call smoking the sole cause of lung cancer. Beyond that, people with anxiety disorder should be dropping like flies.
Who is Charles Hoy?
Up until the past several days, I'd never heard of him.
Is he a scientist? A Doctor? Or just another person commenting on Dr. T.'s blog?
Dr. T., is highlighting Charles' comments as a topic for a thread science or pettiness?
A blatant lie. (OK, maybe it's not a lie, assuming this guy actually believes it, but it's so laughably and easily demonstrably incorrect as to be close.)
Lung cancer is at least 10-20 times more common in smokers than nonsmokers. In fact, before the 1920's and 1930's, lung cancer was virtually unknown. I distinctly remember reading the account of one doctor trained in the 1910's who was told by his professor that he had to see an autopsy of a lung cancer patient because he might never see another case of this again. Why the huge increase in the 1920's and 1930's? Simple. It's about 20-30 years after industrialized cigarette-rolling machines had made cigarettes cheap and widely available. Before that, people who smoked had to roll their own, and it's unlikely that they would roll the 20-40 cigarettes a day that a 1-2 pack/day smoker rolls.
In fact, lung cancer risk shows a very clear dose-response curve with respect to cigarette smoking, with the risk of lung cancer increasing rapidly after about 20 pack-years (1 pack-year = 1 pack per day for one year). We also have clear evidence of how much a smoker's risk of cancer decreases over time after quitting smoking. It never quite falls to the risk that a nonsmoker has, but it comes close 10 years after quitting.
I guess I spoke too soon when I said that no one seriously questions anymore whether smoking is a significant risk factor for lung cancer.
Hoy has brilliant insight in the psychology of plants; Adolf Mayer and Martinus Beijerinck were completely and wrong in identifying the tobacco mosaic virus !
Turns out that theres no such thing as a TMV, the poor tobacco or tomato sprouts just cringe at the *tought* of getting infected ! And then their leaves begin to show mottling ad discoloration.
I suppose if you spray the plant with ordinary water, but manage to fool the plant into thinking it was a TMV solution, the plant will sicken, and then infect other plants!
And Charlie Hoy could cure whole fields of infected plants by talking to them, by explaining to the hapless leafballs that theres no such things as viruses, and that disbelief will cure them !!! Charlie Hoy, plant-whisperer !!!
Well, we all know fear is the path to the dark spot.
It's interesting to note that many of the rhetorical tricks of the various anti-science / denialist brigades now common exactly follow the original template devised by PR firms working for the major tobacco companies to spread doubt and confusion about the risks of smoking. In many cases the same people are involved.
Oh crap! I have general anxiety disorder! I'm gonna die! AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!
FDR had no idea how right he was when he said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."
Denial therapy: I'm not sick, I cannot get sick, because all those so-called diseases exist only in my mind. If I deny my cancer hard enough, it will go away !
If I deny my cancer hard enough, it will go away!
Actually, this is true. (You will quickly die, and your body will either rot or be cremated. Thus, your lung cancer will indeed go away!) And think of all the money society won't have to spend on the cancer! I must quickly go tell my rethuglican "representatives" about the amazing cost savings associated with this physiological/metaphysical miracle...
Just when you think no one can possibly be more absurd than the last denialist clown... LADIES AND GENTLEMEN!! IN THE CENTER RING!!
Of course this would be a lot funnier if these clowns didn't do so much harm. Could this be seen as some form of natural selection? The louder and shriller and more ludicrous the claims made by various anti-science types, the more so their successors have to be, to get the same attention?
"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain."
-- Frank Herbert, DUNE
Bene Gesserit, of course, never contracted lung cancer. So, based on this scientific evidence, this twit must be right.
Wow!!! Charles Hoy, you are far out! At least one more person who writes the kind of ideas I have too. I feel less lonely all of a sudden. Charles, I bet you know a lot about Ryke Geerd Hamer's New Medicine, don't you?
Anyway, I wish you good luck with the dummies on the Seed science blogs, I'm cutting it out little by little. Man, what a narrow minded bunch of people. Well, it's like anywhere else. People with original thoughts in an independent brain like Godschalk (Ha die Wilhelm !), Duesberg, Bialy, Farber, Scheff and Hoy are rare species.
js
----
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
I had JSpreen whacky delusions in mind when I made my post about the Tobacco Mosaic Virus.
So, tell me JS, if humans gets diseases because of their "fear" of disease, not because of some completely hypotical so-called "infections agents", like germs and viruses,
...how do you explain that plants suffer from the same kind of ilnesses, including viruses ?
Take your time, JS, explain to me how the mind of plants allow them to contract viruses, or, to be specific, illnesses that appears to be virus-borne, --and how you came to become intimate with the inner minds of potted plants --
spreen thinks that Bialy and Duesberg are kindred spirits. They don't agree with his reasons for thinking that HIV does not cause AIDS, they unequivocably deny his foundational hypothesis of what causes disease, and they are firmly in the camp that recognizes reality in regards to most diseases. Heck, Duesberg also thinks that cancer may have viral origins, and Bialy agrees with him!
So why does spreen think they are not narrow minded dummies? It is a real mystery to me why he thinks he belongs in the same camp as people who think his ideas are utterly ridiculous, who would never claim him as one of theirs. Even Godschalk doesn't deny the germ theory of disease!
I think it all goes back to the religious bit... jspreen sees himself primarily as a spiritual warrior, and Duesberg and Bialy are not real people to him, they are just saints of his particular spiritual world. That would allow him to basically ignore the content of their writings, the actual statements they make and thoughts they have, and instead create a Duesberg and Bialy in his head--ones that won't think he's a total idiot.
You mean, JSpreen is denying that denialism exists ?? What a novel approach !
DB, I suspect that the name "Charles Hoy" is an allusion to Charles Hoy Fort, the famous contrarian of science and documenter of anomalous phenomena. Assuming that my guess is correct, let readers infer from that choice of name what they will!
So, tell me JS, if humans gets diseases because of their "fear" of disease, not because of some completely hypotical so-called "infections agents", like germs and viruses,
...how do you explain that plants suffer from the same kind of ilnesses, including viruses ?
Plants suffer from the same kind of illnesses? I've never heard a tree cough!
But it's true, plants and animals, all can suffer from diseases. If you want a general term for the cause of diseases, it's not fear (of death), which I mentioned in the case of cancer of the lung alveoli, but biological conflict.
Lung cancer is at least 10-20 times more common in smokers than nonsmokers. In fact, before the 1920's and 1930's, lung cancer was virtually unknown.
What a nonsense. Maybe lung cancer was quite unknown before 1920, but it's not because something is unknown that it doesn't exist. Stupid scientists. When they see something for the first time, they think it's new.
I'll give you a hint: Lung tuberculosis is always preceded by lung cancer. In fact, TBC is the destruction (by Koch bacili!) of cancer cells in endodemic tissu.
Wow!!! Charles Hoy, you are far out! At least one more person who writes the kind of ideas I have too. I feel less lonely all of a sudden. Charles, I bet you know a lot about Ryke Geerd Hamer's New Medicine, don't you?
Yes, of course. You taught me yourself! You don't know me as Charles Hoy which is my internet pseudo. Remember, Amsterdam 2001, Leidse plein. You broke a beer glass. Got it? I told you about Charles Hoy Fort. Whom you apparently came to appreciate because I saw a link on your site to the resologist.
Don't give me away...
You mean, JSpreen is denying that denialism exists ?
Hey, I like that! Denialism is a hollow word solely used to wipe out independent thinking. Stay with the herd, you cattle, if not, you're a denialist and you'll be stoned!
Remember, Amsterdam 2001, Leidse plein. You broke a beer glass. Got it?
I'm quite confused but no, I don't remember. Besides, I'm in France since 1982 so Amsterdam, Leidse plein in 2001... I don't go there very often anymore...
JS
---
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
This is the basis for the constant blaming the victim that goes on in both new age and many religious people's attitudes toward disease. It stems from a form of self-loathing -- since everyone gets sick at times, these folks feel they get sick because they are weak and worthless (which may or may not be an accurate self-assessment for them) and they project that loathing unto others. It's awfully sad.
