 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / January 2007"greatest" medical breakthroughs
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=22482007 The full shortlist includes: - Anaesthesia - Antibiotics - Chlorpromazine to treat mental illness - Computers - DNA structure - Evidence-based medicine - Germ theory - Imaging - Immunology - Oral rehydration therapy - The pill - Risks of smoking - Sanitation - Tissue culture - Vaccines ************** Hilarious. Between things they accidently discovered, (anti-biotics, anaesthesia) and things that are overated or useless (vaccines, dna structure, tossue culture) and things they fought against for decades before finally accepting (sanitation), things they don't apply (evidence-based medicine), things developed by non-medical mainstream people (imaging - MRI, computers), questionable or dangerous drugs (the pill, Chlorpromazine), and other assorted crap, this list is kinda thin. About the only real breakthrough in the list is the germ theory. And modern allopathic doctors consistently fail to connect to the other half of the equation which is immunology which is again subverted by the medical allopath by them not understanding the importance of nutrition to the immune system and immunology. What a massive and sad joke. TC The "germ theory" is a "breakthrough?" It can't even be stated as a hypothesis - it certainly is not a scientific theory. Would you be so kind as to state is as at least a formal hypothesis, TC? Are you aware that without a formal hypothesis, there can be no science? Do you understand the scientific method at the most basic level? Just asking, not trying to be obnoxious, but it's obviously of utmost importance. > The "germ theory" is a "breakthrough?" It can't even be stated as a > hypothesis - it certainly is not a scientific theory. Would you be so > kind as to state is as at least a formal hypothesis, TC? Are you aware > that without a formal hypothesis, there can be no science? Do you > understand the scientific method at the most basic level? Just asking, > not trying to be obnoxious, but it's obviously of utmost importance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease or http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-18,G GLD:en&q=germ+theory TC You can't state it for yoruself? Do you think this is satisfactory: "...is a theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases..." If this was so, anyone who was "infecteed" would get the disease, but that is not the case. An early critic actually drank a vial of cholera, and also neutralized his stomach acid, so that the "germ" could cause mayhem. He did not get sick. If you want to believe in this sort of thing, welcome to the cult - plenty of koolaid waiting for you, no doubt. Also, the wikipedia passage quoted above states that it is a "theory," and yet it is not even stated as a hypothesis. Do you realize this? Do you realize that in science, you need a formal hypothesis so that critics and investigators can attempt falsification experiments, though in this case, that was done more than 100 years ago. Do you know that a majority of people in some countries are "infected" with H. pylori and yet have no symptoms? Come now, TC, I think you are more intelligent that to support the non-existant "germ theory." >You can't state it for yoruself? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >If this was so, anyone who was "infecteed" would get the disease, but >that is not the case. This is a perfect example of why your mind is utterly wasted. I urgently recommend a course in logic. Exposure to an infectious agent, dear, does not mean productive infection. Productive infection does not necessarily mean clinical sequelae. Those observations hardly stand as an argument that infectious agents then don't cause disease (clinical presentation) in many exposed individuals. It all depends on the pathogen. If you are going to sit there and type up some drivel to try to convince me that infectious organisms don't exist, I will be quite amused. And realize you're intellectually comatose. George M. Carter Once again, Mr. Carter, I ask for you to present the formal hypothesis for the "germ theory," and then we can take things from there. As anyone with an ounce of common sense can determine, if two people ingest the same "germ," and one gets ill and the other doesn't, the the "germ" is not the cause. It may be mult-causal, with the "germ" playing a role, but that is not what most people think of in terms of the "germ theory," whatever it may, if it be. The scientist who consumed the vial of cholera did not get cholera, but a student who also consumed the vial did get violently ill. Now, in order to make the "germ theory" into science, one would have to get some lab animals and isolate all kinds of potentially relevant factors, such as feeding one group a high iron diet and another a low iron diet. Or feeding one group a diet rich in antioxidants while another group was fed a diet rich in oxidizing agents, such as highly refined "polyunsaturated" oils (corn, safflower, etc.). Or feeding one group a diet rich in oxidized cholesterol, another no cholesterol, and a third non-oxidized cholesterol. Or not allowing one group to get as much sleep as is considered necessary. Etc. and so forth. The onus is on you, if you are putting forth a claim, to demonstrate it. If you provide a vial of "germs" that are supposed to cause a certain disease, and the animal is exposed to it in a way that is supposed to cause this "disease," and yet it does not, your claim has been directly refuted. If you do no understand that, then you may need to start and Kindergarten and begin your education all over