Re: German New Medicine
punter
On Dec 8, 5:00 pm, Ashley L <lockeas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "By the way: Since we are looking at what happened in the 19th century
> can you explain how Max von Pettenkoffer managed to swallow enough
> cholera "to kill an army" according to Koch in front of his pupils and
> managed to survive?:"
>
> What you're asking here, near as I can tell, is can John explain an
> amusing anecdote from 19th century which may, or may not, even be
> true? Also, Pettenkoffer's experiment wasn't closed, could you please
> stop saying that it was?
Skeptic logic 22:
JC's anecdotes from the 19th century which may or may not even be true
are proof positive of germ theory/vaccination.
Punter's anecdotes from the 19th century which may or may not even be
true are completely worthless.
Simple question: When you made this point did you not realise how
ridiculous it would look?
>
> "I will ignore everything else you say because it is just the usual
> drivel about how I am not jumping through enough hoops to satisfy you.
> "
>
> Are you sure? That's a victory by forfeit for pro-vaccination, Punter?
If you say so. Odd considering his point had nothing to do with
vaccination, but then again as I don't know as much about Shakespeare
as you (or share the same pointless pedantry over balancing chemical
reactions) your perception is probably correct.
>
> On Dec 8, 10:31 am, punter <tristanwe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > This is from John Snow:
>
> > "There is no doubt that the mortality was much diminished, as I said
> > before, by the flight of the population, which commenced soon after
> > the outbreak; but the attacks had so far diminished before the use of
> > the water was stopped, that it is impossible to decide whether the
> > well still contained the cholera poison in an active state, or
> > whether, from some cause, the water had become free from it."
>
> > So even the guy who came up with the water pump explanation admitted
> > that he couldn't be sure if his observations proved conclusively that
> > the outbreak was stopped by removing the handle. And yet you want to
> > use this example from 150 years ago to prove that the germ theory is
> > true?
>
> > By the way: Since we are looking at what happened in the 19th century
> > can you explain how Max von Pettenkoffer managed to swallow enough
> > cholera "to kill an army" according to Koch in front of his pupils and
> > managed to survive? The difference being that Pettenkoffer's
> > experiment was a closed system (or at least reasonably so). Snow's
> > wasn't.
>
> > I will ignore everything else you say because it is just the usual
> > drivel about how I am not jumping through enough hoops to satisfy you.
>
> > On Dec 7, 9:37 pm, JC <jc_bige...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > Punter,
>
> > > You're seriously losing it. "Ironic really considering what he says
> > > about me trying to defend something despite not knowing everything
> > > about it." Have you defended GNM? I haven't heard a peep of
> > > evidence, references, double blinded studies yet. Still waiting for
> > > that defence...
>
> > > With regards the differences in epidemiology and chemistry... If
> > > everyone in the world were identical, you could conduct experiments
> > > like a chemist would. Fortunately, we're not identical, and we all
> > > behave and react to pathogens, friends, "poisons", situations,
> > > differently. So if humans were as simple as 2H + O --> H2O, then
> > > epidemiology and statistics would not be necessary. But we're not
> > > identical, Tristan, so large population studies have to be completed
> > > to find out what observations can be made to support or refute a
> > > theory. I would've thought an expert in GNM would know that, with all
> > > those well worked out laws that are never broken and simple diagnoses
> > > such can be found on Greg's link.
>
> > > Can GNM explain the 1854 Broad St cholera outbreak? Can you explain
> > > it, punter, without using bacteria as a reason for it, and how the
> > > removal of the handle cured it? Surely removing the Broad St pump
> > > handle couldn't have provided a mass cure of "Indigestible chunk of
> > > anger" or "Fear of being useless". I look forward to your
> > > explanation. Greg, can you explain it? Meryl?
>
> > > By the way, Greg, on your link, it states that
> > > "Multiple sclerosis and Paralysis: inability to escape or continue on
> > > or to hold on to or not knowing what to do." So with your expertise
> > > in polio and AFP, you can surely produce some data to show that MS and
> > > paralysis occur at the same rate as each other, or at least some
> > > correlation, and of course evidence that supports the concept that all
> > > these people express an "inability to escape or continue on or to hold
> > > on to or not knowing what to do." Surely that would be easy for
> > > you...
>
> > > John- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
JC
What John Snow write is entirely consistent with a pathogen of the
microbiological kind. I didn't claim it to be proof of the germ
theory. I'm asking you how you would explain the phenomenon of a
cholera outbreak, based on GNM - the topic of this thread. I'll
repeat "Can you explain it, punter, without using bacteria as a reason
for it, and how the removal of the handle cured it? Surely removing
the Broad St pump handle couldn't have provided a mass cure of
"Indigestible chunk of anger" or "Fear of being useless".
Did a circus come through and reduce the mass amount of anger, or did
everyone take self-confidence lessons?
John
punter
cure of
"Indigestible chunk of anger" or "Fear of being useless".
Your question is a complex one because it isn't clear whether removing
the pump handle fixed the problem. Your patients/students and fellow
skeptics would never pick you up on your numerous fallacies but I
will.
And you created the topic as an obvious red herring to divert
attention from your utter failure to defend the important issue of
safety and efficacy of vaccinations.
Greg Beattie
First, you agree it was Katie who implied "hundreds" was too many
deaths. My simple response illuminated the folly of doing so without
addressing context. I obviously did not ignore it (let alone
"deliberately" as you put it). That was actually the point of my
comment. Please, the point has been made and your responses lack any
substance. I tried to tell you nicely. Let it go.
And again, I'm not interested in debating the merits of Hamer or GNM.
That may change one day if I become informed enough to have an
opinion. You guys can do what you like but I would personally like to
see the focus stay on vaccination, and any discussion of alternatives
be considered in a constructive manner, rather than destructive. New
ideas don't have the benefit of countless trillions of dollars spent
on their establishment, nor decades of near universal acceptance. They
suffer from inertia. Established ideas benefit from inertia. People
who wish to discuss new ideas need to be sensitive to these
considerations. In this case we are placing GNM against a very deeply
entrenched paradigm, and the case for the "no" is out to simply "win",
rather than discuss.
Regarding people who believe in the germ theory not being as likely to
consider other possibile explanations for illness, you said something
that caught my eye -- "Find them something BETTER and they'll consider
it."
Many years ago I came to understand that the argument against vaccines
is usually treated with fascination. Most people can follow the
arguments. They appreciate the logic, and the statistics are
revealing. But it leaves a vaccuum. They face going home and having
nothing to place their faith in. Where the germ theory used to explain
illness and vaccination used to promise protection, they now suddenly
have nothing. Something needs to be sucked back into that void. So the
fascination quickly turns to discomfort.
In fact, I don't think most people even let the void develop UNTIL
there is something else to fill it. I propose that it's often a
reconciliation with the good old germ theory (i.e. it can't be that
bad, surely. So many people accept it.... who am I to reject it?). But
some venture out and find something else to fill the gap. Homeopathy,
naturopathy, chiropractic etc. It's like we were on this giant land
mass. We're tempted to leave it and start swimming, but we're on the
lookout for a friendly island first. Somewhere to swim to. If nothing
takes our fancy we'll probably stay put.
But if we simply wade in we notice it's not that deep. We can actually
stand up, and we begin to consider the threats are not as great as we
thought. Health is normal. It's the normal outcome of supplying the
necessary conditions of life. And ill health is the normal outcome of
not supplying them. Hmmm... interesting. What if we get sick? Well,
that's an easy one actually.... we get better. It happens with or
without intervention. Aahhh... so the body rights itself.
Why do we need medicine and all these other therapies? Because it's
not always so simple. Sometimes we get hit by a bus and need help.
Sometimes we become ill and don't know why, or it doesn't
spontaneously resolve. So we look to the various philosophies for an
explanation (as well as a cure). And they all have something to offer.
They all present explanations which are reasonable, at least on the
surface. But none can supplant what we already know. That is, under
normal circumstances we get better.
So there is already a great force working in our favour. Our body
tends toward health, and provided we supply the conditions it
requires, it will probably achieve that. Call it homeostasis, the
healing power of nature or whatever you want, it is our best friend.
Let's not forget that.
Do we need an alternative? I think we do in a sense. We often face
situations we don't understand. Which condition did we not supply? Why
won't this go away? Logic tells us to find the cause and remove it.
That's a simple and powerful approach, but what if we can't find the
cause, or we think we have but it doesn't seem to be going away? Enter
the various theories.
But Ashley, if you're waiting for "something BETTER" you have to first
ask yourself what you mean by "better". Is it possible for something
"better" to replace what you already believe? Wouldn't that
necessitate an acknowledgement of the problems with your current "best
theory"? Or by "better" do you mean something that builds on what you
already believe?
Is GNM right? Is standard medicine right? Is anyone else right? I
don't think any of them own "right". We can however benefit from their
offerings by discussing them is a constructive way. I don't mean
pretending to like something that doesn't appeal, but considering it
with the respect you would give to your own ideas. For example, trying
to determine whether Hamer holds anti-semitic views is largely, if not
entirely, irrelevant. Our persistence with it suggests we're more
interested in a witch hunt. And when one source suggests 0%
effectiveness and another suggests 97% my guess is the data has not
been published in a verifiable format, and versions of it are coming
from a very polarised arena. We're all discussing something we
probably don't understand (except perhaps Punter, who seems to be the
only one who has bothered to study it in a constructive way).
There are lots more messages to respond to, but I'll be on the road
for a couple of days. See you after that.
Greg
On Dec 8, 12:21 am, Ashley L <lockeas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "You think I "implied context, and chose to deliberately ignore it"
> about the hundreds of deaths with GNM? "
>
> No, what I said was that Katie implied context and you deliberately
> ignored it. You were being a pedant and pretending to make a genuine
> retort.
Ashley L
true are proof positive of germ theory/vaccination. "
I don't see anywhere in my post where I'm defending or rationalising
JC's post, which as its own cogent defence, I was quite clearly
criticising your response. Tu quoque, punter, tu quoque.
"Punter's anecdotes from the 19th century which may or may not even be
true are completely worthless. "
Since you seem to have missed my point I'll re-frame the argument you
think I made: The John Snow "anecdote" is supported by a considerable
amount of supporting evidence. Journal articles written at the time
detail the epidemic and its treatment. A clear record of deaths is
also readily obtained. Snow himself admits that parts of his argument
cannot be substantiated.
The only verifiable elements of the von Pettenkoffer story, on the
other hand, are that a number of people claim that they saw von
Pettenkoffer consume a liquid, which may or may not have contained
cholera to which he may, or may not, have already had a considerable
degree of exposure. Suspect evidence, at best. After all, every slight
of hand magician performs their art in front of witnesses.
I think perhaps that you would argumentation would benefit from
considerably from greater efforts to discern the difference between
what is verifiable fact and self-perpetuating apocrypha.
JC
I'm simply trying to figure out how GNM would explain a geographically
isolated event such as a cholera outbreak. According to GNM, the
population around the pump must have all come down with the same
"Indigestible chunk of anger" or "Fear of being useless" at the same
time. As well, MS often has a geographical predisposition. How does
that work according to GNM? And when the polio vaccine was being
introduced into the USA, polio began to follow less of a geographical
distribution and become more sporadic, as already referenced. How
does that work according to GNM?
No red herring - just trying to get my head around GNM and how it can
be applied. I'm still awaiting some sort of defence of GNM - the
topic of this thread.
John
JC
"except perhaps Punter, who seems to be the only one who has bothered
to study it in a constructive way". Really? Where is the evidence of
that? Seriously.
John
JC
according to the laws of GNM, cannot exist.
Just saying....
John
punter
Everybody who understands English got that. But not you, being an
extraordinary sophisticated individual you always seem to find a
meaning that the author never even imagined let alone intended.
>Since you seem to have missed my point I'll re-frame the argument you
think I made<
Just because you change an argument to suit yourself doesn't mean that
my original interpetation was in error.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
punter
your opponent could choose the weapons. But the skeptics have decided
that despite the fact they picked a fight with us, not only can they
still choose the weapons, we aren't even allowed to deploy ours.
You skeptics have picked a fight with us as you don't think we have
the right to either not vaccinate and/or disseminate our views to
others. Fair enough, no doubt in your mind this is a justifiable
position. But you can't choose the terms of this debate. You may think
logic and temporal observations are irrelevant and only epidemiology
is worth anything, but arguing from that starting point won't get you
anywhere here.
Like I said before, you wanted to debate the germ theory because it
threatens your territory but I don't care if you believe it so there
is no debate.
>And when the polio vaccine was being
introduced into the USA, polio began to follow less of a geographical
distribution and become more sporadic, as already referenced. How
does that work according to GNM?<
Really? Another blatantly loaded question?
JC
"not only can they still choose the weapons, we aren't even allowed to
deploy ours"
I would welcome you to deploy your "weapons", and have requested you
to do so several times.
"You skeptics have picked a fight with us"
This site was set up to debate vaccination, Tristan, by Meryl Dorey, a
staunch anti-vaccine campaigner. I can't see how that equates to
skeptics picking a fight, when it was not set up by a skeptic. If you
find skeptics here debating you then, tough. I accept you have the
right not to vaccinate your self and your children - I just think it's
an ill informed decision. If people read your comments and other
peoples retorts, then I can only see that as a way of spreading more
information to the public.
Your anti-vaccine stance is predicated on a disbelief of the germ
theory, and a belief in GNM, and so both of these topics are therefore
relevant to this debate of vaccination. Your key points set to debunk
the "germ theory" were really nothing more than a demonstration of a
how a very simplistic concept of the "germ theory" could be debunked.
Hardly difficult or surprising. None of them, in reality, posed any
risk to the theory. A little more study and understanding of the
intricacies and details of microbiology, immunology and pathology are
all that's needed. As for GNM, it does not stand up to even the most
casual of analysis.
So was that a loaded question? Of course it was punter - this is, I
remind you again, a debate. How does GNM explain polio? According to
my research into GNM, some of the symptoms of polio is caused by a
conflict of "not being able to flee" or "not being able to follow".
Before polio vaccination, polio came in epidemics that could be traced
to geographically distinct regions. In other words, there were
outbreaks. After the vaccination was introduced, this pattern
changed, and the incidence became much more sporadic, and eventually
almost disappeared.
Trevelyan B, Smallman-Raynor M, Cliff AD. The Spatial Dynamics of
Poliomyelitis in the United States: From Epidemic Emergence to Vaccine-
Induced Retreat, 1910-1971. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2005 Jun.;95(2):269–
293.
My question, therefore, is to you, to explain these two phenomena,
firstly the outbreaks, and then the effects of the vaccine, using the
principles of GNM. Please supply references, of course.
John
Katie Brockie
fair enough about personal attacks, but this guy is masquerading as a
doctor. As a Jewish person would you go to a Doctor who says things
like: "But when I see that Jews have perpetrated the most
horrible crime in world history, then I have something against
those Jews who pretend everywhere to be the persecuted victims
- even when you and your friends would like to see me
incarcerated once again for "inciting the public" (prosecuting
attorney Cottbus) - to see me muzzled because I am exposing
this crime for what it is. "
"The
problem - or rather that of the Jewish denomination - is that in
the meantime we have come to know about these collusions. Of
necessity, that could create a global anti-Semitic sentiment,
something they themselves will have to answer for because the
Israelis could, due to their covert prohibition of German New
Medicine, end up to be shunned by all of humanity for centuries
to come. Thus they not only would have to fear the relatives of
the victims but also the "Army of the Dead". Since all Jews,
including also (Rabbi?) Prof. Merrick, have for 23 years very
well known that "German New Medicine" is accurate, and that
the brothers and sisters in faith survive their cancer with
German New Medicine at a rate approaching 98%, it comes
down to fraud and "mass murder" (as Prof. Niemitz formulated
it in his testimony). One could also call this a "veritable
extermination"."
http://www.deathsect.com/ (about 2/3rds of the way down the page)
The guy is not only anti-semitic, he also seems to be a raving
nutcase!!!