"you mean, JSpreen is denying that denialism exists"
------------
No, I mean that jspreen doesn't actually evaluate the ideas of Deusberg and Bialy, he claims them as allies despite the fact that both of them disgree with him completely.
he claims them as allies despite the fact that both of them disagree with him completely.
I don't claim it at all but yes, they are my allies. Which has nothing to do with agreeing or not. It has to do with honest debate. We may not agree at all on many points but we have the same goal. Which is freedom of speech. We loath people like that John Pee Moore faggot who says stupid things like "The science community does not 'debate' with the AIDS denialists, it treats them with the utter contempt that they deserve and exposes them for the charlatans that they are.".
Which reminds me of that beautiful letter I sent to professor John P. Moore. Did you read it? If not, have a look at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jan.spreen/english/pmoore.pdf
A master piece, I swear it is. Enjoy!
js
---
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
What a nonsense. Maybe lung cancer was quite unknown before 1920, but it's not because something is unknown that it doesn't exist. Stupid scientists. When they see something for the first time, they think it's new.
Did you read the next sentence in Orac's post?
"I distinctly remember reading the account of one doctor trained in the 1910's who was told by his professor that he had to see an autopsy of a lung cancer patient because he might never see another case of this again."
They knew what lung cancer was; they'd known since the mid-1800s. They just saw very very few cases.
he claims them as allies despite the fact that both of them disagree with him completely.
I don't claim it at all it's just a given fact: we are allies. Which has nothing to do with agreeing or not. It has to do with honest debate. We may not agree at all but we have the same goal. Which is freedom of speech. People who appreciate freedom of speech can debate even if they totally disagree and together they loath people like Prof. John Pee Moore who says stupid things like "The science community does not 'debate' with the AIDS denialists, it treats them with the utter contempt that they deserve and exposes them for the charlatans that they are.".
Which reminds me of that beautiful letter I sent to professor John P. Moore. Did you read it? If not, have a look at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jan.spreen/english/pmoore.pdf
A master piece, I swear it is. Enjoy!
js
---
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
JS asked me to post this. He can't get through anymore. AP
----------------------------------------------------------
he claims them as allies despite the fact that both of them disagree with him completely.
I don't claim it at all it's just a given fact: we are allies. Which has nothing to do with agreeing or not. It has to do with honest debate. We may not agree at all but we have the same goal. Which is freedom of speech. People who appreciate freedom of speech can debate even if they totally disagree and together they loath people like Prof. John Pee Moore who says stupid things like "The science community does not 'debate' with the AIDS denialists, it treats them with the utter contempt that they deserve and exposes them for the charlatans that they are.".
Which reminds me of that beautiful letter I sent to professor John P. Moore. Did you read it? If not, have a look at http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jan.spreen/english/pmoore.pdf
A master piece, I swear it is. Enjoy!
js
---
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
"I don't claim it at all it's just a given fact: we are allies. Which has nothing to do with agreeing or not. "
--------------
Somehow, Duesberg, who does not provide js with a forum to spout his insanity, is more of a fan of free speech than Dr. Smith, who DOES provide this cretin with a place to spout his insanity. And this is despite the fact that Duesberg undoubtably knows that flakes like jspreen are a liability to his side, and therefore wishes that they would just shut the hell up. I, on the other hand, would encourage such people to speak as much as they like, in every forum, because I find them amusing and they help to illustrate how crazy HIV denial really is.
spreens connection to reality is so loose, however, that he cannot recognize who is actually supporting his right to free speech.
First, Tara is more of a "free speach" type than Duesberg *because* she has a blog and D doesnt. Then jspreen is made out to be an embarrassment to Duesberg's "side" and then Duesberg is made a cretin by illustration through jspreen. This thread/blog is an embarrassment to human intelligence and decency and has nothing to do with free speech.
JS asked me to post this. He can't get through anymore. Catch22
----------------------------------------------------------
I, on the other hand, would encourage such people to speak as much as they like, in every forum,
Then please, please, tell Tara I'm beggin' her to let me in again so I don't need to ask other people to post for me. As you can very well imagine, I figure, I don't have any friends and I can only ask the few people I know for one single favor. The second time they slap me in the face.
js
---
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
...so long as you ignore the majority of TB cases, in which there is never any lung cancer, or the significant minority of cases where lung cancer is preceded by TB.
Apologies; about 6 comments got sent to the spam filter and I'm not sure why, as they didn't even contain multiple links. I was out of town and away from a computer all weekend so I just now saw them, but they've all been published.
"As you can very well imagine, I figure, I don't have any friends and I can only ask the few people I know for one single favor. The second time they slap me in the face."
---------------
Dude, Tara isn't blocking you from posting, that is bullshit. But I'll be happy to post your stupidity for you. Really. It make take me more than a few minutes, but I'll post them here and we'll see if Tara asks ME to stop. Email whatever crazy garbage you want posted up here, and I'll put it up in your name. Then we'll see if I get banned, what do you think?
Apologies;
OK, settled.
Dude, Tara isn't blocking you from posting, that is bullshit.
Well, now you see it ain't b*llsh*t. Biting off your fingers from having answered too agressive too quickly, aren't you?
Um, no, it *is* bullshit. I wasn't blocking you; it was a hitch in the system or something. PharmaBawd, Wilhelm, and a few others had comments held up too. There have been a few recent changes to the spam filter and a few IPs blocked by our system admin, so I don't know if that was a factor or not, but it was nothing I did, and now they've all been cleared out of the junk folder.
but it was nothing I did,
I don't know who did it, I just noticed that the same message that was blocked when jspreen sent it was accepted under another name. So it's the name that caused the refusal. Anyway, it's your blog and you can choose freely who can publish and who can't. It's the same on moderated boards.
Some messages I sent to Aids at 25 never made it either. Who cares? I think I have fabulous information for people who can take it but it doesn't personally affect me when my messages don't reach their destiny.
js
--
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
Charles, the Nobel Peace Prize is in the post!
Yeah, I know. One day Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer will be Noble Prized. He already got the Spanish Prince of Asturias Award last year.
He couldn't personally receive the prize though, since he was in a French prison at the same time.
Hamer is chased ten times worse than Duesberg etc. Which is quite logical.
Apply Hamer's New Medicine today and tomorrow 50% of the hospitals in civilized Western countries can be shut down. HIV and Aids will be history too. So we can easily understand that the guy is not very wanted and a real danger for modern society.
JSpreen, how do you came by the "clear-thinking" opinion that microbes and other critters too small to see cannot possibly cause disease ?
Is it based on personal research, research done by others, or is it entirely based on your very own "thinking" ?
How do you propose to set up an experiment demonstrating that Cholera is not caused by a water-borne bacteria, that Bubonic Plague is not caused by the flea-borne bacteria Yersinia Pestis ?
If you are bit by a rabid dog , do you expect not to get sick and die ?
If you are injected with either a saline solution, or a rabid dog saliva solution, which one will make you sick ?
Charles Hoy writes: "One day Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer will be Noble Prized. He already got the Spanish Prince of Asturias Award last year. He couldn't personally receive the prize though, since he was in a French prison at the same time."
References please.
Juan Ignacio Cirac received the award for 'Technical and Scientific Research' in 2006. Antonio Damasio got the award in 2005. The 2004 award went to a combination of biologists studying the biochemical mechanisms behind cancer (Judah Folkman, Tony Hunter, Joan Massagué Solé, Bert Vogelstein, Robert Weinberg). These researchers could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered sympathetic to Hamer's claims.
FYI - Hamer's name doesn't appear in any of the Prince of Asturias Award categories. A google search did not appear to pull anything of significance either.
http://www.fpa.es/ing/index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Asturias_Awards
Charles Hoy made a mistake in his eagerness. You must be more careful and precise Charlie, if not you'll be fed to the vultures in no time.
Hamer did not receive the award but was "only" nominated for the Nobel Prize and the Asturias Award.
But who cares? Gallo and Montagnier got the Asturias Award some years ago for their cranky HIV research so there's nothing to gain there.
http://pilhar.com/Hamer/Korrespo/2005/20050322_Campoy_an_JustizF_Og.htm
JSpreen, how do you came by the "clear-thinking" opinion that microbes and other critters too small to see cannot possibly cause disease? Is it based on personal research, research done by others, or is it entirely based on your very own "thinking" ?