again. >Once again, Mr. Carter, I ask for you to present the formal hypothesis >for the "germ theory," and then we can take things from there. As >anyone with an ounce of common sense can determine, if two people >ingest the same "germ," and one gets ill and the other doesn't, the the >"germ" is not the cause. LOL...you're so full of sh.t, dear. No germs in sh.t though according to you, so eat up. TC: Mr. Carter always feels the need to defend his "HIV/AIDS" notions against any perceived threats, and so his remarks are no surprise (and the obscentities he often uses appear to speak volumes about the state of his mind, however much of it remains somewhat sane), but did you read my response? I included the statement: "It may be mult-causal..." Otherwise, TC, how can you explain why one person will become "ill" while another may not? In science, causation is not considered problematic - that is an issue philosophers sometimes discuss. Either A causes B or it does not. If it does so some of the time, then other factors are involved, period. Logic allows for no other conclusion in the sane, rational mind. Another thing you should understand is that the "immune system" often over-reacts and actually causes the damage that are considered symptoms of the "disease," and this is not just for "autoimmune diseases" either. If you go to my site, you will see plenty of evidence for this, along with passages from books written by famous "virus hunters." Mr. Carter may have been driven mad by the impossibility of the "HIV/AIDS" notion, which, though it changes often, now seems to be that there is a tremendous struggle between the immune system and "HIV," and yet the person often experiences no symptoms for years, and more absurdly, one can never find more than a couple of "HIV" particles ("non-infectious" ones, at that) in anyone, ever. A recent study, in fact, pointed out that microparticles and vessicles can can immune suppression ("AIDS"), and this is what is found when the researchers look for "HIV" with EMs. I've asked Mr. Carter and others to present an "HIV/AIDS" hypothesis but they have steadfastly refused. Ask yourself why they can't write up a few sentences explaining exactly what their claim is. I can, and have present hypotheses for my notions, along with proposals for simple, inexpensive experiments that would verify or refute them, and this is what a scientist is required to do. With the "germ theory," this has all been discarded, and yet all their promises of cures and vaccines against "HIV" have failed, time and again. At this point, perhaps the only thing one who is ideologically committed to the "HIV/AIDS" notion (whatever it happens to be on a given day), can only lash out in a manner consistent with Mr. Carter's responses. >TC: > >Mr. Carter always feels the need to defend his "HIV/AIDS" notions >against any perceived threats, and so his remarks are no surprise What's a surprise is that a crackpot like you thinks anyone will buy any of your deranged bullshit. So--germs don't cause disease, huh? The germ theory is all wrong? George M. Carter Mr. Carter: If you had visited my site, you would have read that "germs" often provoke an inflammatory response, and that this response causes the symptoms that get classified as a "disease." And that is what the top "bug hunters" themselves are saying. Moreover, "germs" need to be present in certain amounts, and in certain places to be dangerous to a person. As well, bacteria need to become "clingy," as one researcher described it, and viruses need to be "active," and people can do things to prevent this from occurring, which is why so many people can be "infected" with H. pylori and yet have no ulcers or any other symptoms. Other factors have been shown to make a difference. For example, I found studies that found that certain fatty acids in macrophages can make an inflammatory response last longer, which is dangerous, because again it is often the inflammatory response that causes the damage. This is consistent with my personal experience, experimenting with dietary fatty acids. With the recent findings of exactly how "germs" can become problematic, there is no need for speculation any longer. If a "bug" is present and causes "disease," then there are no reasons for being unable to determine exactly what is occurring. However, it may be true that "experts" who are in positions of power in the biomedical establish are ignorant of these new findings, and moreover are tied to the present dogma in such a way as to render them reluctant to change. For those irritated with "stay the course" in Iraq, the present situation in biomedicine could be viewed as significantly worse. >Mr. Carter: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >to prevent this from occurring, which is why so many people can be >"infected" with H. pylori and yet have no ulcers or any other symptoms. Why the need for "quotes"? By contrast, it is quite clear that treatment of symptomatic H. pylori infection with antibiotics ENDS the inflammatory responses and subsequent ulceration. This is a case where the drug(s) for the bug model works. And it quite clearly demonstrates that it is the infection which is the proximate cause of the clinical condition. Other infections only respond minimally or inadequately to the drug-for-the-bug approach. But the infectious agent is the primary culprit. Now, I do agree that by and large, ancillary mechanisms are often ignored that could attenuate the clinical presentation. Antioxidant therapy can have an impact. And indeed, shunting away from the production of inflammatory prostaglandins like PGE2 via the use of PUFAs like fish oil can be one means to disease management, albeit of somewhat