What do you think?
cheers
K
Katie Brockie
you keep on denigrating my "hundreds dead". And you also seem to
believe this "6000 treated" number without even bothering to verify it
independently. I think the number was made up by Hamer or one of his
followers. I have evidence that Hamer was a liar and a forger. (I can
produce it if asked).
Here's what Swiss Study Group for Complementary and
Alternative Methods in Cancer (SCAC) said in their investigation into
GNM:
"No case of a cure of a cancer patient by hamer's method has yet been
published in medical literature. Neither have any studies to this
effect been published in the specialised press. The "Hamer foci" in
the CT images in Hamer's books have been identified by radiological
experts as typical artefacts produced by the radiological device which
can appear in a poor-quality CT scan.
Speigel magazine reports an investigation by the authorities in
Germany, stating that out of 50 cancer patients who have passed
through Hamer's care, only 7 have survived."
page 2
http://assets.krebsliga.ch/downloads/01_02_hamer_e_neu.pdf
Apart from the clinic where only 7 survived (and they are probably
dead now), he opened several other illegal clinics. here's part of an
interview with one of the staff at one of them:
"In this clinic many patients from European countries and Germany
died, were sent home or sent to other hospitals just short time prior
to their death. One patient even died during transport to another
clinic. Surrounding clinics then refused to accept further dying
patients from Katzenelnbogen. According to three women who worked
there in 1985 and were interviewed in 2007 (see:
Testimonies_of_former_associates_of_Hamer), no patient was cured
there, and almost every patient died. During this period of time,
Hamer presented pictures of X-rays from patients to the media to prove
the effectivity of his New Medicine. However: some of these patients
did not survive the treatment according to New Medicine. TV broadcast
Panorama (ARD) and magazine Spiegel instead presented photos of their
graves."
http://www.esowatch.com/en/index.php?title=Testimonies_of_former_associates_of_Hamer
Also - here's a quote from a guy who has been investicating Hamer and
GNM
"The patients are dead. The list of the dead we know of
http://www.ariplex.com/ama/ama_ham2.htm grew from 60, which already is
a nightmare, to more than 130. I am afraid, that it is HUNDREDS, might
be AT LEAST 300, and even that is an extremely conservative estimate."
http://www.deathsect.com/
So hamer's success rate is so low as to be 0.
Defending him and his methods just because I don't like them is crazy.
Look at the guy. Look at what he has done.
cheers
K
punter
staunch anti-vaccine campaigner. I can't see how that equates to
skeptics picking a fight, when it was not set up by a skeptic.<
I know you can't see it. But then you also accused me of cyberbullying
you after you sent me two unsolicited abusive emails. So it is fair to
say that your version of who picks fights with whom bares little
resemblance to reality.
The website gives you guys the chance to persuade us why we are very
naughty boys and girls and why we should do exactly as we are told by
the likes of you. It is not about us trying to tell all of Australia
(or the world) that if you don't abide by our ideas then you are
stupid and irresponsible. Many skeptics had complained that the AVN
website didn't give you the fair chance to make your case and that you
were being "censored" so here is your chance and all you can do is a)
tell me that my points against the germ theory/vaccination paradigm
don't matter because she'll be right and all the answers are out there
in the ether somewhere; and b) to concentrate on something completely
peripheral that you think you may be able to score cheap points off
and make yourself look like you have gotten somewhere. You haven't.
Who, reading this thread, would go away thinking that they needed to
inject poisons into their children? They may go away thinking some guy
they had never heard of is anti-Semitic and that people who challenge
mainstream medicine often make enemies, but that is about the extent
of the conclusions that could be drawn. Try as I might, I can't
imagine anybody making a leap from that to saying that they should
inject poisons into their children.
Like I said, you guys can believe whatever you like about Hamer and
his work. I honestly don't care. You can disseminate your views too -
I won't stop you.
And also just like I said, the fact that you keep going on and on
about this issue just makes you look like you have something to fear
from it. No wait, that you are all involved in a plot to kill a
fictional Danish king from several hundred years past.
But you're right one thing though. I should have abolutely no trouble
providing a reference to whenever in history there has been a
clustering of disease to what particular phenomena that group
collectively experienced. Just like you would have no trouble
whatsoever going through time and providing the proof that a
particular microbe was responsible whenever there was said clustering
of disease.
Oh but that's right. That is a "tu quoque" fallacy isn't it AL?
Ashley L
it)."
Actually, you feigned ignorance of the context and made a flippant
remark about the large number of people who die in spite of medical
care.
"And again, I'm not interested in debating the merits of Hamer or GNM.
"
Since you were previously defending Hamer's anti-semitism and
mentioned that you find GNM philosophically more pleasing than Germ
Theory, I'll take it that you meant "I'm no longer interested...". I
have noted your disinterest.
"New ideas don't have the benefit of countless trillions of dollars
spent on their establishment, nor decades of near universal
acceptance. They suffer from inertia. "
Not good ones, Greg, those tend to take off quite quickly. Admittedly
there are a large number of good ideas that are unprofitable which, as
you point out, do suffer from an apparent lack of motivation. That's
venture capitalists for you.
"In this case we are placing GNM against a very deeply entrenched
paradigm, and the case for the "no" is out to simply "win", rather
than discuss. "
This IS the respectful debate site, Greg and by my reckoning I'm not
discussing a novel paradigm, I'm critiquing a highly implausible and
possibly dangerous theory.
"But Ashley, if you're waiting for "something BETTER" you have to
first
ask yourself what you mean by "better". "
I have thought about this. It is difficult for me to quantise how the
quality of research is assessed. Suffices to say, you know good
research when you see it, Greg, and this isn't it.
"Is it possible for something "better" to replace what you already
believe? Wouldn't that necessitate an acknowledgement of the problems
with your current "best theory"?
Simple answer, yes.
"For example, trying to determine whether Hamer holds anti-semitic
views is largely, if not entirely, irrelevant. "
I don't have to try and determine if he holds them, Greg, it's
established fact. Furthermore, as I have quite clearly indicated,
Hamer's anti-semitic views form part of a larger ideology that is a
quite clear indicator of mental instability.
Anyone can make a rational argument, Greg. Any good speaker can
convince most people of most things and themselves of anything. Snake-
oil salesman, in their various forms, have been doing this for quite
some time. Your argument is that all ideas must be based solely on
their merit, which, in an academic sense is agreeable. However, when
it comes to human lives and when the replication of an experiment
involves someone's well-being, at the very least it would be unethical
to carry out a procedure where there was no good-faith belief in the
validity of the initial findings
"It was blatantly obvious that I made my anecdote to contrast JC's. "
What was blatantly obvious was that I was criticising you for a)
attempting to disprove one anecdote with another and when it became
clear that you hadn't understood a), that b) doing so using what is a
demonstrably inferior anecdote was imprudent.
"Just because you change an argument to suit yourself doesn't mean
that
my original interpetation was in error. "
Please review this quote by me:
I think perhaps that you would argumentation would benefit from
considerably from greater efforts to discern the difference between
what is verifiable fact and self-perpetuating apocrypha.
"You skeptics have picked a fight with us as you don't think we have
the right to either not vaccinate and/or disseminate our views to
others."
By your own argumentation, Punter, we're the Establishment, the status
quo, keepers of the ideological ennui, by your logic, you picked a
fight with us. I obviously dispute both these claims. Further, I am
not swayed by your shameless application of the victim card, and would
prefer you to cease prevaricating with histrionics, as you have done
in your following post, and return to the substance of the matter at
hand.
"Oh but that's right. That is a "tu quoque" fallacy isn't it AL? "
No. No it's not. Furthermore you have consistently failed to answer
John's specific question: What particular "trauma" has affected
individuals whose only known association is spatial co-location and
can cause such a consistent outbreak of disease? The fact that you
respond by criticising germ theory IS tu quoque.
JC
"The website gives you guys the chance to persuade us why we are very
naughty boys and girls and why we should do exactly as we are told by
the likes of you. It is not about us trying to tell all of Australia
(or the world) that if you don't abide by our ideas then you are
stupid and irresponsible."
I'm making no attempt to convince you of anything, Tristan, or tell
you you are naughty. I'm simply taking the opportunity to display to
other people the faulty logic, the faulty ideas, the faulty
epidemiology and the faulty concepts that the anti-vaccine lobby rely
upon. For example, you're stance against vaccinate is based upon a
belief in GNM - a concept that is riddled with so many poor "laws"
it's laughable. Another example, Greg's misuse of death rates over
long periods of time - yes, they look compelling, but have fundamental
flaws. Meryl Dorey herself has promised to produce several articles
in this debate, yet has failed to produce any so far.
So no, I don't pretend to convince you of anything. I hope to
convince any other readers though that GNM is just plain stupid.
So far, you have produced exactly naught to prove me otherwise.
John
punter
> belief in GNM
Ummm, no it isn't. Not even remotely. I stopped believing in the
vaccination/germ theory paradigm long before I had ever heard of GNM.
Indeed, I stopped believing in the germ theory long before I had given
any consideration to the safety/efficacy of vaccines. But you already
know that because I have told you this many times.
Perhaps it would be better if we let other people decide if you have
shown your opponents' logic to be faulty n'est-ce pas?
And AL, where exactly has Greg (or I) defended Hamer's anti-Semitism?
More slander.
>By your own argumentation, Punter, we're the Establishment, the status
quo, keepers of the ideological ennui, by your logic, you picked a
fight with us. I obviously dispute both these claims. <
My logic says that? How? Dare I ask is it anything to do with my
belief that the establishment is involved in a conspiracy to murder a
Danish king? I can't imagine ever making an argument along those
lines. I agree with the premise but when have I ever made an argument
that would imply that conclusion to be valid?
Are you saying that if a government rounds up and kills everybody's
first born then any parent who doesn't willingly submit their child
for sacrifice has "picked a fight" with said government. Actually, as
the skeptics generally seem to be big goverment totalitarians it
wouldn't surprise me if you did think such an argument were valid. But
I sure as hell don't and I can't for the life of me imagine ever
making such an argument.
>No. No it's not. Furthermore you have consistently failed to answer
John's specific question: What particular "trauma" has affected
individuals whose only known association is spatial co-location and
can cause such a consistent outbreak of disease? <
You obviously didn't understand my response (like the last 1000
times). I said I couldn't possibly know - nobody could - as it would
require omniscience. I could give an example of what sort of shock
might cause a clustering of disease (be it one that is considered
contagious or one that generally isn't) but, strangely, I don't
actually know every single phenomena that every single person
throughout all of human history has experienced. According to you and
JC that proves the GNM must be wrong. According to me that proves that
the both of you are asking ridiculous questions in your desperation to
find fault with the GNM. My point was (again obvious to all but you
and JC) that I could ask the same pointless question of the germ
theory. If the question were a valid one (and it certainly isn't) then
we would have to conclude that both the GNM and the germ theory were
wrong. Indeed, we would have to conclude that every single theory
related to anything (medicine, chemistry, physics etc) was completely
wrong.
So that was the purpose of my response. To show that JC's question
isn't a valid one. You didn't get it though so I just clarified it for
you. If you need further clarification feel free to ask. Or
alternatively, you could just make a list of every single fallacy in
your "Logic for Beginners" textbook.
JC
"I said I couldn't possibly know - nobody could - as it would require
omniscience. I could give an example of what sort of shock might cause
a clustering of disease (be it one that is considered contagious or
one that generally isn't) but, strangely, I don't actually know every
single phenomena that every single person throughout all of human
history has experienced. According to you and JC that proves the GNM
must be wrong."
Not necessarily. All is shows is that you have no research, no data,
no plausible mechanism to suggest how GNM works. So you've given up
on the germ theory? Like I care. I care about what you might be
telling other people, and how they may be taken in by the "logic" of
GNM. I'm here on this thread to discredit GNM - to show it for what
it is, which is a fanciful dream without any scientific basis
whatsoever.
So what lead to the outbreaks of polio, according to GNM? Show me the
money punter, or politely decline from suggesting it is an even
remotely valid concept.
John
Bek
Sorry i have busy and just trying to catch up with everything.
My point still stands that just because someone may have unsavory view
on certain thing (aka antisemitism) does not automatically make all
their ideas wrong. Have you read anything about Henry ford or Thomas
Edison?
People are well aware about the antisemetic views of Ford and Edison,
but they aren't labelled as "nutcases" why?
As much as i dislike antisemitism i am able to put that to one side
while i look, skeptically, into a theory.
Bek
> extermination"."http://www.deathsect.com/(about 2/3rds of the way down the page)
Katie Brockie
fair enough. To me, the difference is that Ford made cars and was antisemitic, but I don't think his antisemitism came into his car manufacturing process. (I could be wrong?). however, Hamer's medical views are deeply entangled with his antisemitic views.
However - I will put that aside as ad hominem, and not mention it again.
So, what do you think, skeptically, of Hamer's theory?
cheers
K
Ashley L
believes that jews are secretly hiding a cure for cancer and are
perpetuating poisons to the rest of society in an effort to kill
everyone. That's not antisemitism, that's preposterous to the point of
mental imbalance. Hamer should have been in a mental institution, not
practicing on patients.
"How? Dare I ask is it anything to do with my belief that the
establishment is involved in a conspiracy to murder a Danish king? "
Keep bringing it up, Punter, we'll all just be reminded that you can't
discern the difference between actuality and apocrypha.
"Are you saying that if a government rounds up and kills everybody's
first born then any parent who doesn't willingly submit their child
for sacrifice has "picked a fight" with said government. "
Not me, as I clearly indicated I don't grant your argument (said so,
right there in my response to you) that everyone who supports
vaccination works for "the man" or is one of the "sheeple" or that any
form of "sacrifice" is going on. It is you that believes that
antivaxxers are taking a righteous stand against the government, after
all, you granted the premise.
Honestly, sacrifice? Your histrionics do nothing to help this debate
other than prove what everybody already reasonably suspected, that
you're a dyed in the sack cloth anti-vaxxer with absolutely no ability
to function rationally.
"Actually, as the skeptics generally seem to be big goverment
totalitarians it wouldn't surprise me if you did think such an
argument were valid. "
Histrionics and ad hominem attacks are your ONLY response to valid
criticisms, punter. "Magic number generators, You're not getting my
kids, big gubmint, but I never said anything about a conspiracy." It's
tiring. I ask that you start making valid contributions or get off the
soap box. Further, I ask that the moderators to curtail punter's
continuous efforts to derail topics with appeals to emotion.
"You obviously didn't understand my response (like the last 1000
times). I said I couldn't possibly know - nobody could - as it would
require omniscience."
So nobody could possibly prove GNM? How very convenient for you.
"My point was (again obvious to all but you and JC) that I could ask
the same pointless question of the germ theory. "
Please try and keep on topic, punter, Germ theory is another thread.
You seem to be unwilling to accept the fact that criticisms of Germ
Theory do NOT validate GNM and it is YOU that first proposed GNM as
the alternative that is now the subject of scrutiny. Scientific
theories are not diametric opposites, Punter.
"So that was the purpose of my response. To show that JC's question
isn't a valid one"
I disagree. John's question is extremely valid given that the point of
if it was to point out that GNM is a self-limiting theory that
essentially taps out when things get even a little bit hard.
> > extermination"."http://www.deathsect.com/(about2/3rds of the way down the page)
Bek
Personally i think it makes a lot of sense. I feel It explains a lot
that the germ theory can't, for eg spontaneous remission, the
metastasis theory and why not everyone gets sick from pathogenic
germs.
I know that i will be accused of having a "simplistic view of the
immune system" but the whole point of this is to provide an
alternative to the germ theory and if you are being skeptical about a
new theory you cant use the old theory to disprove the new one, that
would be pointless. ie GNM is stupid because the germ theory states
this....
Can you find a part of GNM that doesn't explain how people get sick or
how they get better?
Bek
Katie Brockie
to me, GNM does not explain how people get sick or how they get better. Or rather - it offers explanation, but with no backup, no observable and measurable outcomes or information or data.