It is principally based on the study of Ryke Geerd Hamer's New Medicine. Once I could not get around it any more, I started to dig deeper and elsewhere. That's when I found out about the whole Aids deniers issue of whom I had never heard before. And about the battle that opposed Antoine Béchamp and Louis Pasteur. And many other things.
How do you propose to set up an experiment demonstrating that Cholera is not caused by a water-borne bacteria, that Bubonic Plague is not caused by the flea-borne bacteria Yersinia Pestis?
First you study Hamer's New Medicine to find out what disease really is. Then you will also discover the answer to your question. Experiments without knowing what one is doing are infinitely less efficient than the ones you may perform once you know more.
If you are bit by a rabid dog , do you expect not to get sick and die?
No. In fact, the bite in itself is nothing, unless it's a very bad one of course. It all depends on the physical ands emotional condition of the victim at the moment of the bite.
If you are injected with either a saline solution, or a rabid dog saliva solution, which one will make you sick ?
Normally, neither. But then again, injecting some strange liquid injected directly into a living organism may certainly be very harmful.
In the seventies, when I lived in Amsterdam on a campus, there was a junkie hanging around. He has been seen shooting coca-cola in his veins. When he had no heroin, he'd shoot anything. Sometimes people called the cops to take him away. They couldn't handle the guy unless they were seven or eight. Strong as a bull. Even after years and years of shooting all kind of crap into his blood. That was in the seventies. Today he wouldn't have lasted long. He'd be HIV+. AZT and ARVs would probably have dealt with him in no time.
js
--
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
--Have you done any actual research establishing positively that rabies don't affect people that don't believe in germs, and those only ?
If you are bit by a rabid dog, do you expect not to get sick and die?
No.
That answer should be "Yes" or course. I answered to do you expect to get sick and die
How do you propose to set up an experiment demonstrating that Cholera is not caused by a water-borne bacteria
If you think bacteria are the cause, you set up an experiment to prove your hypothesis. You can't prove they are not the cause. You can shoot a syringe full of infected serum or something into your veins but that won't proof anything either way.
js
---
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
Have you done any actual research establishing positively that rabies don't affect people that don't believe in germs, and those only ?
None. The only research I've done in that field concerns the equation HIV=Aids=Death. That equation only holds for people who believe every nonsense they're told. That's why I propose to rebaptize AIDS and call it the Acute Intelligence Deficiency Syndrom.
There's a Nobel Prize too. But I shall refuse. Too many low brows accepted, I don't wanna mingle.
js
--
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
jspreen writes: "Hamer did not receive the award but was "only" nominated for the Nobel Prize and the Asturias Award."
Thanks for the clarification regarding his non-award status. Now, are we even sure about nomination for the Nobel Prize? In particular, who or what organization nominated Hamer for the Nobel? Were they qualified nominators that actually had scientific degrees?
An article from the DSALUD folks:
http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/2/3/411
Here's an interesting case of another's 'nomination' for a Nobel prize:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200503220009
What about Leprosy ? How come lepers just happen to be infected by the Mycobacterium Leprae (Hansen bacilla), which can bee seen using a microscope ?
Doesn't the fact that all lepers show the presence of the bacillum, and non-lepers don't show the presence of this specific pathogen, suggest to you, a clear-thinking man, some kind of causal link ?
What you haven't studied Leprosy yet ? But you're convinced that those ham-fisted scientist have don the research all wrong, they need to go back to the 1800, when one doctor tried to contradict Louis Pasteur, and lost because his opinion was not supported by the evidence, and has not been supported by any evidence ever since ?
Notice, jspreen does not think that a lack of research into an area is a shortcoming. That is, he is confident that his hypothesis is true, regardless of the facts.
I'm sure that he can explain how the emotional state of a dog bitten by a squirrel that carries rabies causes the rabies, and I'm sure that he can come up with an explanation for why plants sprayed with a virus get sick, and plants sprayed with saline do not.
But all of these explanations are spur of the moment, generated when the question is asked. There isn't any principle behind them, because he has no predictive principle, only, basically, rationalizations, generated in his own head, none of them are supported by the study where the plants sprayed with the virus in solution do not get sick if sprayed by a germ denier, and do get sick if sprayed by a germ believer, or whatever.
Meanwhile, real events in the real world continue to roll on. Polio rates are higher in countries with lower rates of vaccination. People vaccinated against the flu don't get the flu as often as people who aren't. The evidence for the germ theory of disease, hundreds of years worth, is piled on one side, and on the other... nothing. No experiments. No data. Just simple lies from Hoy and baseless assertions from spreen.
What is remarkable is that these guys probably honestly think that they are being open minded. They don't realize how dogmatic they sound, with their bold, evidence free assertions and sweeping condemnations.
Hey Tara! I hereby nominate you for a Nobel Prize in medicine or physiology. Be sure to add that to your resume 'cause it must mean a whole lot, almost as much as actually winning one!
What about Leprosy ? How come lepers just happen to be infected by the Mycobacterium Leprae (Hansen bacilla), which can bee seen using a microscope ?
Doesn't the fact that all lepers show the presence of the bacillum, and non-lepers don't show the presence of this specific pathogen, suggest to you, a clear-thinking man, some kind of causal link ?
What you haven't studied Leprosy yet ? But you're convinced that those ham-fisted scientist have don the research all wrong, they need to go back to the 1800, when one doctor tried to contradict Louis Pasteur, and lost because his opinion was not supported by the evidence, and has not been supported by any evidence ever since ?
Why do you ask questions if you can't listen to answers? Rabies, leprosy... Are you going to hop from disease to disease for a long time like that? And Pasteur in 1800...no evidence ever since... Are you nuts or what? Look it up! Pasteur vs Bechamp, microzyma. Very interesting.
Anyway, I see I attracted a whole pack of howling wolves. What an honour. Why don't you guys read some different stuff every once in a while? Something that has not been chewed by the whole world before you taste it.
Polio rates are higher in countries with lower rates of vaccination.
People vaccinated against the flu don't get the flu as often as people who aren't.
Where can I find more about that kind of a nonsense? Will provide me a great article for my next column at... No, I won't tell.
"And Pasteur in 1800...no evidence ever since"
----------------
There is some possibility that jspreen actually believes this. Of course, high school and college students repeat Pasteurs experiments all the time, and every study of infectious disease that successfully predicts reality based on germ theory is evidence. But spreen honestly does not understand what evidence is, or what a study is, and so he can only parrot a statement like this and think he's being more open minded than people who actually attempt to answer a real questions by setting up fair tests of those question.
In the end, it doesn't actually matter that spreen is wrong. That is secondary... the important thing for people to realize (and I'm speaking to anyone on the fence here) is that spreen's method of investigation cannot yield any new information about the world, only the parroting of baseless assertions that he read somewhere. The person he read didn't do any studies either, but simply made a bunch of stuff up. I don't mean that that person doesn't use real facts, I mean that in attempting to explain the facts, they never test the explanation. They just make up an explanation, and then assume its right without taking that extra step of trying to prove it wrong.
What about Mad Cow Disease (BSE) , (and Sheep Scrapie, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob) ?
JSpren, do your research, if any, also postulate the non-existence of prion proteins, because they are too small to see, and clear-thinging people would dismiss such sight unseen ?
Please permit me to translate on jspreen's behalf:
You don't frighten us, Microbiologist pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called _Arthur, you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!
You blow your nose at me, but I cannot catch your diseases, because theres no such things as germs !
What about Mad Cow Disease (BSE) , (and Sheep Scrapie, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob) ?
I see you continue to swap from one disease to another. LOL
JSpren, do your research, if any, also postulate the non-existence of prion proteins, because they are too small to see, and clear-thinging people would dismiss such sight unseen ?
I don't dismiss because something is unseen. Carbon monoxide or arsenic particules are tiny but deadly.
Anyway, the hypothesis that makes infectious prions the cause of BSE and CJD is ridiculous.
Here's an interesting approach of BSE which, if it were the right approach, demonstrates that BSE is the result of intoxication:
http://madcow.pamrotella.com
js
---
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
jspreen asked me to post this because again his comments are refused. Seth
_________________________________________
Message displayed:
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.