limited utility. Hepatitis C and HIV are both clearly infections that result in a great deal of inflammatory sequelae. Indeed, HCV's damage to the liver is not directly related to viral cytopathicity but rather that inflammatory response. Which is why I use agents like NAC and alpha lipoic acid, among others, to slow disease progression. HIV disease progression can similarly be dampened by the simple use of a multivitamin: a 30% reduction in the rate of progression. Does that mean a multi can cure HIV disease? No. Nor does antiretroviral therapy for that matter. There's no "cure" in the sense of eradication of the infection yet available. But the proximate cause of the peripheral micronutrient depletion and increased inflammatory responses reflected often by the presence of increased cytokine levels (e.g., TNF, IL1a, IL6) is induced by HIV. A retrovirus that preferentially and rather intensely infected the Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue (GALT). Dramatic declines in peripheral virus load as a result of ARV therapy have a concomitant effect on helping to reduce the well-documented peripheral blood micronutrient deficiencies. However, the ARV therapy can also induce oxidative stress via mitochondrial damage, and thus a complete approach that includes antioxidant therapy I believe is rational and modestly supported by the extant literature (e.g., glutathione restoration). Still...HIV is what causes all this mayhem. And it results in the syndrome of AIDS if left untreated. People with HIV that buy your brand of bullshit and think the infections are irrelevant or nonexistent or harmless and fail to seek treatment wind up dead. George M. Carter Ah, Mr. Carter finally addresses some scientific points. I will sum up my position, with respect to his last post: If "HIV" is present in dangerous amounts, it will be directly detectable, but to date nobody has been able to find it. A couple of particles have been found under EM that could be anything, and do not have the characteristics said to make "HIV" infectious. As the Perth Group points out, the makers used can be generated by all kinds of things - they are not specific to "HIV." Genetic material and protein fragments though to be consistent with textbook notions of a "retrovirus" were found, and it was claimed that this had to be "HIV," when in fact is is much more likely to be cellular debris. As a recent study points out, too much mircoparticle debris can be very immunosuppressive. The claims people like Mr. Carter make are based on assumptions and markers. But if you do not demonstrate that the assumptions are accurate and that the markers are specific, then you had a claim that may do much more harm than good, as has happened with "HIV/AIDS." In science, reality is demonstrable, one might say. I can induce "AIDS" in those with no expsoure to "HIV" (according to the "experts"). I also believe that it would be easy to prevent most if not all "HIV positive" people who otherwise appear to be in excellent health from developing "full blow AIDS," but I would have to have total control over their lives, and this is not possible. However, this is what is necessary in science - the researcher must be able to control for all potentially relevant factors. Until people with ideas like mine get funding and can control people or lab animals that all agree are an acceptable model, there will be no science of "AIDS," only assumptions and markers (and of course even less scientific "evidence," such as epidemiological studies). A key point with respect to people like Mr. Carter: if "HIV" exists and causes "AIDS," there is no reason, more than 20 years after its "discovery," that those in charge don't understand exactly what is occurring, down to the molecular level. The technology is more than capable now. Instead, because whenever the technology was appplied, it was clear that there is no "HIV," the "HIV" advocates had to claim that the markers prove the assumptions, which in fact were formulated due to the presence of the markers. Circular logic at its worst. Do the science and you'll discover the scientific reality. Rely on assumptions, markers, and epidemiological studies and you may kill huge numbers of people by given them toxic medications as well as ignoring what is truly causing them problems (such as excessive antigenic exposure and oxidative/ nitrosative stress). >Ah, Mr. Carter finally addresses some scientific points. I will sum up >my position, with respect to his last post: Feh. Your summary is the usual cant which is why you're not the slightest bit credible. >If "HIV" is present in dangerous amounts, it will be directly >detectable, but to date nobody has been able to find it. Utterly incorrect. Viral load readily detects HIV levels with more sensitive tests achieving less than 50 and some used experimentally to less than one RNA copy per blood volume. Even denialist Peter Duesberg recognizes that HIV exists. That denialists swing like the clapper in the bell jar of insanity from position to position is just a sign of the cognitive dissonance and moral bankruptcy that afflicts your lot. The Perth Group's nonsense has been repeatedly and utterly refuted in a number of places, dissections of their unprofessional nonsense that have wasted valuable time and lives. One example: http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/10/aids_and_viral_load.php This underscores the abject dishonesty of denialists. George M. Carter >Mr. Carter: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >to prevent this from occurring, which is why so many people can be >"infected" with H. pylori and yet have no ulcers or any other symptoms. Well DUH!!! An analogy Cars often