I mean, I could invent my own grand theory of how we get sick, and how and why we heal, based on ancient maori beliefs about sickness and healing, but that does not mean it is correct.
And, really.... this is just silly:
"Hay fever used to be the predominant allergy, although it no longer is today. The reason was simple: the first lovemaking between young people usually took place in haystacks because they were the least expensive and most inconspicuous nuptial beds. DHS’s often occurred when these intimate situations were either unexpectedly interrupted or ended unhappily. The partner who experienced the DHS and who suffered the biological conflict might later involuntarily remember the catastrophe in the hay without realizing the connection. The association of the smell of hay is what brings the 'allergy to hay'. The swelling (edema) in the para-nasal sinus, so-called 'hay fever', only occurs in the healing phase. The smell of the hay is connected and associated with the DHS because of the compromising experience."
Now, my husband gets hayfever, I don't. Neither of us has ever been surprised rooting in a hayfield. I don't think my husband has ever had any nasty shocks around haybales or anything of the sort. Also, hay fever is neither necessarily caused by hay and it doesn't really involve a fever.
It makes more sense to me that people develop an allergy to pollen, which makes their immune system mistakenly think it is a harmful substance (rather than a benign one), and releasing chemicals which cause the symptoms of hayfever.
Plus, if the GNM system makes sense to you, why is there no one single published study (not by Hamer himself) of a single person being cured by this method?
cheers
K
punter
right there in my response to you) that everyone who supports
vaccination works for "the man" or is one of the "sheeple" or that
any
form of "sacrifice" is going on. It is you that believes that
antivaxxers are taking a righteous stand against the government,
after
all, you granted the premise.<
I granted the premise but I didn't think the conclusion was valid. You
didn't grant the premise but you presumably thought the argument must
have been valid (otherwise why bring it up). You see? Probably not.
That is why I made up a hypothetical premise up to see if you would
support the conclusion. But you couldn't get your head around what I
did. You never do.
If you need to me to give you a rundown of valid/invalid/sound/unsound
arguments feel free to ask.
>"You obviously didn't understand my response (like the last 1000
times). I said I couldn't possibly know - nobody could - as it would
require omniscience."
So nobody could possibly prove GNM? How very convenient for you. <
Creating a blatant strawman? How very convenient for you.
Here are four questions you should ask yourself?
1) What piece of evidence, if any, would falsify the germ theory?
2) What piece of evidence, if any, would make the germ theory almost
impossible to argue against?
3) & 4) same as for GNM and for any other alternative theory.
Until you and JC have done that then any discourse on this is
pointless.
> > > extermination"."http://www.deathsect.com/(about2/3rdsof the way down the page)
> > > The guy is not only anti-semitic, he also seems to be a raving
> > > nutcase!!!
> > > What do you think?
>
> > > cheers
> > > K- Hide quoted text -
punter
an even remotely valid concept. >
You really were born in the wrong country weren't you? I think North
Korea would be more to your liking.
punter
are deeply entangled with his antisemitic views<
That's true. I can distinctly reading in the Summary Hamer saying that
the iron rules of cancer don't apply to semitic people.
JC
Do you really think the following comment is appropriate for this
forum? North Korea? Really? A "communist" dictatorship where
millions starve, on a constant war setting with the West? I would
appreciate it if punter - Tristan Wells, that is - would kindly debate
topics, rather than commit this kind of abuse. It's not contributing
to this debate really is it? I've put up robust arguments against
GNM, and he is yet to provide even the most slightly credible evidence
as to it's plausibility, let alone its efficacy. Rather than debate
the subject, he resorts to this comment.
"You really were born in the wrong country weren't you? I think North
Korea would be more to your liking."
Charming Tristan.
John
JC
Here are four questions you should ask yourself?
1) What piece of evidence, if any, would falsify the germ theory?
Anything that was not explainable by the germ theory, as currently
understood by those who study it.
2) What piece of evidence, if any, would make the germ theory almost
impossible to argue against? A pointless question, until you can come
up with something to do with point (1).
3) & 4) same as for GNM and for any other alternative theory. (3) The
"Laws" of GNM are easily demonstrated to be false, and I have done so
on this thread. It is therefore false.
(4) I'm still waiting for something. Anything. Please.
John
Bek
At least GNM does offer explanations which is more than i can say of
the germ theory.
I havent heard of the whole "being caught doing it un a haystack"
theory in hayfever but i have read this
http://learninggnm.com/documents/allergiesarticle.html - i think it
makes sense.
Why hasn't Hamer published a paper? Jeez remember Wakefield? And that
wasn't even a study!
Once again i must say that i dont believe GNM is 100% correct but i
feel it comes a whole lot closer than the germ theory.
Bek
punter
Anything that was not explainable by the germ theory, as currently
understood by those who study it.
I believe AL would describe that as "convenient".
(3) The "Laws" of GNM are easily demonstrated to be false, and I have
done so
on this thread. It is therefore false.
I note an interesting article here: http://sciencebusiness.technewslit.com/?p=7336
Like I said, the problem is that your falsification requires an
observation I simply can't verify. But I guess you prefer that don't
you?
JC
1) What piece of evidence, if any, would falsify the germ theory?
Anything that was not explainable by the germ theory, as currently
understood by those who study it.
I believe AL would describe that as "convenient".
Yes. Unbelievably convenient. Almost as if it were true. Can you
suggest anything?
(3) The "Laws" of GNM are easily demonstrated to be false, and I have
done so
on this thread. It is therefore false.
I note an interesting article here: http://sciencebusiness.technewslit.com/?p=7336
And what does that article have to do with GNM, punter? What at all?
False positive rates in screening tests is hardly news. Same goes for
breast, prostate and bowel cancer screening tests. That's why we have
gold standards, but to an epidemiologist like yourself, I shouldn't
have to explain that.
"Like I said, the problem is that your falsification requires an
observation I simply can't verify. But I guess you prefer that don't
you?" Well why don't you do a little reading about septic arthritis,
aseptic arthritis and spinal TB? It's honestly not hard to find
errors in the GNM "laws". Really too easy. Too convenient.
Why don't you even try to debate the issue of GNM, punter? Why don't
you offer anything up, or are your beliefs really just based on ideas?
John
Moderator
It is not a part of the Moderator's role to censor content of
arguments. It is however a part of my role to try and keep the
discussion polite and on track. It is my opinion that some of these
posts are not contributing anything new to the discussion and are
rehashing old statements that of themselves contribute little or
nothing.
Again I state "I am endeavouring not to bring any form of censorship
into this forum". It is my intention however to clean up what I
consider to be unproductive and unnecessary comment.
Peter Ward
Moderator
punter
doesn't it?
Bek, Greg and I think that a scientific theory should take all the
obvious relevant phenomena and devise a coherent explanation for said
phenomena.
You guys have very different views of what scientific theories should
do. JC, for example, thinks that the relative worth of a scientific
theory is in how many different terms for a lung cell its adherents
can name. AL believes a theory's relative worth is determined by its
adherents' knowledge of Shakespeare. You consider a theory's value in
terms of how many journals - whose prejudices presumably conform to
your own - are willing to publish the material.
Hamer's explanation for hayfever fits into this narrative perfectly.
Hamer noticed that we call something 'hayfever' and wondered why it
was so. He surmised that there might have been some connection between
it and hay. His theory was able to explain this anomaly. He was not
saying that all allergies (including those to pollen) today are caused
by the same event. What he is saying is that we connect a trauma (or
disconcerting experience) with various senses - when we experience
those senses our minds go back to the trauma and how to deal with it.
Our brains are trying to protect us, assuming that we are encountering
the same problem again and therefore need the same tools to cope. For
example, when the Hib vaccine was introduced it just so happened that
that vaccine's proteins were virtually identical to those in peanuts.
It also just so happened that since the introduction of that vaccine
which you guys say is so wonderful despite having no effect whatsoever
on meningitis the rate of peanut induced anaphylaxis has skyrocketed.
Pure coincidence I'm sure. Hamer would say that the trauma of the
vaccine is being associated by the sub-conscious brain with the peanut
proteins.
You see? Another explanation for the observed phenomena that fits in
perfectly with Hamer's theory. Of course, you don't have much time for
coherent explanations much preferring the publishing of reams of
material to determine the truth but it works pretty well for me.
Incidentally, if the publishing of reams of material of some belief
saving lives is your standard for truth, then I can only assume you
are a devout Christian?
On Dec 15, 11:01 am, Katie Brockie <katiebroc...@gmail.com> wrote:
punter
has a couple of interesting quotes: "Despite the efficiency of
complete DNA extraction for the rapid diagnosis by PCR of
extrapulmonary tuberculosis, the false-positive results challenge our
understanding of PCR results."
and: "We specifically chose to examine extrapulmonary tuberculosis,
for which amplification techniques are of considerable interest. The
main difficulty with extrapulmonary specimens is that they yield very
few tubercle bacilli, as demonstrated by the low sensitivity of AFS
and culture."
Very interesting indeed. For those who haven't followed closely, JC
has made his entire argument against the GNM on the premise that germs
can in fact cross the tissue barrier. Now this isn't specifically one
of the laws of the GNM despite JC's intimation however I would be
lying if I tried to dismiss its significance.
Now he may well be right. Maybe germs can cross the tissue barrier. I
personally don't think that would be devastating to the principle of
the mind-body connection in disease, although it would certainly cause
great damage to the representation of the 4th biological law and
hence, Hamer's theory in totality would have to be rejigged.
Personally I would probably expect that anyway, as much as I think he
has come up with something extraordinary, I would be amazed if he had
gotten everything right. Whether it requires minor tweaking or a major
overhaul I honestly don't know.
But here's the thing. JC expects me to believe that germs can cross
the tissue barrier based on tests that seem to show very small amounts
of tubercle bacilli in non-ectoderm related organs. These tests are
notoriously unreliable and they only ever seem to find very small
amounts of the bacilli there. Let alone provide any proof that they
have "crossed the tissue barrier" or that they actually do anything in
these organs (rather than say be there as a result of vaccination).
That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen (ie that germs cross the
tissue barrier) but it is hard for me (or anyone else) to verify that
they do.
> > John- Hide quoted text -
punter
On Dec 15, 4:21 pm, punter <tristanwe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > John- Hide quoted text -
punter
On Dec 15, 11:57 pm, JC <jc_bige...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Tristan,
>
> 1) What piece of evidence, if any, would falsify the germ theory?
> Anything that was not explainable by the germ theory, as currently
> understood by those who study it.
> I believe AL would describe that as "convenient".
>
> Yes. Unbelievably convenient. Almost as if it were true. Can you
> suggest anything?
As a matter of fact I can. Somebody with symptoms but no germs.
Similarly, someone with germs but no symptoms. Somebody who spends all
their lives surrounded by these supposedly pathogenic and contagious
microbes but remains healthy.
So there you go. Three ways to falsify it. How did I go?
I can go further if you like. As the germ theory implies no self-
limiting ability on the pathogenic microbes to replicate then another
way to falsify it would be to have someone get sick and then get
better. That too would falsify the germ theory wouldn't it?
Further still, as it would be impossible to have an epidemic stop
without immunity or quarantining everybody affected then epidemics
such as SARS or Spanish flu could have only finished once it had
killed the entire population (or that trillions of viral particles had
simultaneously mutated into a benign form). So if humans (or indeed
any animal) exist then the germ theory is falsified.
>It's honestly not hard to find
errors in the germ theory. Really too easy. Too convenient. >
There. Fixed it for you.
Moderator
It is not a part of the Moderator's role to censor content of
arguments. It is however a part of my role to try and keep the
discussion polite and on track. It is my opinion that some of these
posts are not contributing anything new to the discussion and are
rehashing old statements that of themselves contribute little or
nothing.
Again I state "I am endeavouring not to bring any form of censorship
into this forum". It is my intention however to clean up what I
consider to be unproductive and unnecessary comment.
Peter Ward
Moderator
On Dec 15, 1:23 pm, JC <jc_bige...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
JC
Well done. In showing absolutely nothing. So a study was performed
in RAPID diagnostic tests for extra pulmonary TB, as opposed to the
age old technique of culture. "What is more, in paucibacillary
tuberculosis, a much longer incubation time is always required for
positive growth, leaving clinicians with a long delay without a
positive answer. With the development of novel techniques in molecular
biology, these delays might be shortened."
Why do people seek quicker tests? Have a read of this:
http://bit.ly/w4AU9d
TB in the vertebral bodies, periosteum, disc, spine and lungs, with
treatment delayed because of the time taken to culture the TB.
Sometimes they show up in special stains. People are on the lookout
for quicker methods.
Tristan said: "JC has made his entire argument against the GNM on the
premise that germs can in fact cross the tissue barrier. Now this
isn't specifically one of the laws of the GNM despite JC's intimation"
yet from http://learninggnm.com/documents/fourthlaw.html
"Microbes don't cross the tissue threshold!" "Mycobacteria and fungi
only operate in tissues that originate from the endoderm and the old-
brain mesoderm, whereas bacteria that are not mycobacteria only
participate in the healing of tissues deriving from the new-brain
mesoderm." New brain mesoderm, according to GNM, includes bone, and
the spleen.
http://1.usa.gov/shDvKv
"Pancreatic tuberculosis with splenic tuberculosis mimicking advanced
pancreatic cancer with splenic metastasizes: a case report" Don't you
hate that? Here's a patient who they thought had pancreatic cancer, a
short term death sentence, yet they found TB, she was put on TB
antibiotics, and she's alive and well. But GNM LAWS state that TB
cannot be in the spleen.
Isn't that a bugger punter when your statements are so easily
disproven?
"Whether it requires minor tweaking or a major overhaul I honestly
don't know." but Tristan, this is a LAW we're talking about. A LAW.
not a theory that can be tweaked, but a LAW. If the LAW is false,
then so too is GNM.
"JC expects me to believe that germs can cross the tissue barrier
based on tests that seem to show very small amounts of tubercle
bacilli in non-ectoderm related organs." Small? Take a look at the
size of the lesion in the CT scan, Tristan! They were 2cm across!
"Let alone provide any proof that they have "crossed the tissue
barrier" or that they actually do anything in these organs (rather
than say be there as a result of vaccination)." Yes I did. And
what's it got to do with vaccination??? Do vaccination needles go
into the spine or the spleen now?
"That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen (ie that germs cross the
tissue barrier) but it is hard for me (or anyone else) to verify that
they do." until you walk into a hospital...
John
JC
Similarly, someone with germs but no symptoms. Somebody who spends all
their lives surrounded by these supposedly pathogenic and contagious
microbes but remains healthy. So there you go. Three ways to falsify
it. How did I go?"
Pretty poorly, actually. As previously covered, these three phenomena
are not even remotely a threat to the "germ theory". It's laughable
you persist with them.
"As the germ theory implies no self-limiting ability on the pathogenic
microbes to replicate then another way to falsify it would be to have
someone get sick and then get better. That too would falsify the germ
theory wouldn't it?"
Maybe in your version of the germ theory. To mine it's completely
acceptable. Heard of the immune system?
"Further still, as it would be impossible to have an epidemic stop
without immunity or quarantining everybody affected then epidemics
such as SARS or Spanish flu could have only finished once it had
killed the entire population (or that trillions of viral particles had
simultaneously mutated into a benign form). So if humans (or indeed
any animal) exist then the germ theory is falsified."
Again, in some really weird world this might make sense Tristan, but
in not way are your observations a threat at all to the "germ
theory". You're really being stretched here, aren't you? Are you
struggling to keep it together, because this last point of yours is
making me concerned "So if humans (or indeed any animal) exist then
the germ theory is falsified." Hmmmm. I think you need to take a
break.
John
punter
which proves HIV can cause mass T-cell necrosis has been done. When I
asked for it you provided things that stated nothing of the sort -
indeed often quite the opposite. If doctors can be so wrong about this
I have to ask myself, what other staple beliefs might they have gotten
wrong as a result of using assumptions in replace of observations?