» Return to the original entry
jspreen asked me to post this because again his comments are refused. Seth
-------------------------------------------
What about Mad Cow Disease (BSE) , (and Sheep Scrapie, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob) ?
Still swapping diseases I see. Lol.
JSpren, do your research, if any, also postulate the non-existence of prion proteins, because they are too small to see, and clear-thinging people would dismiss such sight unseen?
I don't dismiss because something is tiny. Carbon-monoxide or arsenic particles are tiny too but who will deny their toxicity?
Anyway, the infectious prion hypothesis of BSE and CJD is as inconsistent as the HIV=Aids equation. Here's a much more interesting approach which, if true, redefines BSE and CJD as the result of intoxication.
http://madcow.pamrotella.com/
js
---
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
jspreen
They are "jumping diseases" because every one of them can be better explained by the germ theory of disease than by your magic mind over matter nonsense.
They are "jumping diseases" because every one of them can be better explained by the germ theory of disease than by your magic mind over matter nonsense.
It's not mind over matter, which may be nonsense indeed as far a I know, but mind and matter. You do only exist because you are mind combined with matter. Neither one can exist without the other.
Now when will you folks quit being aggressive and start to use your brain?
Beg your pardon? You are aggressive simply because I am aggressive too? And I'm very provocative also? You got a point there, I admit. It's insane, I can't resist. It's too much fun fooling around with ignorant people who think they know a lot.
js
---
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
Doesn't the fact that all lepers show the presence of the bacillus, and non-lepers don't show the presence of this specific pathogen, suggest to you, a clear-thinking man, some kind of causal link ?
No. Roads have cars driving on them, where there are no roads there are no cars, but roads don't cause cars and cars don't cause roads. If what you write is true, the bacillus you mention is definitely linked to the pathology, but it's not the cause. Just like Koch bacilli are not the cause of TB, tuberculosis is caused by a previous cancer.
js
---
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
"Just like Koch bacilli are not the cause of TB, tuberculosis is caused by a previous cancer."
How did you come by that remarkable discovery ? Did you examine the X-Rays of 100 TB sufferers, and found cancer in the lungs of every each one ? Or did you find that written in ancient thibetan palimpsest ?
TB is caused by cancer? That is a truly unsupportable claim.
How did you come by that remarkable discovery?
I didn't. Dr Ryke Geerd Hamer did. Do some googling with that name and "New Medicine". Be a brave man and a genuine, curious scientist. Stand up against mainstream sleep wanders. Study what you find. Think. And once you've started to understand the implication of Hamer's discoveries, look around and see what happens all over the place. Talk with patients, find out what happened to them before they fell ill. Study brain scans, cancer tissues, infected tissues. You'll verify that infection is always preceded by either necrosis or mitosis.
The information in English on the Internet is not very explicit but it's a good start. What you can do also: phone Hamer and make an appointment. He'll explain all you want to know.
Hey, Charles Hoy, why are you hiding away? Still too confused about your Asturias Award screw up? Forget about it man, we all make clumsy mistakes every once in while. Come on, you know Hamer's New Medicine, why don't you join the party? I don't remember 2001, Amsterdam, Leidse plein, but that's not a reason to let me down.
js
--
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
...And on what research did the esteemed Doctor Ryke Gee Hamer base his new insight ?
Is it anectotal evidence, peer-reviewed double-blind studies, or Traditional Fiji medecine ?
And on what research did the esteemed Doctor Ryke Gee Hamer base his new insight ?
Did you ever open a book on your own initiative? Google and READ.
But then again, you might lose your precious time reading something that may turn out to be plain nonsense. Big risk, _Arthur. You may become the laughing stock of the campus. I wouldn't even try if I were you. Stick to what is not new, hang on to what is interesting and worth while according to people you know.
Oh yeah, I forgot. Scientist believe in peer review. Here's my definition of peer review: Friends are read by friends before they're published by friends. And of course, the double blind studies. Double blind: Scientists who have no clues at all what they're doing, do it double-blind. Ha, ha, ha, ha, what a joke!
Oh, oh... I hear the wolves coming again. Packs of 'em. I dared to laugh about peer-review and double-blind studies. I'm a dead man.
Au secours !!!
js
---
http://www.nightofarmour.com
"jspreen asked me to post this because again his comments are refused. Seth"
--------------
This is not true.
This is not true.
What makes you think I'd ask *you* to post anything anywhere on my behalf? Are you the only Seth M. in the whole wide world?
So I went to Dr. Hamers sight at http://www.newmedicine.ca/science.php, to find out if how much research he had done to support these fantastic findings of our disengenous, delusional friend jspreen.
As far as I can tell, no. I mean, Hamer claims to have seen thousands of patients and so on, but he doesn't have a single case study, or any verifiable statements of any kind about anything posted here.
There are some blatant untruths, for example, he denies nuerogenesis in any area of the brain. But mostly, Hamer is just incoherent. Here's an excerpt for your reading pleasure:
What this is supposed to prove is anyone's guess.
Some more wacky claims of Hamers are that a woman who catches her husband cheating will get cancer... and he knows which side of the body this will occur on, based on whether she is left or right handed! Not that he actually has any research to back this up, he just says it... And good news for all the pregant women in the world: cancer can't advance after the first trimester. Really, Hamer makes that claim in an interview on the site!
So uh... I took the risk to investigate. And what I found was that Hamer is wrong in every case where I could verify a claim, and his site is completely research, fact, and evidence free.
You'll verify that infection is always preceded by either necrosis or mitosis.
jspreen, could you, perhaps, prove that you understand these terms? Maybe you made a mistake in writing this, but as it stands, this statement makes no sense.
Thank you, Seth, for sparing me the dreaded ordeal.
On your hearsay, I'll chalk up Dr. RG Hamer theortes on anecdotal evidence, sweeping assertions, and fairy tales.
It will be fun to hear JSPreen defend his clear-thinking hero.
jspreen wrote:
And that statement in the same comment as an exhortation to 'Google and READ' [emphasis in original]. Oh, the irony.
jspreen, could you, perhaps, prove that you understand these terms? Maybe you made a mistake in writing this, but as it stands, this statement makes no sense.
I can't prove to you that I understand what I write because you'll never be able to tell whether I plagiarize or write my masterpieces all by myself.
Anyway, if my statement makes no sense, a specific example may, perhaps and very eventually, be more explicit for the lazy snowed-in brain cells of the people commenting this blog.
Hamer's New Medicine is clear-cut:
Appendicitis is the caseification of cancerous cells in the appendices and during the disease, a "Hamer Herd" will be present in the brain stem.
Thus, for example, if Peter Duesberg is correct when he says that all cancer cells are aneuploid, in case of appendicitis the "infected" cells of the appendices are all aneuploid. Which may or may not be easy to verify depending on the stage of the infection.
Anyway, like any true scientific theory, the New Medicine can easily be falsified: find one case of appendicitis that does not conform to the above.
Charles Hoy, where are you? Come on, stop hiding away in shame and join the party!
JS
---
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
Actually, I'd be interested in the evidence for mind existing. Do they exist separate from matter? Is it simply a nice way of saying that you think mind is the pattern of our cells?
Charles Hoy, where are you? Come on, stop hiding away in shame and join the party!
Me, hiding away in shame? Never! But I kinda stopped posting here cause it's a plain nonsense debate. You folks are only cherry picking opponent's posts. Why do you not discuss some essential information and stick to it until the item is settled? You're all just hopping from one place to another getting nowhere.
I wrote:
But we should consider things differently. For example, everybody diagnosed with a severe disease like cancer or AIDS will end up having lung cancer. Look it up: Cancer metastasis in the lungs is the most common of secondary cancers.
That's quite a statement which can easily be verified. Did anyone look it up? And if so, am I correct, are lung diseases as common as I say? It's important because, if my affirmation were false, I'd be way up shit creek. But if it is true, I'd have scored high.
Actually, I'd be interested in the evidence for mind existing. Do they exist separate from matter? Is it simply a nice way of saying that you think mind is the pattern of our cells?
Yeah! Let's also include the pros and cons of intelligent design and get definitely lost in an everlasting fight.