provoke broken legs, and this broken bone causes the symptoms that get classified as road trauma. Cars need to be present at least singularly and in the same locus as the victim to cause this set of symptoms. As well, cars need to be travelling at a particlar minimum speed and have hard exteriors. And people can do things to prevent this road trauma. That is why people can be sitting in the middle of the freeway and not suffer from this disease. >Other factors have been shown to make a difference. For example, I >found studies that found that certain fatty acids in macrophages can >make an inflammatory response last longer, which is dangerous, because >again it is often the inflammatory response that causes the damage. >This is consistent with my personal experience, experimenting with >dietary fatty acids. And what if (as is much more likely) the pathogen causes cell death from toxins excreted. >With the recent findings of exactly how "germs" can become problematic, >there is no need for speculation any longer. If a "bug" is present and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >irritated with "stay the course" in Iraq, the present situation in >biomedicine could be viewed as significantly worse. So the guys who showed conclusively that H pylori causes ulcers (no, not in all infected folk, like all folk infected with TB don't get the disease.) and got the Nobel Prize for it were on the wrong tack? Funny that you can heal the ulcers by administration of antibiotics. (No, not in 100% of cases for all sorts of reasons including biological variability.) jack >TC: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of his mind, however much of it remains somewhat sane), but did you >read my response? George seems to be on the ball to me. I do like his sprinkling of rude words when becomes frustrated with stupidity. I fully understand, and I'm learning from him :=) >I included the statement: > >"It may be mult-causal..." So, lets see, the only "cause" that you can leave out and infection NEVER occurs, is the organism. >Otherwise, TC, how can you explain why one person will become "ill" >while another may not? In science, causation is not considered >problematic - that is an issue philosophers sometimes discuss. Sorry, I don't follow this. Causation is causation. So what? > Either >A causes B or it does not. If it does so some of the time, then other >factors are involved, period. Logic allows for no other conclusion in >the sane, rational mind. So what is your problem with this? A causes B under certain circumstances. >Another thing you should understand is that the "immune system" often >over-reacts and actually causes the damage that are considered symptoms >of the "disease," and this is not just for "autoimmune diseases" >either. If you go to my site, you will see plenty of evidence for >this, along with passages from books written by famous "virus hunters." Howsabout you just give us an examploe or two here. We are all busy people, remember, with time to waste on usenet :=) >Mr. Carter may have been driven mad by the impossibility of the >"HIV/AIDS" notion, which, though it changes often, now seems to be that [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >to be on a given day), can only lash out in a manner consistent with >Mr. Carter's responses. So what is your hypothesis for HIV/AIDS? (apologies if you have already given it here, but I'm a newbie and still struggling with my Forte Agent. jack >Once again, Mr. Carter, I ask for you to present the formal hypothesis >for the "germ theory," and then we can take things from there. As you apparently need it (no-one else has for a century or more) then it would be something like " Many diseases are caused when microorganisms parasitising the human body, as a byproduct, add toxins to it, or actually kill body cells." But of course, this is blindingly obvious, surely. >As >anyone with an ounce of common sense can determine, if two people >ingest the same "germ," and one gets ill and the other doesn't, the the >"germ" is not the cause. Why? The answer is simple. One person was parasitised by the organism, and the other was not (for any number of reasons) > It may be mult-causal, with the "germ" >playing a role, but that is not what most people think of in terms of >the "germ theory," whatever it may, if it be. Well, there are many conditions necessary for infection to occur. Why wouldn't there be? There are for just about anything else to happen. . Such things as susceptibility of the host, and virility of the organism. But yes, cars cause car accidents. Yes, bad roads, inattention are contributory factros. Infection and pathology from microorganisms is simiarly a multifactorial phenomenon, just like every other phenomenon I can think of. >The scientist who consumed the vial of cholera did not get cholera, but >a student who also consumed the vial did get violently ill. Now, in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >non-oxidized cholesterol. Or not allowing one group to get as much >sleep as is considered necessary. Etc. and so forth. And guess what. Every guinea pig infected with M tuberculae gets TB. And do you really think your hypothesis has not been fuly investigated and logically abandonned? >The onus is on you, if you are putting forth a claim, to demonstrate >it. If you provide a vial of "germs" that are supposed to cause a >certain disease, and the animal is exposed to it in a way that is >supposed to cause this "disease," and yet it does not, your claim has >been directly refuted. If you do no understand that, then you may need >to start and Kindergarten and begin your education all over again. No, the "Theories of Gravity and Germs" have been