So I went to find out about how they test for these things and found
that in actual fact most of the tests they use aren't as certain as
you would make us believe. Which makes me wonder, how certain are we
that TB actually do operate in, for example, the spleen or bronchi? Is
it as certain as the notion that HIV attacks and kills T-cells? Now I
realise you are certain, just as you are certain that someone,
somewhere has written in a textbook the answer to all my questions on
the germ theory. And you and other doctors may be right, but I have a
real hard time just accepting what you all say at face value.
>Don't you hate that? Here's a patient who they thought had pancreatic cancer, a
>short term death sentence, yet they found TB, she was put on TB
>antibiotics, and she's alive and well. But GNM LAWS state that TB
>cannot be in the spleen.
An anecdote JC? I thought you guys hated them?
I have already discussed the issue of antibiotics. But I will do it
again. Drugs affect the brain and hence can affect the healing phase
(ie taking one out of it) thereby eliminating or reducing the
symptoms. Germ theorists use this as proof that they are right. The
only problem is that analgesics can do the same thing - reduce or even
eliminate the symptoms. Which raises the question - do antibiotics
work by killing the bacteria which is causing the symptoms or by
affecting the brain which is causing the symptoms?
This anecdote doesn't prove that mycobacteria operate in the spleen
merely that drugs can reduce symptoms. But there is no argument from
me on that.
> "Whether it requires minor tweaking or a major overhaul I honestly
> don't know." but Tristan, this is a LAW we're talking about. A LAW.
> not a theory that can be tweaked, but a LAW. If the LAW is false,
> then so too is GNM.
Yes JC, but it is Hamer's LAW not mine, and there is no LAW that says
I have to swallow everything he says in total - even if I agree with
him on the mind body connection. You see? That isn't to say that I
don't appreciate the fact that he has a logical cause and effect going
on, unlike the germ theory (which I have already alluded to) but
merely that I could see the principle of mind-body connection still
holding even if it turned out that this particular law was incorrect.
(Although I submit it would definitely hurt Hamer's reputation).
>"JC expects me to believe that germs can cross the tissue barrier
>based on tests that seem to show very small amounts of tubercle
>bacilli in non-ectoderm related organs." Small? Take a look at the
>size of the lesion in the CT scan, Tristan! They were 2cm across!
Come now JC. We both know that any anomaly on a CT scan is nothing
more than an artefact! At any rate the issue isn't the size of the
lesion is it but whether it was caused by TB?
>"That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen (ie that germs cross the
>tissue barrier) but it is hard for me (or anyone else) to verify that
>they do." until you walk into a hospital...
Actually, now that I come to think of it, the last few times I walked
into a hospital I did observe exactly that. Terribly sorry.
On Dec 16, 3:24 pm, JC <jc_bige...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Punter,
>
> Well done. In showing absolutely nothing. So a study was performed
> in RAPID diagnostic tests for extra pulmonary TB, as opposed to the
> age old technique of culture. "What is more, in paucibacillary
> tuberculosis, a much longer incubation time is always required for
> positive growth, leaving clinicians with a long delay without a
> positive answer. With the development of novel techniques in molecular
> biology, these delays might be shortened."
>
> Why do people seek quicker tests? Have a read of this:http://bit.ly/w4AU9d
> TB in the vertebral bodies, periosteum, disc, spine and lungs, with
> treatment delayed because of the time taken to culture the TB.
> Sometimes they show up in special stains. People are on the lookout
> for quicker methods.
>
> Tristan said: "JC has made his entire argument against the GNM on the
> premise that germs can in fact cross the tissue barrier. Now this
> isn't specifically one of the laws of the GNM despite JC's intimation"
> yet fromhttp://learninggnm.com/documents/fourthlaw.html
Ashley L
how and why we heal, based on ancient maori beliefs about sickness and
healing, but that does not mean it is correct. "
Indeed, Katie! And with enough time and effort you could make it very
palatable. Much like how Ron L Hubbard invented a religion.
"You didn't grant the premise but you presumably thought the argument
must have been valid (otherwise why bring it up)."
Punter, I bring up plenty of your argument and assuredly, I find a
number of them lacking in merit. I am an odd fellow, sometimes my
motives aren't quite that cut and dry.
"That is why I made up a hypothetical premise up to see if you would
support the conclusion. But you couldn't get your head around what I
did. You never do. "
This from the chap who gets medical theories from a man whose mental
stability is roughly equivalent to the misfortunate soul who spews
forth unlikely eschatons on the street corner, are clearly the crafter
of argumentation so advanced that nobody but you and Greg can
understand it.
"If you need to me to give you a rundown of valid/invalid/sound/
unsound arguments feel free to ask. "
You'll have to ask that man I just mentioned when that might be.
"Creating a blatant strawman? How very convenient for you. "
You said nobody could prove the root cause of a malady under GNM
therefore a reasonable extrapolation would be that nobody could ever
really conclusive prove GNM. That's not a strawman. You seem to be bad
at identifying logical fallacies.
"1) What piece of evidence, if any, would falsify the germ theory? "
I already answered Greg on that one: prove that something else is
better. I won't be shocked if, or rather when, you don't.
"2) What piece of evidence, if any, would make the germ theory almost
impossible to argue against? "
Ab-initio explanations for every existing disease, as I said, we're
not there yet. More time and more money and we'll get there. Don't be
surprised if, once we start to comprehensively understand signalling
pathways, things lurch forward at a fantastic pace. Seems to be the
way of things in science. Yay for discovery.
"3) & 4) same as for GNM and for any other alternative theory. "
3) I don't think there's any truth to it to begin with.
4) Somehow proving that focii aren't detector artefacts would be a
good place to start, also the jew thing, I want the jew cure for
cancer, perhaps you can sneak into Zion and get it for me?
"At least GNM does offer explanations which is more than i can say of
the germ theory. "
How can demonstrably wrong answers be better than incomplete correct
answers? I realise that many people find definitive answers
comforting. Snake oil salesmen and confidence tricksters have been
using this comfort for quite some time but any hope they provide is
false hope in exchange for profit for them.
"Why hasn't Hamer published a paper? Jeez remember Wakefield? And that
wasn't even a study! "
Andrew Wakefield was the author of his own demise. Taking money from a
tort lawyer in order to fabricate a scientific explanation was an
inexcusable breach.
"I believe AL would describe that as "convenient". "
You are mistaken. I would not. I would describe that as a logical
confluence. You're much better at playing Greg then you are at acting
me.
"I note an interesting article here"
Again with your flawed argumentation. Criticism of germ theory, which
that article is not, does not answer any of John's (or mine, many of
which are distinctly different from John's) criticism. You cannot
legitimise your own argument by attacking someone else.
I have no problem with you doing both, in a debate one must address
the issue of your learned colleagues argument, but if you continue to
ignore arguments directed at you in this fashion I will be forced to
conclude that you were simply incapable of answering these arguments
in the first place.
"Like I said, the problem is that your falsification requires an
observation I simply can't verify. "
Oh, well, if it CAN'T be verified then it must be believed. How very
convenient for you.
"Yes but it all depends on what you think a scientific theory should
do
doesn't it? "
Provide an evidence based explanation that rationalises the
fundamental mechanisms underpinning reality. In lay terms, tell us how
stuff works in a logical fashion.
"Bek, Greg and I think that a scientific theory should take all the
obvious relevant phenomena and devise a coherent explanation for said
phenomena. "
Post-hoc, ergo propter hoc makes extremely poor scientific
argumentation. Would you like to buy these rocks I'm selling? They
protect from bear attacks. I've got them on a Christmas Special, comes
with free homeopathic oxygen. Give me a shout and I'll link you to my
ebay store.
"AL believes a theory's relative worth is determined by its adherents'
knowledge of Shakespeare"
No he doesn't. Further evidence that you really are terrible at acting
me.
"Hamer's explanation for hayfever fits into this narrative perfectly.
"
So does my Grand Unifying Theory Of Spaghetti Monster, it's all
explained in my book, The Grand Unifying Theory of Spaghetti Monster
Dilemma. Also available at my ebay store. (author's comment: te he he,
aint I a stinker?)
"Hamer would say that the trauma of the vaccine is being associated by
the sub-conscious brain with the peanut proteins. "
Why then, is there no such thing as a beach allergy given that saline
is also associated with the, ahem, "trauma" of vaccines? Honestly, I
think you're making this up as you go along, Punter, I don't think
even Hamer himself would go with you on this one.
"As the germ theory implies no self- limiting ability on the
pathogenic microbes to replicate"
Uh. Yes it does. Pathogenic microbes can't multiply effectively
outside of a host OR once they've exhausted their available food
supply. Furthermore, many if not most microbial organisms require the
ability to colonise in order to function at higher levels of
efficiency. The germ theory isn't required to explain what you can
learn in high school biology, Punter.
"Further still, as it would be impossible to have an epidemic stop
without immunity or quarantining everybody affected then epidemics
such as SARS or Spanish flu could have only finished once it had
killed the entire population"
Not every pathogen has the ability to kill a human host before it can
formulate an immune response, punter and not all pathogens are as
mobile as others. The fact that we can artificially increase the both
the potency and the infectiousness of these microbes is further proof
of germ theory. Speaking of which, I've brought this up a couple of
times and you've still ignored me, how DO biological weapons work
according to GNM? Also, where did smallpox go, according to GNM? Did
we stop having that form of trauma? If so, what was that trauma?
"So if humans (or indeed any animal) exist then the germ theory is
falsified. "
Evolution, anybody? You know what happens when a species cannot
survive predation, whether it be macro or micro? They die off. I know
you and Greg seem to think we're in the habit of dodgying up history
so I'll give you an extant example: European honey bees.The wonderful
confluence of science is that everything fits in with everything else.
"When I asked for it you provided things that stated nothing of the
sort -
indeed often quite the opposite. "
Indeed nothing of the sort. John Cunningham isn't, as you aware, a
biochemist working on the mechanisms of HIV, it is HARDLY surprising
that he wasn't conversant in the dated literature and linked to a
paper by someone who was. This paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-5699(91)90092-8
was described by these chaps (dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.
1440-1711.1999.00798.x) as being the first paper proposing the
currently theorised mechanism of what had already been experimentally
observed.
"Is it as certain as the notion that HIV attacks and kills T-cells? "
Notion? You imply that there is uncertainty? We can WATCH them do it.
(http://bit.ly/rDNWOe) I thought I'd already pointed this out? Perhaps
that was for polio.
"And you and other doctors may be right, but I have a real hard time
just accepting what you all say at face value. "
You don't have to accept what we say at face value, you can read all
of the literature, from beginning to end, yourself.
" "Drugs affect the brain and hence can affect the healing phase (ie
taking one out of it) thereby eliminating or reducing the symptoms.
But if all healing is carried out by the sub-conscious brain how can
non-psychoactive antibiotics affect the brain in a fashion that is
substantive in GNM?
"Yes JC, but it is Hamer's LAW not mine, and there is no LAW that says
I have to swallow everything he says in total - even if I agree with
him on the mind body connection. You see? "
How then, do you decide on what you pick to keep and what you choose
to ignore? I ask the same question of christians when it comes to
adherence to the bible, the answer is invariably whatever feels best
to me.
"Come now JC. We both know that any anomaly on a CT scan is nothing
more than an artefact! "
The shape and contrast of a lesion is visibly difference from the
geometric patterns that are generated by optics artefacts.
Tasha David
Cheers
T
punter
stability is roughly equivalent to the misfortunate soul who spews
of argumentation so advanced that nobody but you and Greg can
understand it. >
I think what you are trying to argue here is that because you didn’t
understand it but other people did this somehow makes me insane. If
that isn’t what you are saying could you explain exactly what the
point of that spiel was?
>You said nobody could prove the root cause of a malady under GNM
therefore a reasonable extrapolation would be that nobody could ever
really conclusive prove GNM. That's not a strawman. You seem to be
bad
at identifying logical fallacies. <
No. I said nobody could do what JC demanded because nobody has a time
machine and perfect omniscience. To do what you just asked would be
best answered by finding an example of someone being “cured” of an
affliction by Hamer (or someone using his tenets) by resolving that
particular conflict. Of course, even if you were shown examples of
this, you might argue (quite reasonably) that there are too many
confounders for it to be considered persuasive.
<"1) What piece of evidence, if any, would falsify the germ theory?
"
I already answered Greg on that one: prove that something else is
better. I won't be shocked if, or rather when, you don't. >
Exactly. You think we should always just default to whatever is most
popular. I don’t. That is fine that you feel that way – just don’t
expect me to nod in agreement whenever you say that: “in the face of
convincing contradictory evidence, scientists regularly reassess their
views”. According to you they should only do so if somebody
simultaneously comes up with a flawless alternative theory.
>Ab-initio explanations for every existing disease, as I said, we're
not there yet. <
Not necessary. A single observation of the germ theory in action would
be fine.
<"I believe AL would describe that as "convenient". "
You are mistaken. I would not. I would describe that as a logical
confluence. You're much better at playing Greg then you are at acting
me. >
What? You wouldn’t want to have your own arguments turned against you?
I must admit that thought never occurred to me when I wrote that
statement. But given that Greg, Bek, Tasha all no doubt understood it
and you didn’t I guess that proves I’m insane right?
>Again with your flawed argumentation. Criticism of germ theory, which
that article is not, does not answer any of John's (or mine, many of
which are distinctly different from John's) criticism. You cannot
legitimise your own argument by attacking someone else. >
I wasn’t using it as an argument against the germ theory (although
there was that as well) I was using it to show that JC’s premise for
disproving one of the laws of the GNM might not have been based on as
robust observations as he would have us believe. Read what has
transpired very carefully and you may just follow it. And correct me
if I am wrong but aren’t you legitimising your belief in the germ
theory by attacking the GNM? Wasn’t that precisely your point when you
claimed that to falsify the germ theory you have to come up with a
superior alternative?
<"Like I said, the problem is that your falsification requires an
observation I simply can't verify. "
Oh, well, if it CAN'T be verified then it must be believed. How very
convenient for you. >
Ummm, no it means it hasn’t been falsified in that way. And I never
implied that it would.
>So does my Grand Unifying Theory Of Spaghetti Monster, it's all
explained in my book, The Grand Unifying Theory of Spaghetti Monster
Dilemma. Also available at my ebay store. (author's comment: te he
he,
aint I a stinker?) <
Sounds great. Hundreds of pages of atheist smugness.
"Hamer would say that the trauma of the vaccine is being associated
by
the sub-conscious brain with the peanut proteins. "
Why then, is there no such thing as a beach allergy given that saline
is also associated with the, ahem, "trauma" of vaccines? Honestly, I
think you're making this up as you go along, Punter, I don't think
even Hamer himself would go with you on this one.
I assume it is because foreign proteins are just that - foreign.
Saline isn’t treated by the brain as such because otherwise the body
would be allergic to itself.
<"As the germ theory implies no self- limiting ability on the
pathogenic microbes to replicate"
Uh. Yes it does. Pathogenic microbes can't multiply effectively
outside of a host OR once they've exhausted their available food
supply. Furthermore, many if not most microbial organisms require the
ability to colonise in order to function at higher levels of
efficiency. The germ theory isn't required to explain what you can
learn in high school biology, Punter. >
So they will stay until they have devoured an entire organ presumably
killing the person in the process. So how exactly would that enable
people to survive the microbial onslaught?
As for the ability to colonise I don’t know what question that is
supposed to answer. If someone is sick from the flu then presumably
the flu virus must (according to your logic (I feel reticent to say
this because I have no idea what tangent you will run off on)) have
the ability to colonise. So how do people recover from it?
<"Further still, as it would be impossible to have an epidemic stop
without immunity or quarantining everybody affected then epidemics
such as SARS or Spanish flu could have only finished once it had
killed the entire population"
Not every pathogen has the ability to kill a human host before it can
formulate an immune response, punter and not all pathogens are as
mobile as others. >
So you are saying that the pathogen that supposedly caused the Spanish
flu couldn’t kill anyone or easily transmit itself to other people?