"everybody diagnosed with a severe disease like cancer or AIDS will end up having lung cancer...."
--------------
Well, since it is simply not a fact that everybody diagnosed with cancer or AIDS ends up with lung cancer, Hoy is way up shit creek.
------------
find one case of appendicitis that does not conform to the above.
-----------------
http://www.webmd.com/content/article/90/100652.htm
Appendicitis can be caused by cancer, but it is not always caused by cancer. No literature exists to suggest that there are cancer cells in an inflamed appendix, in fact, cancerous cells are not always or even often found in an inflamed appendix. This is just something Hamer is making up. Unless it is some magical instance where the "caseification" leaves no physical traces.
So, jspreen, you don't know the definitions. It's OK to look up the definitions if you don't know them.
Mitosis is cell division. One parent cell divides, producing two (if everything works perfectly) identical duaghter cells.
Mitosis is an ongoing process in practically every part of the body.
By your statement, that infection follows mitosis, the entire body is ripe for infection.
-----------------
Your statement that Hamer's concepts can be falsified, and are therefore legit, falls apart with Seth's above response.
Mitosis is an ongoing process in practically every part of the body.
Yes, of course. But we're not talking about the natural mechanism of cells coming and going, we're talking pathology here. In this context I use mitosis to designate cancer (overall tissue increase) whereas I use necrosis to designate ulceration (overall tissue decrease). If you know better terms, I'd be glad to adopt them.
Use the word cancer alone and you'll end up with nobody knowing what you're talking about. One moment it means "uncontrolled" cell growth, another moment it means uncontrolled cell reduction like in bone cancer (osteoporosis).
js
--
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
"One moment it means "uncontrolled" cell growth, another moment it means uncontrolled cell reduction like in bone cancer (osteoporosis)."
---------------
Moving from ignorance to ignorance, jspreen now designates osteoporosis as a bone cancer to hide his ignorance of basic cellular biology, thus illustrating his basic ignornance of diseases in general.
There are several types of bone cancer, but none of them are called "osteoporosis." Osteoporosis is a degenerative bone disease that is not a type of cancer, osteoSARCOMA is a bone cancer, characterized by
http://www.cancerindex.org/ccw/faq/osteo.htm
People generally know exactly what they mean when they talk about cancer, tumors, and so on. Its just that Hamer has misled spreen so badly that spreen thinks that osteoporosis is a form of cancer.
Medieval quacks were blaming all diseases on "humors" or "miasmas", some modern quacks now blame all diseases on "cancers", although no cancers can be observed; what else is new ?
I think Jspreen has made it abundantly clear that he is not discussing the same malady when he calls something cancer.
Osteoporosis is bone loss due to a lack of calcium most commonly found after menopause because of the loss of estrogen. Treatment is supplementing with Calcium it is not a malignant condition.
Based on Jspreen's statements I apparently have a cancer right now I have a pimple on my cheek. Oh know I better get some chemo! Or maybe some counseling as this defintly suggests I have some major conflict in my life.
I use mitosis to designate cancer (overall tissue increase) whereas I use necrosis to designate ulceration (overall tissue decrease). If you know better terms, I'd be glad to adopt them.
Better terms: hyperplasia - growth by cell division
mitosis - the process of cell division
hypertrophy - growth by cell expansion (enlargement)
cancer - unregulated cell division.
Failure to distinguish unregulated cell growth from mitosis and asser that mitosis=cancer means that all tissues in all persons have cancer at all times. Which could be the dumbest thing you've yet posted.
Some basic information for dummy specialists directly from the world of other dummy specialists (I will hope that they understand each other's language; some passages are bolded for the dumbest of the dummies) :
http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/bone_cancer_treatment.aspx?id=33040 :
What are the diseases that affect the bones?
Among the most notable bone diseases are osteoporosis, rickets, and cancer. An imbalance between bone formation and bone resorption underlies nearly every disease that affects the adult skeleton. In osteoporosis, bone is broken down faster than it is rebuilt, resulting in lighter and more porous bones that may not be strong enough to support the body. Rickets is a children's disease in which the bones are inadequately mineralized. As in osteoporosis, the bones are weakened and weight-bearing bones, particularly in the legs and pelvis may fracture or bend.
Cancer can start in the bones or spread to the bones. Both types of bone cancer can compromise bone health by causing increased build-up or excessive breakdown of bone. Additionally, cancer treatment may damage or weaken bones. Most notably, cancer treatments such as hormonal therapies for breast and prostate cancers can cause increased bone loss.
http://www.healthtalk.com/otherconditions/interviews/coleman/page02.cfm :
Dr. Coleman:
Not really. The damage from cancer is much more extreme, it's much [more] localized than osteoporosis. The cancer will create holes within the bone and major areas of destruction, from [a] centimeter or more across, whereas osteoporosis is a diffuse process. It's a thinning of all of the bone, and it's not patchy like cancer is.
So, if we may believe Dr Coleman, the difference between cancer and osteoporosis is merely a question of extremeness.
http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/bone_cancer_treatment.aspx?id=33040 :
Two types of cells are involved in the remodeling of bone: osteoclasts and osteoblasts. Osteoclasts are the cells that break down bone, converting the calcium salts to a soluble form that passes easily into the blood. Osteoblasts produce the organic fibers on which calcium salts are deposited. In healthy young adults, the activities of these two cell types are balanced so that total bone mass remains constant.
So it seems that, even in dummy world, bone disease is a matter of unbalanced processes and there's cancer on either side.
Hamer's New Medicine for intelligent grown-ups who do not fear being the laughing stock of the ignorant newspaper reading and television watching majority of the Planet Earth teaches us that excessive breakdown of the bone is caused by a biological conflict of loss of self-esteem. Increased built-up occurs after the conflict has been solved, during the repair phase of the previous damage caused by the biological conflict.
As far as I know, osteosarcoma is mostly the result of a damaged periosteum which enables, during a repair process, excessive bone growth all over the place, not unlike fresh concrete spilling through a damaged formwork. But that is my personal opinion which, if proven to be false, should not be used as a nail to Hamer's coffin.
js
--
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
jspreen asked me to post this because he's having problems getting this wonderful message published. groucho
-----------------------------------
Some basic information for dummy specialists directly from the world of other dummy specialists (I will hope that they understand each other's language; some passages are bolded for the dumbest of the dummies) :
http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/bone_cancer_treatment.aspx?id=33040 :
What are the diseases that affect the bones?
Among the most notable bone diseases are osteoporosis, rickets, and cancer. An imbalance between bone formation and bone resorption underlies nearly every disease that affects the adult skeleton. In osteoporosis, bone is broken down faster than it is rebuilt, resulting in lighter and more porous bones that may not be strong enough to support the body. Rickets is a children's disease in which the bones are inadequately mineralized. As in osteoporosis, the bones are weakened and weight-bearing bones, particularly in the legs and pelvis may fracture or bend.
Cancer can start in the bones or spread to the bones. Both types of bone cancer can compromise bone health by causing increased build-up or excessive breakdown of bone. Additionally, cancer treatment may damage or weaken bones. Most notably, cancer treatments such as hormonal therapies for breast and prostate cancers can cause increased bone loss.
http://www.healthtalk.com/otherconditions/interviews/coleman/page02.cfm :
Dr. Coleman:
Not really. The damage from cancer is much more extreme, it's much [more] localized than osteoporosis. The cancer will create holes within the bone and major areas of destruction, from [a] centimeter or more across, whereas osteoporosis is a diffuse process. It's a thinning of all of the bone, and it's not patchy like cancer is.
So, if we may believe Dr Coleman, the difference between cancer and osteoporosis is merely a question of extremeness.
http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/bone_cancer_treatment.aspx?id=33040 :
Two types of cells are involved in the remodeling of bone: osteoclasts and osteoblasts. Osteoclasts are the cells that break down bone, converting the calcium salts to a soluble form that passes easily into the blood. Osteoblasts produce the organic fibers on which calcium salts are deposited. In healthy young adults, the activities of these two cell types are balanced so that total bone mass remains constant.
So it seems that, even in dummy world, bone disease is a matter of unbalanced processes and there's cancer on either side.