well established for many years, if you have contradicting evidence, present it and collect your Nobel Prize. jack > You can't state it for yoruself? > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and yet have no symptoms? Come now, TC, I think you are more > intelligent that to support the non-existant "germ theory." I think that you are both wrong. The mainstream is trained to think only of a causative agents like germs while ignoring the fact that our immune systems protect from germs, and infections and illness only occur when the body is stressed by physical or mental stresses and/or poor nutrition. And you think that there is no such thing as a germ that can cause illness in any circumstance whatsoever. Like the yin and yang of life, there is not one shade and one shade only. Day cannot exist without night, light without dark, sickness without health, intelligence without stupidity, etc. TC >Do you think this is satisfactory: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >If this was so, anyone who was "infecteed" would get the disease, but >that is not the case. Why would you say such a sily thing? Remember, the dose is the thing. Yes, anyone who was infected with a sufficient number of live organisms that their immune response couldn't deal with will become sick, and it always happens. >An early critic actually drank a vial of >cholera, and also neutralized his stomach acid, so that the "germ" >could cause mayhem. And they cultured the organism to see if it was viable? Stories like this serve only to confound, IMHO. >He did not get sick. If you want to believe in >this sort of thing, welcome to the cult - plenty of koolaid waiting for >you, no doubt. Rehydration therapy saves many lives. What is your problem with t? (Or did you mean something else?) >Do you realize this? >Do you realize that in science, you need a formal hypothesis so that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >and yet have no symptoms? Come now, TC, I think you are more >intelligent that to support the non-existant "germ theory." Do you know the term "commensal organism"? It means an organism that lives happily with no ill effects on or in the human body. We have thousands of them. Many can change to pathogenesis when there is a change in circumstances. It's all very well understood. I suppose you have some convoluted theory that disease is caused by faulty nutrition? So all those things down the microscope are a hoax? Like man's visit to the moon? jack >The "germ theory" is a "breakthrough?" It can't even be stated as a >hypothesis - it certainly is not a scientific theory. Would you be so >kind as to state is as at least a formal hypothesis, TC? Are you aware >that without a formal hypothesis, there can be no science? Do you >understand the scientific method at the most basic level? Just asking, >not trying to be obnoxious, but it's obviously of utmost importance. Are you serious? Look, there is the "Theory of Gravity" and you don't think that gravity might not be real, do you? Many old principles are couched in the term "theory" and it doesn't mean anything tentative, it's just a semantic oddity. Of course no-one is going to propose a hypothesis that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning, are they? Well perhaps here :=) jack >http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=22482007 > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > >Between things they accidently discovered, (anti-biotics, anaesthesia) Isn't everything accidentally discovered? >and things that are overated or useless (vaccines, dna structure, >tossue culture) You are against the use of tissue cultured skin in burns repair, for example? Vaccines that have wiped out small pox, for example? >and things they fought against for decades before >finally accepting (sanitation), Who fought against sanitation. Who was that doctor who removed the pump handle in the village and saved countess further cholera cases? >things they don't apply (evidence-based >medicine), Really? I thought US would be up to world standards here. Australia certainly is. >things developed by non-medical mainstream people (imaging - >MRI, computers), So it was non-medical people who developed MRI for medicine? >questionable or dangerous drugs (the pill, >Chlorpromazine), and other assorted crap, this list is kinda thin. The pill has been of inestimable value in saving thousands of lives. The tiny number of problems caused, against the thousands of women who statistically would have died in childbirth prevented. Chlorpromazine has its uses. It also has its misuses, like everything else. DDT is great stuff, but American farmers abused it grossly and spread it round the world. >About the only real breakthrough in the list is the germ theory. And >modern allopathic doctors consistently fail to connect to the other >half of the equation which is immunology which is again subverted by >the medical allopath by them not understanding the importance of >nutrition to the immune system and immunology. I think I see whare you are coming from. You think that the immune response is caused by what nutrition you receive. Sorry, you have that bass ackwards. The genetic makeup of the individual determines the immune response, and nutrition only plays a part if there is some deficiency. All a body needs is the required minimum concentration of required molecules passing along its absorption pipe, and the genetic makeup will do the rest. Adding more of this or that nutrient will not have any effect other than to perhaps overload the poo pipe or the waterworks. Sorry, Chinese parallel magic is no use in a scinetific forum. jack |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.