Hey. No arguments from me!
>The fact that we can artificially increase the both
the potency and the infectiousness of these microbes is further proof
of germ theory. Speaking of which, I've brought this up a couple of
times and you've still ignored me, how DO biological weapons work
according to GNM? <
You’ll have to ask Hamer. But presumably (other than poisons which may
be given simultaneously) I suppose if the people targeted with the
weapons believed that they worked then they could go through a
conflict shock as a result (if it is a death fright then lung cancer,
but it is possible that other conflicts could arise as a result). In
the meantime you are welcome to grab some of these artificially
strengthened germs and I will happily eat them.
<Also, where did smallpox go, according to GNM? Did
we stop having that form of trauma? >
You are a very smart guy. I really mean that. You have a tendency to
comprehend things that you want to rather than what the author intends
but you are clearly very bright. But I wonder how it could be that you
are not aware of the position of the likes of Greg and me on the issue
of small pox.
Remember how Hamer was trying to ponder the meaning of “hay”fever?
Have you ever pondered how we get the name “chicken” in chicken pox?
It is because in the past it was, by definition, a mild form of pox.
If you had pox and died then you couldn’t have had chicken pox because
such a severe case would have always been described as small pox. And
yet today, parents are told that if they don’t have their children
injected with poisons to protect them from the scourge of chicken pox
their chances of survival are less than a World War I pilot (note:
this is an exaggeration). Now why would this be I wonder? You don’t of
course. To you such a remarkable turnaround in the nature of chicken
pox is completely uninteresting. But I don’t find it uninteresting. I
find it quite fantastic. So much so that I wonder whether the whole
small pox eradication is nothing more than a change in definition.
I wonder even more when I see the exact same process unfold with every
other disease that has supposedly been reduced or eradicated by
vaccines. (BTW under Hamer’s theory pox is a separation conflict).
>Evolution, anybody? You know what happens when a species cannot
survive predation, whether it be macro or micro? They die off. I know
you and Greg seem to think we're in the habit of dodgying up history
so I'll give you an extant example: European honey bees.The wonderful
confluence of science is that everything fits in with everything else.
>
Of course! I forgot how I evolved spontaneously to be immune from the
coronavirus. You see my understanding of evolution was that it
happened before I was born and most mutations are harmful but some
turned out to be positive (in relation to the environment). But
according to you we each evolve spontaneously whenever the need
arises. So on day 50 of the SARS panic everybody in the planet was
vulnerable to the coronavirus so we had to run around in a blind
panic, on day 51 every single person became simultaneously immune and
there was nothing to worry about (or alternatively, trillions of viral
particles all simultaneously mutated into a benign form). Which raises
the question, why didn’t the public health authorities tell us this
was going to happen?
"Is it as certain as the notion that HIV attacks and kills T-cells? "
Notion? You imply that there is uncertainty? We can WATCH them do it.
(http://bit.ly/rDNWOe) I thought I'd already pointed this out?
Perhaps
that was for polio. >
From the paper you provided: “Despite thorough screening, we have not
yet detected structures that appear to represent this type of fusion
event where one might expect a partially fused virion in the act of
transferring the viral genome-containing core into the cell. One
possible explanation for this could be that the fusion event itself is
very rapid, and therefore not detected in our experiments.”
I ask for an observation of HIV attacking and killing T-cells. You
give me a paper that does no such thing. They even state that they
couldn’t see them attacking anything and they make no mention of mass
T-cell necrosis.
But they did see lots of cool spikes and stuff and they were, quite
understandably, very excited about this.
>You don't have to accept what we say at face value, you can read all
of the literature, from beginning to end, yourself. <
I prefer to read less but understand more.
<But if all healing is carried out by the sub-conscious brain how can
non-psychoactive antibiotics affect the brain in a fashion that is
substantive in GNM? >
I don’t get the point of the question. I believe that antibiotics can
affect the brain. If you don’t then you obviously won’t be satisfied
with my response.
But if you care, you can think about how these drugs are tested. Do
they give people antibiotics and then count up the number of
supposedly pathogenic microbes in the body and, if it is significantly
less, declare the drug to be a success or do they give people
antibiotics and observe any reduction in symptoms and if there is said
reduction declare the potion to be a success. One would think it was
the latter. They don’t directly observe how the antibiotics work to
alleviate the symptoms in the body they have to draw an inference.
They know that they kill living things and so they infer that that
must be what is reducing the symptoms. But whilst this is a plausible
conclusion it isn’t a uniquely valid one.
<How then, do you decide on what you pick to keep and what you choose
to ignore? I ask the same question of christians when it comes to
adherence to the bible, the answer is invariably whatever feels best
to me. >
I think for myself.
And to use an analogy with religion is pretty ridiculous. Religion
(like most mainstream science) is completely dependent on the notion
of authority (scripture). Show one thing is wrong and you
automatically call into question the basis for everything else. I can
believe one of three things: a) A significant mind body connection in
relation to disease causation is complete nonsense; b) there is a mind-
body connection and Hamer makes an extremely good fist of representing
it; or c) there is a significant mind-body connection but Hamer’s
attempt to explain it falls well short of the mark. I am very much of
the view that (a) is wrong, but I haven't decided on (b) vs (c).
<The shape and contrast of a lesion is visibly difference from the
geometric patterns that are generated by optics artefacts. >
Oh I’m sorry. I didn’t realise that you had gone over and checked
every single one of Hamer’s CT scans to ensure that every single
anomaly was consistent with one generated by optics artefacts. My
mistake.
What were you saying about how scientists are constantly questioning
their own views and are more than happy to change their minds?
punter
was:
"[Contrary to popular belief and the lovely little quotes that Meryl
and
punter present], in the face of convincing contradictory evidence,
scientists regularly reassess their views. That being said, the
larger
your claims the stronger your evidence needs to be. If you were going
to posit that our current understanding of germ theory was completely
wrong you would need to do it with something much more convincing
then, say, GNM. "
Of course I think this statement is completely invalid anyway but
still.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
JC
I don't think anyone doctors these days doubt the connection between
stress and disease. It certainly does not pose a problem with modern
medicine, and what Tristan refers to as the "germ theory". Where GNM
goes off the rails is in several areas. For example, "Every cancer
or cancer-like disease originates with a Dirk Hamer Syndrome ('DHS')
which is a very difficult highly acute, dramatic and isolating
shock". There is no proof of the DHS, or the Hamer Focus which you
may also read about. Another is that "All microbes are steered from
the brain", which is a statement without plausibility. That's just a
start.
As I saidf, no one doubts the link between stress and disease. It's
just that GNM doesn't explain it.
John
JC
I think it's time for you to take a break from this debate site.
You're losing it.
"When I asked for it you provided things that stated nothing of the
sort" - except that they did Tristan, but you couldn't understand it.
"So I went to find out about how they test for these things and found
that in actual fact most of the tests they use aren't as certain as
you would make us believe." All doctors understand sensitivity,
specificity, positive and negative predictive values, Tristan, and
that there is a difference in requirements between screening tests and
other tests. No one's tried to make you believe anything.
"Which makes me wonder, how certain are we that TB actually do operate
in, for example, the spleen or bronchi?" The gold standard, Tristan -
culturing it. Which is how it was done in the case report I gave you.
"Is it as certain as the notion that HIV attacks and kills T-cells?"
Even more so.
"Now I realise you are certain, just as you are certain that someone,
somewhere has written in a textbook the answer to all my questions on
the germ theory." Yes they have, and I've even given you several
books to read, with all the evidence and references your heart could
desire.
"And you and other doctors may be right, but I have a real hard time
just accepting what you all say at face value." Yes we are, and I
know you have a hard time accepting it. Your acceptance of it or not
doesn't change it though.
"An anecdote JC? I thought you guys hated them?" We do, but when you
want to show that a law is false, you only need one exception.
Otherwise it's known as a theory. Pity Hamer called it a law.
"I have already discussed the issue of antibiotics. But I will do it
again". Please don't. This is a thread on GNM, and we know how you
hate people distracting from the argument. Oh, i see you have...
"Drugs affect the brain and hence can affect the healing phase (ie
taking one out of it) thereby eliminating or reducing the symptoms."
You do of course, have plenty of references for this statement, don't
you Tristan? Plenty of basic science and clinical examples to support
this? Or is this one of your logical steps that you enjoy taking?
"Germ theorists use this as proof that they are right." No. Germ
theorists wouldn't in their right mind use that as proof that they are
right. "Germ theorists" would use many years of science to show how
antibiotics work, and it has nothing to do with their effect on the
brain. Antibiotics actually kill bacteria, and we even know how they
do it. Some inhibit enzymes, and some open the cell walls. Maybe you
could do some reading about it? We can even culture the bacteria on
an agar plate and see how they are killed by placing discs of
antibiotics on the plate. No immune system or body to talk of - an in-
vitro demonstration, if you will, that you adore so much. Here's what
they look like:
http://bit.ly/bV7eAq
and here's some antibiotic discs on the plate:
http://bit.ly/ukIrTq
See how they grow?
"The only problem is that analgesics can do the same thing - reduce or
even eliminate the symptoms." No they don't. Paracetamol reduces
fever. Antibiotics help kill bugs.
"Which raises the question - do antibiotics work by killing the
bacteria which is causing the symptoms or by affecting the brain which
is causing the symptoms?" Hmmm i'm thinking it's the former. why?
Because you have not produced one thread of evidence yet for the
latter, apart from a whole pile of conjecture.
"This anecdote doesn't prove that mycobacteria operate in the spleen
merely that drugs can reduce symptoms. But there is no argument from
me on that. " No it doesn't. They took the person's spleen out and
cultured TB from the lesions. That kinda means that the TB was in the
spleen.
"Yes JC, but it is Hamer's LAW not mine, and there is no LAW that says
I have to swallow everything he says in total - even if I agree with
him on the mind body connection. You see?" Yes I do. you admit Hamer
wasn't right with respect to that Law. Hence, GNM, which is based on
a set of five Laws, is flawed. How can you have GNM if even one of
the Laws is wrong? Unless it's now called "Tristan Wells version of
GNM." Shall we start that thread?
"That isn't to say that I don't appreciate the fact that he has a
logical cause and effect going on, unlike the germ theory (which I
have already alluded to) but merely that I could see the principle of
mind-body connection still holding even if it turned out that this
particular law was incorrect." Yes, i can see how logical it is, even
if it's complete bullocks. Very logical, and very wrong. They sky is
blue because it's reflecting the light off the ocean. Very logical,
very wrong.
"(Although I submit it would definitely hurt Hamer's reputation)."
Yes it would, and it would rock GNM to it's core. Pity your precious
GNM is looking a tad hurt. i haven't even started on the Hamer focus
yet.
"Come now JC. We both know that any anomaly on a CT scan is nothing
more than an artefact!" Oops - you did. Pity that the lesion that
was seen on CT was also seen on ultrasound, and also cut out and
examined by a pathologist. It's hard - nigh, it's impossible - to cut
out an artefact, let alone grow TB from it. As opposed to the Hamer
focus which is an artefact - an anomaly in the machine.
At any rate the issue isn't the size of the lesion is it but whether
it was caused by TB?" Yep. And it was.
So what shall we talk about next? The Hamer focus? The great swathes
of evidence supporting GNM, or even your version of it? How about "As
natural "micro-surgeons", fungi and mycobacteria remove, for example,
colon tumors, lung tumors, kidney tumors, liver tumors, prostate
tumors, glandular breast tumors, or melanomas that are no longer
needed.". Surely you can provide adequate examples of this
occurring. Should be quite straightforward, really. We should always
see neoplastic cells within abscesses.
Or you could politely accept that GNM is a load of rubbish and give
up.
John
Tasha David
Hi John,
I don't believe it has to be all one way or another, the germ theory is based solely on the body, while GNM is based on the mind, to me these two principles could complement each other. Wouldn't we all stand a better chance of recovering from disease if we healed our mind and our body? I had a little look around for links between stress and cancer and it seems that the scientific jury is still out on the connection, but they do agree that there is a suggested link.
“Studies done over the past 30 years that examined the relationship between psychological factors, including stress, and cancer risk have produced conflicting results. Although the results of some studies have indicated a link between various psychological factors and an increased risk of developing cancer, a direct cause-and-effect relationship has not been proven (3, 4).
Some studies have indicated an indirect relationship between stress and certain types of virus-related tumors. Evidence from both animal and human studies suggests that chronic stress weakens a person’s immune system, which in turn may affect the incidence of virus-associated cancers, such as Kaposi sarcoma and some lymphomas (5).
More recent research with animal models (animals with a disease that is similar to or the same as a disease in humans) suggests that the body’s neuroendocrine response (release of hormones into the blood in response to stimulation of the nervous system) can directly alter important processes in cells that help protect against the formation of cancer, such as DNA repair and the regulation of cell growth (6).”
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/stress
“Studies on the role of stress in cancer have not been consistent in their results. Researchers who study the influence of stress on the progression of cancer face many hurdles, according to Cohen and his colleagues. Cancer can go undiagnosed for a long time, and its progression is difficult to measure with much precision. There are many types of cancers, and it is possible that stress only influences those facilitated by sustained hormonal response and impairments in immunity.
"We will need additional studies across a broader range of cancers before we can fairly evaluate the role of stress in cancer," Cohen said.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071009164122.htm
CheersTasha
JC
I agree with you that the "germ theory" is based on the body, and the
measurable and observable mechanisms of microbiology, immunology,
physiology, pathology and pharmacology. GNM though is based on the
fanciful and imaginative musings of one man. Sure, it's based on the
mind, but little else. You will have no argument from me about the
link between stress and disease, and as you can see yourself people
are researching the links, but GNM is much more than that. It claims
that the brain can control bacteria, and that bacteria are present to
clear tumours, and that there are specific stressors, or "conflicts"
that will bring about specific diseases. This is all bollocks, to be
honest, without any plausible mechanism, any evidence whatsoever, and
any support. Just ask yourself, how does the brain communicate with
bacteria - a single celled organism without receptors to
neurotransmitters? How do bacteria "know" where a tumour is? Even
punter, it's great proponent, now admits that even he can't explain
it.
Many theories sound logical, and sound like they make sense or answer
some questions, and that makes GNM sound attractive. Science is
littered with ideas like this, but scientists then test their theories
- whereas GNM is happy to sit there completely without evidence, and
even punter admits this. Logical ideas do not make them true. People
used to think that the stars were holes in a celestial blanket, and it
sounded logical and made sense and answered questions, yet it was
wrong. People used to think that the earth was flat, yet it's isn't.
In the same way, GNM sounds logical, but is fundamentally,
demonstrably flawed.
John
Tasha David
Hi John,
I do not know enough about GNM to be able to defend it's theories, I just find merit in the idea that treating the mind can help heal the body. I can understand why you do not believe in GNM, but just because something has yet to be proven scientifically to mainstream medicine does not mean it is not true. I also use Homeopathy and have seen firsthand my son's Eczema that covered most of his body disappear. But because it has not been scientifically proven to mainstream medicine (even though it has been used for over two hundred years) I would guess that you would also be critical of homeopathy too. Sometimes I feel scientists/medical professionals are too quick to dismiss theories that do not go along with their own preconceived ideas of medicine which is unfortunate, it would be far better to study the theories and prove it one way or the other rather than just dismissing it out of hand. You say logical ideas do not make them true, maybe not, but it does make them worthy of further study.
Cheers
Tasha
JC
I agree with you about treating the mind to heal the body. There are
undoubtedly connections between the two.
However, something has to be plausible to be true, measurable and
testable. The mechanisms claimed by GNM are just not plausible,
measurable and have not been tested. Do a little research into it,
and you'll quickly find that although some of the concepts sound
interesting, they are easily found to be false. Even punter admits
that at least one of the "laws" of GNM is false, and there are five
laws upon which it is based. They all need to be true for GNM to be
true, so let's face it - GNM isn't.
Don't take my word for it though. Do some research into GNM and find
out for yourself. Maybe Tristan can help with some of your questions,
and maybe I can as well.