Hamer's New Medicine for intelligent grown-ups who do not fear being the laughing stock of the ignorant newspaper reading and television watching majority of the Planet Earth teaches us that excessive breakdown of the bone is caused by a biological conflict of loss of self-esteem. Increased built-up occurs after the conflict has been solved, during the repair phase of the previous damage caused by the biological conflict.
As far as I know, osteosarcoma is mostly the result of a damaged periosteum which enables, during a repair process, excessive bone growth all over the place, not unlike fresh concrete spilling through a damaged formwork. But that is my personal opinion which, if proven to be false, should not be used as a nail to Hamer's coffin.
js
--
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
jspreen asked me to post this because he's having problems getting this wonderful message published. groucho
-----------------------------------
Some basic information for dummy specialists directly from the world of other dummy specialists (I will hope that they understand each other's language; some passages are bolded for the dumbest of the dummies) :
http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/bone_cancer_treatment.aspx?id=33040 :
What are the diseases that affect the bones?
Among the most notable bone diseases are osteoporosis, rickets, and cancer. An imbalance between bone formation and bone resorption underlies nearly every disease that affects the adult skeleton. In osteoporosis, bone is broken down faster than it is rebuilt, resulting in lighter and more porous bones that may not be strong enough to support the body. Rickets is a children's disease in which the bones are inadequately mineralized. As in osteoporosis, the bones are weakened and weight-bearing bones, particularly in the legs and pelvis may fracture or bend.
Cancer can start in the bones or spread to the bones. Both types of bone cancer can compromise bone health by causing increased build-up or excessive breakdown of bone. Additionally, cancer treatment may damage or weaken bones. Most notably, cancer treatments such as hormonal therapies for breast and prostate cancers can cause increased bone loss.
http://www.healthtalk.com/otherconditions/interviews/coleman/page02.cfm :
Dr. Coleman:
Not really. The damage from cancer is much more extreme, it's much [more] localized than osteoporosis. The cancer will create holes within the bone and major areas of destruction, from [a] centimeter or more across, whereas osteoporosis is a diffuse process. It's a thinning of all of the bone, and it's not patchy like cancer is.
So, if we may believe Dr Coleman, the difference between cancer and osteoporosis is merely a question of extremeness.
http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/bone_cancer_treatment.aspx?id=33040 :
Two types of cells are involved in the remodeling of bone: osteoclasts and osteoblasts. Osteoclasts are the cells that break down bone, converting the calcium salts to a soluble form that passes easily into the blood. Osteoblasts produce the organic fibers on which calcium salts are deposited. In healthy young adults, the activities of these two cell types are balanced so that total bone mass remains constant.
So it seems that, even in dummy world, bone disease is a matter of unbalanced processes and there's cancer on either side.
Hamer's New Medicine for intelligent grown-ups who do not fear being the laughing stock of the ignorant newspaper reading and television watching majority of the Planet Earth teaches us that excessive breakdown of the bone is caused by a biological conflict of loss of self-esteem. Increased built-up occurs after the conflict has been solved, during the repair phase of the previous damage caused by the biological conflict.
As far as I know, osteosarcoma is mostly the result of a damaged periosteum which enables, during a repair process, excessive bone growth all over the place, not unlike fresh concrete spilling through a damaged formwork. But that is my personal opinion which, if proven to be false, should not be used as a nail to Hamer's coffin.
js
--
www.nightsofarmour.com
jspreen wrote:
I hope Dr. Steve won't mind if I continue with the vocab lesson:
Necrosis and ulceration are completely different phenomena. Necrosis is the uncontrolled death of cells from any cause, releasing cell contents into the surroundings and causing inflammation. Usually this is due to ischaemia, or insufficient blood supply, which in turn has many causes; another common cause of necrosis is infection.
Contrast this with apoptosis, a normal process where cells damaged by mutation (or surplus to requirements) automatically 'commit suicide' in an orderly way, without inflammation. Cells only become cancerous when the mutation is in a gene coding for a tumour suppressor (p53), growth factor (e.g. EDGF) or signalling protein (e.g. Ras), enabling the cell to avoid signals telling it either not to divide or to self-destruct.
Ulceration is simply erosion of an epidermal layer, whether by pressure, ischaemia, infection, or invasion by a tumour. Necrosis can cause ulceration, and ulceration leads to necrosis, but ulceration due to tumour does not result in a decrease in tissue mass. The word for an overall decrease in tissue mass due to reduction in size and/or number of cells, is atrophy (e.g. cerebral atrophy).
Oi, ScienceBlogs, you mangled my link! Or maybe (he says sheepishly) it's because I missed out the http:// bit...
Take 2: p53.
jspreen asked me to post this because again he's having problems getting his wonderful messages published. Groucho M.
-----------------------------------
Some basic information for specialists directly from the world of other specialists (I will hope that they understand each other's language) :
http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/bone_cancer_treatment.aspx?id=33040 :
What are the diseases that affect the bones?
Among the most notable bone diseases are osteoporosis, rickets, and cancer. An imbalance between bone formation and bone resorption underlies nearly every disease that affects the adult skeleton. In osteoporosis, bone is broken down faster than it is rebuilt, resulting in lighter and more porous bones that may not be strong enough to support the body. Rickets is a children's disease in which the bones are inadequately mineralized. As in osteoporosis, the bones are weakened and weight-bearing bones, particularly in the legs and pelvis may fracture or bend.
Cancer can start in the bones or spread to the bones. Both types of bone cancer can compromise bone health by causing increased build-up or excessive breakdown of bone. Additionally, cancer treatment may damage or weaken bones. Most notably, cancer treatments such as hormonal therapies for breast and prostate cancers can cause increased bone loss.
http://www.healthtalk.com/otherconditions/interviews/coleman/page02.cfm :
Dr. Coleman:
Not really. The damage from cancer is much more extreme, it's much [more] localized than osteoporosis. The cancer will create holes within the bone and major areas of destruction, from [a] centimeter or more across, whereas osteoporosis is a diffuse process. It's a thinning of all of the bone, and it's not patchy like cancer is.
So, if we may believe Dr Coleman, the difference between cancer and osteoporosis is merely a question of extremeness.
http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/bone_cancer_treatment.aspx?id=33040 :
Two types of cells are involved in the remodeling of bone: osteoclasts and osteoblasts. Osteoclasts are the cells that break down bone, converting the calcium salts to a soluble form that passes easily into the blood. Osteoblasts produce the organic fibers on which calcium salts are deposited. In healthy young adults, the activities of these two cell types are balanced so that total bone mass remains constant.
So it seems that, even in dummy world, bone disease is a matter of unbalanced processes and there's cancer on either side.
Hamer's New Medicine for intelligent grown-ups who do not fear being the laughing stock of the ignorant newspaper reading and television watching majority of the Planet Earth teaches us that wandering cells causing metastasis is a fairy tale. The NM also shows us that excessive breakdown of the bone is caused by a biological conflict of loss of self-esteem. Increased built-up occurs after the conflict has been solved, during the repair phase of the previous damage caused by the biological conflict.
As far as I know, osteosarcoma is mostly the result of a damaged periosteum which enables, during a repair process, excessive bone growth all over the place, not unlike fresh concrete spilling through a damaged formwork. But that is my personal opinion which, if proven to be false, should not be used as a nail to Hamer's coffin.
JS
:)
Hey Tara, why don't you publish the comment I tried to post several times? Even my buddy Groucho isn't allowed to post it for me. What's up?
jspreen, there is no magic spam filter that is parsing the semantic content of your message. If you can comment, you can comment.
jspreen, there is no magic spam filter that is parsing the semantic content of your message. If you can comment, you can comment.
OK Seth, I believe you. I will now try to send the comment I try to post since 24 hours or more. The only reason I can imagine why it's blocked is that it's too long. I'll cut it in two if it still doesn't post.
jspreen, there is no magic spam filter that is parsing the semantic content of your message. If you can comment, you can comment.
OK Seth, I believe you. I will now try to send the comment I try to post since 24 hours or more. The only reason I can imagine why it's blocked is that it's too long. I'll cut it in two if it still doesn't post. No, I'll send it to you and you will post it for me.
Some basic information for specialists directly from the world of other specialists (I will hope that they understand each other's language) :
http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/bone_cancer_treatment.aspx?id=33040 :
What are the diseases that affect the bones?
Among the most notable bone diseases are osteoporosis, rickets, and cancer. An imbalance between bone formation and bone resorption underlies nearly every disease that affects the adult skeleton. In osteoporosis, bone is broken down faster than it is rebuilt, resulting in lighter and more porous bones that may not be strong enough to support the body. Rickets is a children's disease in which the bones are inadequately mineralized. As in osteoporosis, the bones are weakened and weight-bearing bones, particularly in the legs and pelvis may fracture or bend.
Cancer can start in the bones or spread to the bones. Both types of bone cancer can compromise bone health by causing increased build-up or excessive breakdown of bone. Additionally, cancer treatment may damage or weaken bones. Most notably, cancer treatments such as hormonal therapies for breast and prostate cancers can cause increased bone loss.
http://www.healthtalk.com/otherconditions/interviews/coleman/page02.cfm :
Dr. Coleman:
Not really. The damage from cancer is much more extreme, it's much [more] localized than osteoporosis. The cancer will create holes within the bone and major areas of destruction, from [a] centimeter or more across, whereas osteoporosis is a diffuse process. It's a thinning of all of the bone, and it's not patchy like cancer is.
So, if we may believe Dr Coleman, the difference between cancer and osteoporosis is merely a question of extremeness.
http://patient.cancerconsultants.com/bone_cancer_treatment.aspx?id=33040 :
Two types of cells are involved in the remodeling of bone: osteoclasts and osteoblasts. Osteoclasts are the cells that break down bone, converting the calcium salts to a soluble form that passes easily into the blood. Osteoblasts produce the organic fibers on which calcium salts are deposited. In healthy young adults, the activities of these two cell types are balanced so that total bone mass remains constant.
So it seems that, even in dummy world, bone disease is a matter of unbalanced processes and there's cancer on either side.
Hamer's New Medicine for intelligent grown-ups who do not fear being the laughing stock of the ignorant newspaper reading and television watching majority of the Planet Earth teaches us that wandering cells causing metastasis is a fairy tale. The NM also shows us that excessive breakdown of the bone is caused by a biological conflict of loss of self-esteem. Increased built-up occurs after the conflict has been solved, during the repair phase of the previous damage caused by the biological conflict.
As far as I know, osteosarcoma is mostly the result of a damaged periosteum which enables, during a repair process, excessive bone growth all over the place, not unlike fresh concrete spilling through a damaged formwork. But that is my personal opinion which, if proven to be false, should not be used as a nail to Hamer's coffin.
js
--
http://www.nightsofarmour.com
I tried but got this message again:
_______
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.
» Return to the original entry
________
When will you approve, Tara? There must be like 10 versions of the same post in the junk folder, as you named it above.
Well, spreen, maybe you should try with fewer links. You tend to put your stupid knights of armour page in the body, instead of in the URL field. Also, maybe clear your cache. Read the "having problems commenting" page and do some trouble shooting.
Dude, there is no magic semantic comment filter. Its possible to block by length, comments, ip address, number of links, but NOT by information content. So if you can't comment, maybe your HTML is screwed up, maybe you have too many links, maybe your comment is too damn long. Why don't you take some responsibility for yourself, and try to figure out whats going on, instead of playing this bullshit victim card?
Some basic information for specialists directly from the world of other specialists (I will hope that they understand each other's language) :
From patient.cancerconsultants.com/bone_cancer_treatment.aspx?id=33040 :
What are the diseases that affect the bones?
Among the most notable bone diseases are osteoporosis, rickets, and cancer. An imbalance between bone formation and bone resorption underlies nearly every disease that affects the adult skeleton. In osteoporosis, bone is broken down faster than it is rebuilt, resulting in lighter and more porous bones that may not be strong enough to support the body. Rickets is a children's disease in which the bones are inadequately mineralized. As in osteoporosis, the bones are weakened and weight-bearing bones, particularly in the legs and pelvis may fracture or bend.
Cancer can start in the bones or spread to the bones. Both types of bone cancer can compromise bone health by causing increased build-up or excessive breakdown of bone. Additionally, cancer treatment may damage or weaken bones. Most notably, cancer treatments such as hormonal therapies for breast and prostate cancers can cause increased bone loss.
From healthtalk com/otherconditions/interviews/coleman/page02.cfm :
Dr Coleman:
Not really. The damage from cancer is much more extreme, it's much [more] localized than osteoporosis. The cancer will create holes within the bone and major areas of destruction, from [a] centimeter or more across, whereas osteoporosis is a diffuse process. It's a thinning of all of the bone, and it's not patchy like cancer is.
So, if we may believe Dr Coleman, the difference between cancer and osteoporosis is merely a question of extremeness.
Again from patient.cancerconsultants.com/bone_cancer_treatment.aspx?id=33040 :
Two types of cells are involved in the remodeling of bone: osteoclasts and osteoblasts. Osteoclasts are the cells that break down bone, converting the calcium salts to a soluble form that passes easily into the blood. Osteoblasts produce the organic fibers on which calcium salts are deposited. In healthy young adults, the activities of these two cell types are balanced so that total bone mass remains constant.
So it seems that, even in dummy world, bone disease is a matter of unbalanced processes and there's cancer on either side.
Hamer's New Medicine for intelligent grown-ups who do not fear being the laughing stock of the ignorant newspaper reading and television watching majority of the Planet Earth teaches us that wandering cells causing metastasis is a fairy tale. The NM also shows us that excessive breakdown of the bone is caused by a biological conflict of loss of self-esteem. Increased built-up occurs after the conflict has been solved, during the repair phase of the previous damage caused by the biological conflict.
As far as I know, osteosarcoma is mostly the result of a damaged periosteum which enables, during a repair process, excessive bone growth all over the place, not unlike fresh concrete spilling through a damaged formwork. But that is my personal opinion which, if proven to be false, should not be used as a nail to Hamer's coffin.
js
You may have noticed, but I have this little thing called a j-o-b and I've been too busy even to make new posts, much less clean out the junk folder. The only settings I have in it are universal ones for all Scienceblogs; I have no idea why some of your comments are being held up and others aren't. Everything's been rescued and published now.
"So, if we may believe Dr Coleman, the difference between cancer and osteoporosis is merely a question of extremeness."
-------------
This is like saying that because A difference between my dog and I is that he is 1 foot tall, THE difference beween us is only a matter of height. In other words, osteoporosis is not a type of cancer. When people say "cancer" they are not talking about osteoporosis. They are not talking about tissue loss. They are talking about malignant tumors. Jspreen is managing the amazing trick of using NEW information to make himself MORE ignorant.
This kind of determined head in the sand behavior is pretty special.
Lets recap a few of the endless problems with Hamers theories.
1. They don't account for the epedemiological history of any part of the world, at any time, from medieval europe to wrestling tournaments in Georgia. According to Hamer, there is no reason for disease to spread the way it does, by physical contact.
2. They don't account for the response of plants to a virus.
3. They don't account for a humans response to exposure to staph.
4. They don't account for the success of vaccines in clinical trials.
5. They don't account for the fact that, according to the only independent source I was able to find, 43 of 50 patients who used the Hamer program in Austria died.
Essentially, Hamer is a factually wrong, research free, incoherent, murdering shyster.
Spreen writes for alterna-medicine rags, which means that he is likely indirectly responsible for at least a few dead people as well: people who took his advice, bought into the Hamer madness, did not treat their cancer, and died because of it.
sorry, forgot to close the tag. thats swiss study
"have no idea why some of your comments are being held up and others aren't. Everything's been rescued and published now."
-------------
His comment got held up because it had 4 links in it, and the science blog limit is two. I'm pretty sure. Spreen puts his home page link in the body of his message, so when he thinks he has 2 links, he has three.
Probably, if he took about three seconds to try to analyze the differences between messages that went through and messages that didn't, he would have figured that out on his own. But, typical of a rethinker, he seized on an idea (Tara Smith is oppressing me!) and stuck with it, evidence be damned!
While I'm thinking about all this, jspreen, if germs don't cause disease, what's the function of our immune system? Why is it evolutionarily conserved?