John
Ashley L
understand it but other people did this somehow makes me insane."
"If that isn’t what you are saying could you explain exactly what the
point of that spiel was? "
clearly not in possession of all of their mental faculties and aside
from Greg you are the only one here who ever understands what you're
saying. Do you see where I'm going with this?
"Of course, even if you were shown examples of this, you might argue
(quite reasonably) that there are too many confounders for it to be
considered persuasive. "
"Exactly. You think we should always just default to whatever is most
popular. "
solid evidence.
"According to you they should only do so if somebody simultaneously
comes up with a flawless alternative theory. "
to further investigate your own theory, Punter, not abandon it
entirely because it is imperfect. Indeed, if we did have a perfect
scientific theory of all things we would very likely not be having
this discussion.
"Not necessary. A single observation of the germ theory in action
would
be fine. "
"And correct me if I am wrong but aren’t you legitimising your belief
in the germ theory by attacking the GNM? Wasn’t that precisely your
point when you claimed that to falsify the germ theory you have to
come up with a
superior alternative? "
sensibilities, it's dangerous quackery and anyone espousing it is
likely to get someone hurt with absolutely no return to be found. By
falsify I assumed you meant abrogate, perhaps my assumption was in
error but I did think that was your point?
"Sounds great. Hundreds of pages of atheist smugness. "
"I assume it is because foreign proteins are just that - foreign.
Saline isn’t treated by the brain as such because otherwise the body
would be allergic to itself. "
and, even then, only most of the time. You know what it identifies as
"foreign"? EVERYTHING else. Synthetic saline is NEVER going to be
identical to the individual make-up of someone's blood plasma,
according the bodily will response. "Foreign" protein enters the body
and, yes, the blood stream, all the time. Foreign proteins not
immediately disassembled by metabolic processes are dealt with via an
immunological response.
"So they will stay until they have devoured an entire organ presumably
killing the person in the process. So how exactly would that enable
people to survive the microbial onslaught? "
an immune system. Immuno-surpressed people, for example, can't survive
the onslaught and have to be cocooned. You seem to think that human
survival is proof that germ theory must be incorrect but you also seem
to be quite oblivious to the fact that prior to the advent of modern
medicine and sanitation, a great number of humans didn't.
"So how do people recover from it? "
"In the meantime you are welcome to grab some of these artificially
strengthened germs and I will happily eat them. "
criminal.
"I suppose if the people targeted with the weapons believed that they
worked then they could go through a conflict shock as a result"
aerosolised (doable, very popular) then you wouldn't be aware, even
subconsciously, until the infectious agent began to exert influence
inside the body.
"But I wonder how it could be that you are not aware of the position
of the likes of Greg and me on the issue of small pox. "
"So much so that I wonder whether the whole small pox eradication is
nothing more than a change in definition. "
any other form of pox. This is factually incorrect. Similarly, Greg
implied that polio symptoms were clinically indistinguishable from DDT
poisoning, he was incorrect.
"You see my understanding of evolution was that it happened before I
was born and most mutations are harmful but some turned out to be
positive (in relation to the environment). But according to you we
each evolve spontaneously whenever the need arises. "
progress beyond one which fails to distinguish between micro- and
macro-scale evolution. Your argument is that humans couldn't possibly
survive the onslaught of bacterial exposure. My argument is the ONLY
reason humans have survived is because they developed, through
evolution with selection brought about by exposure, the ability to
limit and respond.
"I ask for an observation of HIV attacking and killing T-cells. ..."
No, punter, you're playing the shifting goal posts game, again. I
could spend an entire afternoon trolling through literature looking
for exactly what you just mentioned and you would shift the posts
again and say that it's all circumstantial because we can't watch them
do it in real time. It wouldn't matter WHAT evidence I provide you'd
contrive a new reason not to accept it and IF you couldn't find one
that was already pointed out to you in the body of the text you'd fall
back on the old "corrupt big pharma shills" ploy.
" I also use Homeopathy and have seen firsthand my son's Eczema
that covered most of his body disappear. "
else? and two: How can you be certain that the homeopathic preparation
contained what it says it contained on the bottle? Studies of CAM have
shown that they often contain significant quantities of synthetic
pharmacologies and specific studies of homeopathy have shown that they
frequently contain components they are said to, through succussion
(sp?) not supposed to contain?
>
> read more »
punter
I was not arguing that, you are mistaken.
"If that isn’t what you are saying could you explain exactly what the
point of that spiel was? "
You are willing to accept medical theories from someone who is quite
clearly not in possession of all of their mental faculties and aside
from Greg you are the only one here who ever understands what you're
saying. Do you see where I'm going with this? <
imply I am mentally unstable but not for me to turn the tables.
At any rate I don’t think you can see the asymmetry here. I get
everything you say. Indeed I have heard it all before - thousands of
times in fact. The only “fact” that any of you have provided that has
made me do any thinking is JC’s splenal TB. The problem is though that
whilst I would certainly expect an answer from Hamer on it (for all I
know he has one) it actually further undermines the germ theory. Why
is it so rare? If TB can attack any organ why is it that 75 per cent
of TB is pulmonary? What’s the reason for the discrepancy? Similarly
(although not specifically related to germ theory), why are only
something like 1 per cent of breast cancers suffered by men? JC would
look to that 1 per cent and say Aha! there is your falsification of
the GNM! Perhaps, but at least the GNM offers some sort of explanation
for the other 49 per cent.
I took your attempt to insult me and turned it around because it was
based on such an obviously faulty premise. And on a related note, I am
quite sure that you were the only person on the planet who saw my
reference to the Hamlet quote and thought to themselves “I wonder why
punter is accusing us of being in a conspiracy to murder a fictional
Danish person from hundreds of years ago?”
>"According to you they should only do so if somebody simultaneously comes up with a flawless alternative theory. " Understanding the criticisms in currently accepted theory drives you to further investigate your own theory, Punter, not abandon it entirely because it is imperfect. Indeed, if we did have a perfect scientific theory of all things we would very likely not be having this discussion. <
demands that I abandon it completely. At any rate, the germ theory’s
problems aren’t its imperfections. It is that is complete
contradictory nonsense that explains only a tiny fraction of the
observed phenomena (and even then not very well). The moment someone
suggested it, someone else should have piped up and said “But what
about the fact that doctors don’t die en masse as a result of being
around sick people all the time?” and that should have been the end of
it right then and there. Forget about ironing out imperfections. There
is no coming back from that. It really is that simple.
Oh of course! How silly of me. The one where they inferred that
anybody who got sick with vague unspecific symptoms must have been
recipients of a letter even when they weren’t? The one where those
suspected of having been in the vicinity of a letter which may or nor
may have contained anthrax spores were given drugs and/or a vaccine
that is deemed to be too dangerous for general consumption.
If I were charitable I might be prepared to describe that as moderate
circumstantial evidence.
>Nnnnot quite. The reason why I attack GNM is because, according to my sensibilities, it's dangerous quackery and anyone espousing it is likely to get someone hurt with absolutely no return to be found. By falsify I assumed you meant abrogate, perhaps my assumption was in error but I did think that was your point? <
experience Gasp! unnecessary counselling! On the other hand if
vaccines are useless and dangerous then trifling billions of people
have suffered death or injury for no apparent reason. Not to mention
the fact that Hamer has never forced his views upon anybody or
demanded hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer largesse be given
to him.
So yeah, you’re right. Clearly Hamer’s stance is the more dangerous if
it turns out to be wrong. Good thing you and JC are on the case. It
clearly has nothing to do with your desire to defend your own
interests.
>"Sounds great. Hundreds of pages of atheist smugness. "
I note that you didn't answer my point. <
"I assume it is because foreign proteins are just that - foreign.
Saline isn’t treated by the brain as such because otherwise the body
would be allergic to itself. " >
You know what the body doesn't identify as foreign, punter? Itself,
and, even then, only most of the time. You know what it identifies as
"foreign"? EVERYTHING else. Synthetic saline is NEVER going to be
identical to the individual make-up of someone's blood plasma,
according the bodily will response. "Foreign" protein enters the body
and, yes, the blood stream, all the time. Foreign proteins not
immediately disassembled by metabolic processes are dealt with via an
immunological response. <
exact opposite and that saline was completely harmless because it IS
the same as what is already in our bodies.
http://avn.org.au/nocompulsoryvaccination/?p=1096&cpage=3#comment-7461.
You know it is very hard for us mere mortals to follow the voices of
authority (and rest assured BB thinks he is an authority) when you
keep on giving us contrary and contradictory advice.
So if I were you I would steer clear of Bill Bibb – lest you embarrass
yourself.
At any rate there are three options here:
1) Saline – and everything else when it is injected into you – poses
significant dangers. In this case you should stop worrying about us
and start going around to all the doctors etc and tell them to stop
all such activities.
2) Saline is harmless – or at least much more harmless than say
foreign proteins or metals etc – in which case we can safely say that
practically all the vaccine testing that has been done is a)
fraudulent and b) a case of deliberately causing grievous bodily harm
against the subjects and all those involved should go to jail.
3) Saline and aluminium, foreign proteins etc are more or less equally
harmless in which case why bother with the current testing
methodology? Not only would it be easier to make actual conclusions
but using saline as the control would actually be cheaper and what’s
more deranged conspiracy theorists such as myself wouldn’t have
anything to latch onto when we explain to laypeople why the testing
proves nothing. Win. Win. Win.
>It doesn't? People survive the microbial onslaught because they have an immune system. Immuno-surpressed people, for example, can't survive the onslaught and have to be cocooned. You seem to think that human survival is proof that germ theory must be incorrect but you also seem to be quite oblivious to the fact that prior to the advent of modern medicine and sanitation, a great number of humans didn't. <
prime candidates for Kaposi’s Sarcoma? They have suppressed immune
systems just like AIDS patients right? So shouldn’t they come down
with all the so-called AIDS signature diseases like KS?
At any rate your answer is meaningless. Humans survived as did other
animals all this time despite the fact that according to the germ
theory once you are infected you must be weaker (ie your immune
system). This allegedly makes you more susceptible to other diseases
so nobody would ever survive any sickness – regardless of
vaccinations. But I am pretty sure that most people do survive most
sicknesses. At least that is what I observe. Of course I have no fancy
statistics to back me up so you would probably think it wrong.
Like I said before, people have these germs on them all the time.
Allegedly our immune systems keep them in bay most of the time but
obviously if our immune system was weakened or fighting hard against a
successful pathogen then those germs would presumably use that
opportunity (using lots of anthropomorphisms here) to launch their
attack. So even if you kept sick people in isolation it wouldn’t do
any good let alone the fact that sick people are often up and about
anyway.
<"In the meantime you are welcome to grab some of these artificially
strengthened germs and I will happily eat them.
"I have said, time and time again, that what you have suggested is
criminal. >
or not I genuinely believe the germ theory is wrong.
And why is it criminal to give someone small pox but injecting
aluminium into someone is perfectly fine? If I walked up to someone
and injected them with aluminium against their consent wouldn’t I go
to prison? But apparently if I do it while wearing a white coat then
all of a sudden the action becomes “Science”.
>"I suppose if the people targeted with the weapons believed that they worked then they could go through a conflict shock as a result" But punter, if the pathogen was in your water supply (doable) or aerosolised (doable, very popular) then you wouldn't be aware, even subconsciously, until the infectious agent began to exert influence inside the body. <
of the attack then there would be no conflict-shock and Hamer’s
explanation wouldn’t apply. On an unrelated note – did you notice that
the sky is blue?
>"But I wonder how it could be that you are not aware of the position of the likes of Greg and me on the issue of small pox. " I've seen Greg's argument. I'm not buying it. It's a VERY poor one. <
<"So much so that I wonder whether the whole small pox eradication is
nothing more than a change in definition. "
See, this implies that smallpox is clinically indistinguishable from
any other form of pox. This is factually incorrect. Similarly, Greg
implied that polio symptoms were clinically indistinguishable from DDT
poisoning, he was incorrect. >
would be aware of our counter point to this retort but I have learnt
to never assume anything when it comes to you. So I will give it
anyway:
Firstly, the variola virus has never been isolated and demonstrated to
be the cause of small pox. Secondly, whatever technology we use today
(even assuming it actually says anything remotely useful) certainly
wasn’t available 200 years ago. Thirdly, diagnostic criteria is not
consistently applied, not now and certainly not 200 years ago.
Therefore, all the time series data is highly suspect. Therefore the
fact that chicken pox has mysteriously metamorphosed from being
completely harmless to a killer at the exact same time as small pox
has apparently disappeared from the earth has a particularly strong
resonance with those of us who prefer to understand rather than
trust.
<"You see my understanding of evolution was that it happened before I
was born and most mutations are harmful but some turned out to be
positive (in relation to the environment). But according to you we
each evolve spontaneously whenever the need arises. "
Then it would appear that your understanding of evolution doesn't
progress beyond one which fails to distinguish between micro- and
macro-scale evolution. Your argument is that humans couldn't possibly
survive the onslaught of bacterial exposure. My argument is the ONLY
reason humans have survived is because they developed, through
evolution with selection brought about by exposure, the ability to
limit and respond. >
(which the skeptics – by sheer coincidence – always seem to be)?
Whenever someone points out the flaws in the logic of the status quo
you can always tell them it is because they just don’t understand it
in all its glory and complexity. It is all in the scriptures you see.
Didn't you know that the Lord Science works in mysterious ways?
According to the microbe hunting crowd these pathogenic germs are
mutating all the time hence the need for a different flu vaccine each
year (or it could just be a good money maker (oh wait that’s a
conspiracy, scientists aren’t motivated by money or ego just their
love of human life – and bunnies)) so how could humans mutate fast
enough to combat it? Are you saying that humans can mutate even when
they are just going about their everyday business? That I could wake
up tomorrow and be an X-Man? I call Magneto.
>"I ask for an observation of HIV attacking and killing T-cells. ..."
No, punter, you're playing the shifting goal posts game, again. I
could spend an entire afternoon trolling through literature looking
for exactly what you just mentioned and you would shift the posts
again and say that it's all circumstantial because we can't watch them
do it in real time. It wouldn't matter WHAT evidence I provide you'd
contrive a new reason not to accept it and IF you couldn't find one
that was already pointed out to you in the body of the text you'd fall
back on the old "corrupt big pharma shills" ploy. <
I always asked for that observation. Indeed that is precisely the
quote that your initial response was made to. I will repeat it all
here from your post on Dec 18 12 am.
<Me: "Is it as certain as the notion that HIV attacks and kills T-
cells? "
Your response: Notion? You imply that there is uncertainty? We can
this out? Perhaps that was for polio. >
fact that you provided a reference that you either hadn’t read or
understood you fabricate a tale about me shifting goal posts. You WERE
absolutely certain the paper showed exactly what I asked for – people
observing HIV attacking and killing T-cells in real time. But you were
in error. No big deal. You can’t provide something that doesn’t exist
and like all Skeptics your beliefs are predicated on faith but it is
better to show some class and either admit it or just move on rather
than try and concoct some story to make this all my fault for being a
conspiracy theorist.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
JC
It almost looks as if you're starting to think things through! Just a
few things... it's called "splenic" TB, not splenal. Unfortunately,
it does nothing to undermine the germ theory as you would so love to
believe. TB prefers an aerobic environment, to it therefore has a
predilection for the lungs - the apices in particular. If you'd done
some research, or even some basic reading like I've referred you to
many times in the past, you would know this. So that's one of the
reasons why TB most commonly occurs in the lungs. It's also probably
related to the way it's transmitted - through aerosol spread to the
lungs.
"why are only something like 1 per cent of breast cancers suffered by
men? JC would look to that 1 per cent and say Aha! there is your
falsification of the GNM! Perhaps, but at least the GNM offers some
wondering why only 1% of breast cancers occur in men? You're really
asking that? Ask yourself this punter; how many men have breast
tissue? I can assure you it has nothing at all to do with GNM. You
really need to take a break from GNM for a while, and perhaps this
debate site Tristan - it's not helping you at all by trying to throw
GNM around. It's rather embarrassing.