When you get that page, jspreen, and you can't wait, just say that you think that something may be in the junk folder and nicely ask Tara to let it out.
Besides, how dare the medical establishment stand in the way of your beliefs with their definitions and evidence based medicine.
------------
I suppose that half gallon of milk in the fridge got lonely and depressed from my not drinking it fast enough. Poor thing has started to go bad. Maybe if I had payed more attention, it could have grown up to be yogurt.
If you are going to deny that germs cause disease then it is not much more effort to deny the existence of the immune system and evolution.
Once somebody has convinced themselves that a) they have special knowledge and b) the vast majority of scientists are stupid everything is easy.
Evolution smevolution.
Gravity smavity.
Germ smerms.
See, it's easy once you get the hang of it.
only independent source I was able to find, 43 of 50 patients who used the Hamer program in Austria died.
Ha, ha, ha! A German tabloid, the only independent source!
You really should spend some more energy on research in your fight against ugly deniers. For instance, you could have read my answer to the Swiss sheep herders before writing silly comments. Here, read this if you're a man: http://perso.orange.fr/jan.spreen/english/scac.htm
While I'm thinking about all this, jspreen, 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.
js
The sole function of the immune system is to keep the germ theory of diseases from falling apart.
jspreen !!!! You will be stoned before the day is over. I've cut it out because not only I don't even have 10 percent of your arguments but also because it's no use to discuss between people who cannot listen to each other.
All that set apart it must be said: Man, you have balls! And your open letter to the Swiss SCAC idiots: A masterpiece.
I'm a little sad you don't remember Amsterdam, Leidse plein 2001.
"The sole function of the immune system is to keep the germ theory of diseases from falling apart."
---------------
In what could be the dumbest comment in the history of internet comments, Charles Hoy suggests that the biological function of the thymus is to make the germ theory of disease plausible.
-------------------
"For instance, you could have read my answer to the Swiss sheep herders before writing silly comments.
----------------
I just read spreens screed. It was a pretty revolting experience... especially the bit about Olivia Pilhar, a young girl who survived Hamer's attempt to kill her with his so called "treatment."
One thing particularly noticeable in jspreens letter is a lack of factual refutation. He does suggest that the authors were drunk or possibly concussed at the time of writing their report on his murderous hero, but at no time does he present a valid counterclaim with verifiable evidence.
Of course, simply calling a newpaper or magazine a tabloid doesn't say much about their credibility, in and of itself, and neither does actually BEING a tabloid. Brad and Jen did in fact break up, as reported in the Enquirer. Creative Loafing (regional pub) is technically a tabloid (printed on 11x17 newsprint) buts its also good journalism.
So, yes, according to the only independent source I've found, Hamer medicine is based in no study, no facts, has not a single case of a cure for cancer, and almost killed a little girl.
I just read spreens screed. It was a pretty revolting experience... especially the bit about Olivia Pilhar, a young girl who survived Hamer's attempt to kill her with his so called "treatment."
Now everbody who has carefully read my letter to SCAC can only conclude that Seth is just another silly and quite agressive little boy who cannot properly read before he writes a comment. You should really try to get the facts right before you type Seth.
jspreen !!!! You will be stoned before the day is over.
My biggest dream! At least people would have noticed. But there are only a few hillbillies around and they're not throwing stones but rotten eggs and tomatoes, every time they see my name displayed. Now their screens are so totally covered with pulp they can't even see what they're typing anymore. Hence the poor and uninspired reactions.
jspreen, your self agrandisement is second only to your lack of substance. Stoning you would be a waste of good rocks, especially when you do such a good job of discrediting yourself.
You use words you don't understand to discuss concepts that don't have any basis in medical science. You offer your own rambling screed as proof you are correct, but no data, no studies. You cannot challenge medical theories or hypotheses without any evidence, especially when common sense questions such as "Why do trees get diseases?" cut through your claims like a warm chainsaw through butter.
To qoute the Bard,
It is a tale
Told by an idiot,
full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
MacBeth V. v.
You cannot challenge medical theories or hypotheses without any evidence, especially when common sense questions such as "Why do trees get diseases?" cut through your claims like a warm chainsaw through butter.
I can challenge anything I want but I admit that people who don't want to look at my evidence are hard to convince. What? I have no evidence at all? But evidence is all around! It's in your body, your garden, it's everywhere you look! What? Ah, you only want to look at evidence through a microscope. I see. Then you might never learn anything about the secrets of life. You're like the guy who tries to understand a forest while studying sawdust. The study of sawdust certainly is very important but it will never unveil all the secrets of the woods.
Why do trees get diseases? Do you really want me to point out a possible answer? I don't think so and instead of looking to where I point, I'm quite sure you'll be going after my pointing finger with your chainsaw.
You don't think so? OK, let's try.
Trees get diseases for exactly the same reason as humans and dogs and cows and tulips and snails: a biological conflict. First a tree lacks water or CO2 or salts or sunlight or warmth or is carved with a knife or overhears you saying you're gonna go after it with your chainsaw or whatever, which will alter the growth of the roots or the trunk or the leafs etc, and only thereafter, eventually, because the environmental conditions changed (For ex.: rain or fertilisers or you killed yourself with your chainsaw) previously damaged parts are restored and/or replaced (with the help of viruses, bacteria, etc.) if not irreversibly damaged.
"Trees get diseases for exactly the same reason as humans and dogs and cows and tulips and snails: a biological conflict."
------------
Hamer claims that biological conflict must occur simultaneously in the brain, the psyche, and the body, in order to cause disease. Since plants don't have a central nervous system, no brain or nerves, its odd that they have diseases from biological conflict... but whatever.
This theory of spreens easily explains how a double blind plant experiment works. A researcher keeps a group of plants in identical conditions for their entire lives. Then divides them into groups. Some groups get sprayed with a virus in water, others with water. The people doing the spraying do not know which group is which. That, for those of you like jspreen who aren't aware of this, is the double in double blind. Those sprayed with the virus die.
According to Hamer, these plants got a simultaneous shock from... the virus group clearly got a shock from... wait... can I start over?
Spreen, has it occured to you that maybe, just maybe, you should present a fact occasionally? Your opinions are really fun and all that, and they do keep me amused (the plant HEARD me threaten it!) but just once I'd like to hear a fact.
Like your letter to the swiss cancer study guys... you actually claim that an oncologist gave that little girl back to her father with the statement that Hamer might be able to save her... but of course, you say in your statement that that man would deny having said this. Lets say I posted this to my blog:
"I recently recieved a private email from a man named Jan Spreen, a supporter of Hamer's 'New Medicine'. Jan admitted to me that Hamer was a fraud; and that he, Jan Spreen, was only posting at the Aetiology blog to show the world what a murderous fraud Hamer was. He is only posting Hamer's side to illustrate how absurd it is. However, he doesn't want anyone to know this because he has Hamer's trust; so of course he will deny it if asked."
Do you think anyone here would believe me, Jan? Should they? Does my saying its so make it so? Than why should they believe YOU when you claim that people say things that they will later deny? Why should we find you, a man who encourages people to seek death at the hands of a murdering quack, credible?
I agree with jspreen in only the most distant of ways.
Conflict between a human and Yersinia pestis is bubonic plague.
Conflict between Poison Ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and a human often results in an allergic reaction, mainly an itcy rash with easily punctured blisters.
The American Chestnut (Castanea dentata) was nearly driven to extinction by a disease called chestnut blight (Cryphonectria parasitica). C. parasitica was introduced to North America, shortly before 1904 on newly translplanted Japanese Chestnuts (Castanea crenata), which are tolerant of the disease. By mid century, the species was almost wiped out. Some root stock and a few isolated stands remain, and breeding a resistant strain is a dream of many botanists. American Chestnuts didn't suffer from a continent wide emotional malaise. They were wiped out (nearly, and that is the important part) by C. parasitica except for those that were not exposed to the blight fungus. jspreen would argue that it wasn't the fungus, but a continental and species specific case of the tree bleahs, which doesn't explain surviving, uninfected stands or root stock (roots are unaffected by the blight).
Much of evolution can be characterised as chemical and biological warfare between plants, animals, fungi, protists and bacteria. This is the kind of biological conflict that is documented and supported by evidence.