"He sees what he thinks is a flaw in the GNM and demands that I
is false, then they all are. It's your GNM punter, not mine, but it
is one of my minor roles to show GNM for what it is - a croc of
manure. You have yet to produce ANYTHING to substantiate GNM by the
way. Don't you think it's rather peculiar that the absence of proof
for anything to do with GNM doesn't seem to worry you? I realise
you've had a little break, but to come back and still be supporting
GNM is just such a shame.
"If Hamer is wrong then hundreds of people have had to experience
forgone treatments and cures for diseases in the hope that GNM may
have cured them, which of course, it hasn't. It's not that trivial
Tristan.
Unfortunately, the rest of your post just goes on with your simplistic
version of the germ theory that is so easy to debunk even you could do
it. Unfortunately, your version of the germ theory is not even close
to reality, so it's no great concern. Let me tell you about the "fuel
theory". You proposed it, after all. It states that all cars need
fuel to run. It's observable by most and most would agree with it.
Sounds good. Yet it doesn't explain why cars break down when they
blow a gasket or break a crankshaft. So then it's quite easy for you
to say "look! the fuel theory is wrong" and into it's place you
substitute some mystical fantasy by a delusional character called
Hamer. Mechanics, of course, try and tell you the reasons why the
cars break down, but you don't listen to them, you don't do any
reading and you stick to your fallacious argument. Your simplistic
fuel theory is as good as your simplistic germ theory.
Go do some reading punter. It'll do you the world of good.
John
punter
>predilection for the lungs - the apices in particular.
environments and there are plenty of aerobic environments in which it
is rarely found - the mouth/nose for instance.>
Sorry. I meant to say "That's an assumption not an observation (that
TB's preference is for any aerobic environment)." Clearly it was an
explanation - albeit not a very good one.
On Jan 6, 6:31 am, punter <tristanwe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I think what you are trying to argue here is that because you didn’t understand it but other people did this somehow makes me insane."
>
> I was not arguing that, you are mistaken.
>
> "If that isn’t what you are saying could you explain exactly what the
> point of that spiel was? "
>
> You are willing to accept medical theories from someone who is quite
> clearly not in possession of all of their mental faculties and aside
> from Greg you are the only one here who ever understands what you're
> saying. Do you see where I'm going with this? <
>
JC
That was a short reply. Are you starting perhaps to think about
dumping GNM? Maybe you could do a little research of your own instead
of expecting the world to lay it down at your feet. Read about TB,
read about what is known about it, and find out some answers for
yourself. You'll find a whole lot more answers than GNM will ever
supply you with! Why TB goes where is does is a complex issue, and
much research has gone into it. I simply gave you a 5 second
explanation. Like I've suggested many many times before - go do some
reading! Robbins would be a start.
John
Ashley L
imply I am mentally unstable but not for me to turn the tables. "
the quoted text, I was not arguing that.
"At any rate I don’t think you can see the asymmetry here. I get
everything you say. Indeed I have heard it all before - thousands of
times in fact. "
not to respond to them. How curious.
"Why is it so rare? If TB can attack any organ why is it that 75 per
cent of TB is pulmonary? What’s the reason for the discrepancy?"
is more efficient at attacking lung tissue? Relevant literature is
available. (http://thorax.bmj.com/content/58/3/246.full) Out of
interest, when you come up with these "questions" do you even try to
figure out if someone has an answer or do you just reason: I haven't
been given an answer yet so Germ Theory is inadequate. It seems to me
that the latter is most likely.
"Similarly (although not specifically related to germ theory), why are
only something like 1 per cent of breast cancers suffered by men?"
what's literally right in front of your face? Just in case you're not:
http://bit.ly/ayq2S6
"JC would look to that 1 per cent and say Aha! there is your
falsification of the GNM! Perhaps, but at least the GNM offers some
sort of explanation for the other 49 per cent. "
JC will look at that and wonder to himself: Is this guy serious or is
he the consummate troll engaged in what could possibly be the greatest
Poe of all time.
"I took your attempt to insult me and turned it around because it was
based on such an obviously faulty premise."
you, I can assure you, my premise was quite sound, Hamer is, and was
at the time he posited the fundamentals of GNM, quite deranged.
"And on a related note, I am quite sure that you were the only person
on the planet who saw my reference to the Hamlet quote and thought to
themselves "
you were misquoting Hamlet. What you were quoting, however, was a
series of american television shows that have misquoted Shakespeare.
"“I wonder why punter is accusing us of being in a conspiracy to
murder a fictional Danish person from hundreds of years ago?” "
after I called you out for misquoting literature.
"Tell that to JC"
I already have, Punter, JC reads my posts too.
"He sees what he thinks is a flaw in the GNM and demands that I
abandon it completely."
intellectual dishonesty.
"The moment someone suggested it, someone else should have piped up
and said “But what about the fact that doctors don’t die en masse as a
result of being around sick people all the time?” and that should have
been the end of it right then and there. "
is, some sort of occupational hazard specific to that industry. I
wonder if there's some sort of Office of Health and Safety. I wonder,
if, maybe, this office is aware of healthcare workers? You reckon they
might study occupation hazards of healthcare workers? You reckon they
even have a specific search term for it? Do you reckon it might be:
NIOSHTIC-2?
http://bit.ly/zAuUo0
I wonder, sometimes, do you think you have some insight that isn't
possessed by the public at large?
"There is no coming back from that. It really is that simple. "
"The one where those suspected of having been in the vicinity of a
letter which may or nor may have contained anthrax spores were given
drugs and/or a vaccine that is deemed to be too dangerous for general
consumption. "
scheduling the anthrax vaccine has more to do with the fact that
naturally occurring anthrax isn't terribly mobile, weaponised anthrax
isn't sufficiently available to make it economically viable in terms
of reduced morbidity. This is especially so considering the "dangers"
of the vaccine are only evident to readers of mercola, people who read
raw VAERS reports and not the FDA who review the clinical trials.
"If I were charitable I might be prepared to describe that as moderate
circumstantial evidence. "
person. It is an historically accepted virtue, after all.
". If Hamer is wrong then hundreds of people have had to experience
Gasp! unnecessary counselling! "
technique to "allopathic" (I have no idea what that even means but
that IS what you call it, isn't it?) treatment. Despite your self
professed expertise in Hamerism you are incorrect. Hamer advocates
that traditional chemotherapy is a jewish conspiracy and that it is
deleterious to the healing process, thus Hamer treatment is carried
out at the exclusion of traditional patients. If Hamer is wrong then
these patients lose vital treatment time and will suffer in depths
neither you nor I can comprehend in the absence of pain management,
which Hamer also disparages.
"On the other hand if vaccines are useless and dangerous then trifling
billions of people have suffered death or injury for no apparent
reason"
Punter. Furthermore, again, you have fallen into your bad habit and
engaged in the tu quoquoe fallacy "vaccines are useless" doesn't
validate German New Medicine.
"Good thing you and JC are on the case. It clearly has nothing to do
with your desire to defend your own interests. "
investments in either the pharmaceutical or insurance industries. It
is possible that the company that holds my superannuation in trust may
have investments in publicly listed companies engaged in this trade
however those are fiduciary assets over which I have no discretion. My
own research is, to the best of my knowledge, which is of the most
expert level, not applicable in a medical context.
"Interesting that you say that. Bill Bibb on the AVN site said the
exact opposite and that saline was completely harmless because it IS
the same as what is already in our bodies. "
"Bill Bibb on the AVN site said" and, aside from an appeal to an
authority, that you don't believe in, it's not remotely a viable
counter argument to what I said given that you're quoting him out of
context. You want to take a bet with me that if I had a chat with Bill
he'd agree with me and not you?
Did you not realise that your counter argument is essentially Bill
disagrees with you so nyah. I'm not talking to Bill, I'm talking to
you.
"(and rest assured BB thinks he is an authority"
demonstrable authority, not a self-appointed one.
http://1.usa.gov/A9giZv
"At any rate there are three options here: "
write history and tell me what my argument was. Huzzah.
"1) Saline – and everything else when it is injected into you – poses
significant dangers"
"In this case you should stop worrying about us and start going around
to all the doctors etc and tell them to stop all such activities. "
firm grasp of the following: The Dose Makes The Poison.
"Not only would it be easier to make actual conclusions but using
saline as the control would actually be cheaper and what’s more
deranged conspiracy theorists such as myself wouldn’t have anything to
latch onto when we explain to laypeople why the testing proves
nothing. "
. What is that? Study 18? (d) Placebo = saline placebo. A clinical
trial with a saline placebo? Your so-called "true-placebo"? But that
didn't happen. Right? Here's your good friend Meryl, making
demonstrably false claims: http://bit.ly/xiBFEX . You, Meryl and every
other person (look at them all: http://bit.ly/znNi0d) who made the
"true placebo" argument (which is a poor academic argument at any
rate) has been perpetuating a falsehood. Through your own wilful
ignorance you have made obvious your own willingness to perpetuate
said falsehood.
Here's what happened, near as I can tell, one anti-vaxxer read one
document that mentioned that the placebo was an injection sans
antigen. That anti-vaxxer found this objectionable and began to
perpetuate the notion that the HPV vaccine was never tested against a
saline placebo. This idea spread like wildfire.
NONE of you, not one, EVER thought to look for it. I would bet, if I
had access to the master files of the FDA submission for EVERY vaccine
approval I'd find the something simliar in each and every one, despite
technically being superfluous, and NONE OF YOU have ever bothered to
LOOK. As a group, you simply make your fallacious claims and
perpetuate them ad nauseum until someone who actually knows what
they're talking about pulls you up on them.
Fun facts that are true: trials presented in scientific literature,
aren't typically presented as safety trials.
"They have suppressed immune systems just like AIDS patients right?"
immunosurpression has a nondescript clinical presentation in all
cases. Extending your logic "broken bone" would mean that every
presentation would be exactly the same.
"So shouldn’t they come down with all the so-called AIDS signature
diseases like KS? "
Seriously, next time you come up with one these "arguments", at least
go to the trouble of googling it. Your academic apathy appears to be
at an all-time apex. All you seem to be proving with these arguments
is your inability to critically examine the basis of your own
argumentation.
"At any rate your answer is meaningless."
"Like I said before, people have these germs on them all the time. "
the ONLY person that thinks that germ theory implies that we live in
some sort of ubiquitous deadly germ soup.
"Allegedly our immune systems keep them in bay most of the time but
obviously if our immune system was weakened or fighting hard against a
successful pathogen then those germs would presumably use that
opportunity"
I have honestly come to suspect that you are being deliberately
ignorant in order to troll me for your amusement. I find this
reprehensible and not at all in the spirit of this debate.
"So even if you kept sick people in isolation it wouldn’t do any good
let alone the fact that sick people are often up and about anyway. "
theory postulates that every known pathogen is ebola-esque.
"And why is it criminal to give someone small pox but injecting
“Science”. "
explanation for why someone would think those two things are
comparable AND it explains the histrionics in the second part quoted.
"I am going to go out on a limb here and say that if you are not aware
of the attack then there would be no conflict-shock and Hamer’s
explanation wouldn’t apply. "
How VERY convenient for you.
"On an unrelated note – did you notice that the sky is blue? "
punter
correction to a post which doesn't exist. Not that you want it but I
will try and reproduce it again.
>TB prefers an aerobic environment, to it therefore has a
>predilection for the lungs - the apices in particular.
supposedly transmitted in an aerosol manner. So your explanation -
brief or not - makes no sense. If you know your explanation clearly
doesn't make any sense (and it doesn't) because – apparently – it is
so brief why provide it? Why not just say you don't know.
Again, laws or not, I prefer Hamer's attempt to explain the 99 per
cent rather than the 0 per cent. But by all means concentrate on the 1
per cent that Hamer's theory (ostensibly) can't explain despite the
fact that your germ theory can't either. I have no problem
concentrating on what makes the germ theory wrong rather than what
makes the GNM right.
As for breast tissue being the determinant of how likely it is to get
breast cancer that is a good one JC! So you are saying that women with
say 2kg of breast tissue must have a 2x greater likelihood of
developing breast cancer than women with 1kg of breast tissue? Now I
know you absolutely hate it when people make assertions sans evidence
so I assume you will have no trouble whatsoever giving me the
reference for that. Incidentally I have seen a few papers which have
looked at this but none that have found a particularly significant
change and certainly not an obvious linear trend (eg http://www.jstor.org/pss/3552844).
So there you go I did some reading! Just like you told me to.
As for your fuel analogy I have to admit it is remarkably germane,
there are a few minor points I would like to make though if I may.
1) Fuel is NECESSARY (albeit not sufficient) for internal combustion
engines to run. Germs are NEITHER necessary nor sufficient for
disease.
2) If I asked a mechanic/engineer how an internal combustion engine
runs I am quite sure they would appreciate me taking an interest and
be only too happy to provide it for me. Not for them the “Bugger off
punter! Don’t you know it is all in a textbook! I can’t believe you
would demonstrate such ignorance by asking such a question!”
explanations that seems to be so beloved of the medical world.
3) That mechanic would be able to give me a completely detailed
account of how it actually worked and wouldn’t have to constantly
resort to saying: “I don’t know but I am sure the explanation is
around somewhere” or “we don’t know everything about how the ICE works
but we are absolutely certain that the dirty great flaws in the logic
of it are nothing more than minor gaps in our knowledge which believe
you me, will be completely sorted out with the next tranche of a few
hundred billion dollars of taxpayers money”.
4) It is possible to see fuel burn – even in an engine. Nobody has
ever seen germs strut their stuff in the manner hypothesized by the
germ theorists.
5) If mechanics/engineers were wrong about their engine building
theory then clearly they would have a very difficult time building one
that would actually work. Doctors cannot directly observe the
correctness of their disease theories. They don’t inject a bunch of
poisons into a child and see a neon sign flash on the child’s forehead
saying “No Polio Here”. They observe very little. They simply assume
that the epidemiologists know what they are doing when they collect
data from other doctors who themselves observe very little.
So if you take away the fact that your ‘fuel theory’ example is
completely different in every material way to the germ theory then you
have yourself one hell of a powerful analogy. Bravo!
punter
is more efficient at attacking lung tissue? Relevant literature is
available. (http://thorax.bmj.com/content/58/3/246.full) Out of
interest, when you come up with these "questions" do you even try to
figure out if someone has an answer or do you just reason: I haven't
been given an answer yet so Germ Theory is inadequate. It seems to me
that the latter is most likely. >
That settles it then. The reference provided nothing either – except
to say that TB does what it does because it does it.
>"Similarly (although not specifically related to germ theory), why are
only something like 1 per cent of breast cancers suffered by men?"
Honestly? Is this a poe? You MUST be pretending to be ignorant of
what's literally right in front of your face? Just in case you're
not:
http://bit.ly/ayq2S6 <
growth which can lead to cancer whereas male hormones don’t lead to
cell growth and hence cancer. Good one. So clearly, cancer is much
rarer in men right? Oh wait it's not. And obviously post-menopausal
women would hardly ever get breast cancer right? Oops. And cancer
would only occur in organs where tissue growth has been rapid right?
You see you've just provided a concentric circle. There is no point
giving me an explanation for one phenomena that only leads to more
explanations being needed. In this case quite a lot more explanations.
>Actually, you weren't quoting Hamlet, as I quite clearly pointed out
you were misquoting Hamlet. What you were quoting, however, was a
series of american television shows that have misquoted Shakespeare.
"“I wonder why punter is accusing us of being in a conspiracy to
murder a fictional Danish person from hundreds of years ago?” "
Actually, it was you that insinuated that in an attempt to be pithy
after I called you out for misquoting literature. >
understand most of what I’ve written and you can’t remember most of
what you’ve written. You were the one that insinuated originally that
I was engaging in a conspiracy theory when I made that quote. I added
on the bit about a fictional Danish person in order to highlight the
fact that your misunderstanding was so outrageously random. I would
have thought a normal person would have been embarrassed into silence
after having understood what the author truly meant (maybe as a
relativist you have been reading too much Levi-Strauss) and not bring
it up further. But for some unfathomable reason you kept on digging
even after you reached rock bottom. I would have been happy to let it
go – but you kept on demanding a shovel.
<It's almost like you're saying that, exposure to pathogenic
organisms
is, some sort of occupational hazard specific to that industry. I
wonder if there's some sort of Office of Health and Safety. I wonder,
if, maybe, this office is aware of healthcare workers? You reckon
they
might study occupation hazards of healthcare workers? You reckon they
even have a specific search term for it? Do you reckon it might be:
NIOSHTIC-2?
http://bit.ly/zAuUo0 >
changes everything. You must know me so well, because it is absolutely
impossible to provide me with a more persuasive argument for a theory
then by telling me that there is an entire bureaucracy devoted to it.
<I wonder, sometimes, do you think you have some insight that isn't
possessed by the public at large? >
everyone around me would rather listen to the siren song of authority.
That is my talent. Of course if you are generally inclined to side
with authorities you will see such people and dismiss them as deranged
conspiracy theorists. That is precisely why it is a talent you see.
Observing the bleeding obvious is easy – obviously – being the only
guy in the room willing to point it out is not.
<"There is no coming back from that. It really is that simple. "
Well, if you say so who am I to disagree? >
bleeding obvious over authority. That the germ theory is wrong is the
bleeding obvious. Pretty simple really. I know that when I ask
laypeople why doctors don’t get sick all the time they find the
question extremely disconcerting because as much as they are naturally
inclined to follow the authorities they can’t for the life of them get
their heads around that fact either. Nobody can. It is completely
inexplicable. The difference is that whereas most people have the
ability to push such thoughts to the back of their minds and console
themselves that someone, somewhere must have a good explanation for it
I simply can’t do that.
>I'm disappointed, Punter, I'd have thought you were a charitable
person. It is an historically accepted virtue, after all. <
order for it to make sense I would have had to have previously made
the argument that all historically accepted virtues must be valid. But
I haven’t so it makes no sense and is therefore not funny. Keep trying
though. If you can find some way to sharpen your scalpel it will be so
much more effective than JC’s sledgehammer.
>In this you are implying that Hamer therapy is a complimentary
technique to "allopathic" (I have no idea what that even means but
that IS what you call it, isn't it?) treatment. Despite your self
professed expertise in Hamerism you are incorrect. <
reference that shows that I have made such a call? I have never met
him and I don’t speak German so that would probably not bode well for
me to claim such an expertise if I have. So if you can find this
reference I will humbly apologise for misleading people in this way.
And I am not implying that Hamer’s therapy is complementary (although
there are apparently some who incorporate his teachings who think
there is a place for it) see response below.
<Hamer advocates
that traditional chemotherapy is a jewish conspiracy and that it is
deleterious to the healing process, thus Hamer treatment is carried
out at the exclusion of traditional patients. If Hamer is wrong then
these patients lose vital treatment time and will suffer in depths
neither you nor I can comprehend in the absence of pain management,
which Hamer also disparages. >
doesn’t want it is a murderer? Congratulations! New Best. Argument.
Ever.
You make the absolutely preposterous assertion that the only reason
anybody could have not to take chemo is because they were brainwashed
by Hamer. Nothing to do with its side effects or questionable results
of course. It is remarkably telling that so many skeptics love this
argument as much as they seem to.
>Trifling billions? Histrionics have no place in scientific debate,
Punter. <
every vaccine presents some level of danger then clearly billions of
people have been injured. Some gravely, some not so.
>Furthermore, again, you have fallen into your bad habit and
engaged in the tu quoquoe fallacy "vaccines are useless" doesn't
validate German New Medicine.<
why this particularly person did it?
I’m sorry if I unfairly criticized your motives though. I assumed that
the research you did was medically related.
<Punter, frankly, as far as this argument goes I don't give a fig
what
"Bill Bibb on the AVN site said" and, aside from an appeal to an
authority, that you don't believe in, it's not remotely a viable
counter argument to what I said given that you're quoting him out of
context. You want to take a bet with me that if I had a chat with
Bill
he'd agree with me and not you? >
called group think for nothing. But it doesn’t alter what he actually
said – or meant – though. Nor does it show that I took him out of
context – which is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing you have
written since the Shakespeare thing (or at least it would have been if
not for calling everybody who ever walked on the face of this earth
murderers) considering I provided the full quote from him and the
thread – how on earth could I have possibly taken him out of context?
He said the exact opposite of what you have been arguing. Let me
repeat: The exact opposite.
>Did you not realise that your counter argument is essentially Bill
disagrees with you so nyah. I'm not talking to Bill, I'm talking to
you. >
Hence the “Interesting that you say that...” followed by “At any
rate...”.
<"(and rest assured BB thinks he is an authority"
Are your internet skills deficient? Unlike some, Bill IS a
demonstrable authority, not a self-appointed one.
http://1.usa.gov/A9giZv >
was just to ignore the whole Billl Bibb thing and go on to the next
point but for some reason you just couldn’t help yourself. Why?
>YES. How many times have you been told? THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON. >
vaccines – because they are generally injected rather than imbibed –
is, in fact, poisonous? That is the question that we pose and instead
of answering it you just come up with a completely obfuscatory and
banal statement that tells us nothing. Telling us the dose makes the
poison is completely useless information as it tells us nothing
whatsoever about whether vaccines are safe. Similarly, is the dose
that is provided in the so-called placebos in the clinical trials –
whatever it may be – safe?
>NONE of you, not one, EVER thought to look for it. I would bet, if I
had access to the master files of the FDA submission for EVERY
vaccine
approval I'd find the something simliar in each and every one,
despite
technically being superfluous, and NONE OF YOU have ever bothered to
LOOK. <
Not one hey?
http://avn.org.au/nocompulsoryvaccination/?p=1096&cpage=2#comments Go
to my comment down on August 18 2011 at 8:20am. Unfortunately for you
I have a much better memory of what I have written than you have of
what you have written. Here is my quote:
“Having said that I note that Gardasil had what Merck called a saline
placebo (it actually wasn’t but let’s play along) but they then mixed
the placebo group with the aluminium containing “control” group so
that you couldn’t tell which group suffered the most systemic side
effects. So that is an example where a (reportedly) saline placebo was
used for safety but the results were nonetheless fraudulent.”
So I was well aware that Merck did in fact use what they called a
saline placebo (my understanding is that it wasn’t actually pure
saline and I have seen nothing to dissuade me of that view – see the
end of that thread for further discussion). Now I should say – and
credit to BB he did actually provide an example where they used a
proper placebo (his words and mine) for a typhoid vaccine. The results
were still useless though as they only followed recipients up for 48
hours but credit where it’s due.
I can’t access your reference on KS and premature babies.
>Not all people have all germs. Seriously, you, and possibly Greg, are
the ONLY person that thinks that germ theory implies that we live in
some sort of ubiquitous deadly germ soup. <
think about the germ theory and not end it by saying “Oh well, I don’t
understand it but I’m sure someone else does.”
>Opportunistic infection. Well-document phenomenon. http://bit.ly/fjkrKP
I have honestly come to suspect that you are being deliberately
ignorant in order to troll me for your amusement. I find this
reprehensible and not at all in the spirit of this debate. <
in a theory that explains 0.1 per cent of phenomena than one that can
explain the other 99.9 per cent as well. I didn’t say that people who
get sick NEVER get something else as well – that would be ridiculous.
I said that if the germ theory were true then this would be the normal
experience – indeed it would be the only experience.
>Again, you are the only person here who seems to believe that germ
theory postulates that every known pathogen is ebola-esque. <
I am putting every other child in mortal danger. The old completely
impenetrable but extremely vulnerable immune system explanation so
beloved of JC strikes again.
>See, you must be trolling me because that's the only rational
explanation for why someone would think those two things are
comparable AND it explains the histrionics in the second part quoted.<
small pox (although injecting foreign proteins is often dangerous).
<"I am going to go out on a limb here and say that if you are not
aware
of the attack then there would be no conflict-shock and Hamer’s
explanation wouldn’t apply. "
Oh so German New Medicine only applies when it's readily explainable.
How VERY convenient for you. >
if you put your hand in a blender or drink a litre of arsenic. If you
don’t consciously experience an event then Hamer’s explanation won’t
apply to whatever made you sick. Hamer’s argument – right or wrong –
though is that aside from poisoning (and parasites?) all sickness is
related to a conflict shock. If you didn’t know there were a small
number of germs in your water and you got sick then whatever caused
you to get sick couldn’t have been the belief that you were the victim
of biological warfare. It could be an unrelated conflict-shock or it
could be because the germ theory is true or it could be something else
entirely, that is why I couldn’t grasp the point of the question as I
thought the answer was obvious but the argument a complete non-
sequitur. Maybe if you had an example whereby there was clearly no
conflict-shock involved and large numbers of people died after a
biological warfare program (which didn’t involve poisons) then it
would be a useful starting point.
Greg Beattie
. What is that? Study 18? (d) Placebo = saline placebo. A clinical
trial with a saline placebo? Your so-called "true-placebo"? But that
didn't happen. Right? Here's your good friend Meryl, making
demonstrably false claims: http://bit.ly/xiBFEX . You, Meryl and every
other person (look at them all: http://bit.ly/znNi0d) who made the
"true placebo" argument (which is a poor academic argument at any
rate) has been perpetuating a falsehood. Through your own wilful
ignorance you have made obvious your own willingness to perpetuate
said falsehood.
Here's what happened, near as I can tell, one anti-vaxxer read one
document that mentioned that the placebo was an injection sans
antigen. That anti-vaxxer found this objectionable and began to
perpetuate the notion that the HPV vaccine was never tested against a
saline placebo. This idea spread like wildfire.
NONE of you, not one, EVER thought to look for it. I would bet, if I
had access to the master files of the FDA submission for EVERY vaccine
approval I'd find the something simliar in each and every one, despite
technically being superfluous, and NONE OF YOU have ever bothered to
LOOK. As a group, you simply make your fallacious claims and
perpetuate them ad nauseum until someone who actually knows what
they're talking about pulls you up on them."<<
You really got yourself worked up over nothing. Apart from it being
discussed at the AVN blogs, as Punter told you, it was also discussed
on the AVN facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/avn.living.wisdom/posts/166181476798572
My comment on it was as follows (addressing the lady who presented it
there):
"There were several clinical trials mentioned, but only one of them
used a saline placebo. In fact, out of almost 30,000 participants,
fewer than 600 received saline. Had you read the document as closely
as you suggested to Tristan, you would have noticed that this very
small number weren't analysed for systemic or serious reactions (see
tables on pages 7-10), as Tristan said. They were simply blended in
with the much larger 'aluminium' group.... again, as he said.
On the other hand, they WERE considered separately in regard to minor
injection site reactions (pages 4 on) where it is very clear the
saline group fared much better than the other groups.... as you said,
and he said.
In regard to efficacy, NONE of the trials reported the vaccine's
capacity to reduce illness. They merely measured the detection of HPV
virus.... again, as he said.
In summary, I think Tristan's points about the Gardasil document are
correct. Whether you think he must necessarily be a conspiracy
theorist is irrelevant."
Why didn't you ask us first, Ashley? You would have saved yourself
some serious embarrassment.
Greg
On Jan 9, 10:59 am, Ashley L <lockeas...@gmail.com> wrote:
Ashley L
I note that when you paraphrased what was said you made a minor change
that completely changed the meaning of what was said. Furthermore,
it's not an assumption, IT IS an observation of anaerobic cultures.
Seriously, you seem to keep saying these things and not realising that
there's a difference between what ALL people know and what YOU know.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC347645/pdf/iai00150-0206.pdf
"It can exist in non-aerobic environments and there are plenty of
aerobic environments in which it is rarely found - the mouth/nose for
instance"
environment which is suitable and one which is ideal?
"So your explanation - brief or not - makes no sense. "
"I have no problem concentrating on what makes the germ theory wrong
rather than what makes the GNM right. "
wit, you cannot prove your theory right by proving that of someone
else is wrong, especially seeing as there are only two people here who
believe your germ theory postulates are adequate.
"As for breast tissue being the determinant of how likely it is to get
breast cancer that is a good one JC! So you are saying that women with
say 2kg of breast tissue must have a 2x greater likelihood of
developing breast cancer than women with 1kg of breast tissue?"
pretended that was his argument in the first place. It's a really good
way to make a convincing argument and ensure that you aren't perceived
in a poor fashion by your opposition.
"So there you go I did some reading! Just like you told me to. "
of reading prescribed by John instead of finding articles which you
believe support your pre-existing opinions. Opinions which, I should
point out, people with expertise in their relative fields have found
grossly inadequate.
"Not for them the “Bugger off punter! Don’t you know it is all in a
textbook! I can’t believe you would demonstrate such ignorance by
asking such a question!” explanations that seems to be so beloved of
the medical world. "
reason than to fob you off. There is a pervasive attitude that nuance
is entirely irrelevant semantics. I assure you, this is not the case.
"4) It is possible to see fuel burn – even in an engine. Nobody
has
ever seen germs strut their stuff in the manner hypothesized by the
germ theorists. "
Because the mechanism of something has not been completely elucidated
does not mean that the something does not have the cause and effect
described. By your reckoning a number of novel catalysts don't
actually have the effects they have been documented to have because
their transitional states have not been discovered.
"“we don’t know everything about how the ICE works but we are
absolutely certain that the dirty great flaws in the logic of it are
nothing more than minor gaps in our knowledge which believe you me,
will be completely sorted out with the next tranche of a few hundred
billion dollars of taxpayers money”. "
actually has erudite knowledge in this field knows that we're still
discovering new phases of ice.
http://militzer.berkeley.edu/papers/ice26.pdf
I know that you meant the internal combustion engine but my point
stands: Because the lay person thinks that something is simple and
fully understood does not make it so.
I could be mistaken, but it seems to me that you mistake your
understanding of physical phenomena with the greater understanding of
all humanity. To wit, just because you don't know things doesn't mean
that someone doesn't know them and because someone here is either
unwilling or unable to provide them to you, once again, doesn't mean
that they are outside of the greater understanding of humanity.
"Oh sorry. I didn’t realise it was due to its specific composition.
That settles it then. The reference provided nothing either – except
to say that TB does what it does because it does it. "
and not other things? Why does TB prefer aeorobic environments?
Because it evolved to be that way. Why did it evolve that way? Because
of a natural confluence of physical forces. Why are physical forces?
Well, now you're in the realm of philosophers.
"So clearly, cancer is much rarer in men right? Oh wait it's not"
in men. See, you take a simple answer, given to you to answer a simple
question and assume that it represents the entirety of human
understanding of cancer, at the very least JC's understanding of
cancer. Then, you have the hide to insinuate that because someone
won't give you the entire understanding possessed by humanity, or even
their own, that the answer is somewhat deficient. Either that or
you're being a disingenuous troll for your own amusement. I remain
uncertain on that point.
"There is no point giving me an explanation for one phenomena that
only leads to more explanations being needed. In this case quite a lot
more explanations. "
readily distilled into a couple of simple laws.
"I have to say that arguing with you is so much fun because you can’t
understand most of what I’ve written and you can’t remember most of
what you’ve written. "
you're saying and neither myself, nor John, nor Katie, nor mtp (etc)
do, then is it really my failing?
"You were the one that insinuated originally that I was engaging in a
conspiracy theory when I made that quote."
hardly responsible for the the fact that I get my references from
appreciating sonnets and you get your literature references from
poorly written american television shows. I had, and continue to have,
a good faith belief that you believe in what are demonstrably
conspiracy theories. That you were not referring to one at this time
was a miscommunication caused by a variance in discourse.
"I would have thought a normal person would have been embarrassed into
silence after having understood what the author truly meant (maybe as
a relativist you have been reading too much Levi-Strauss) and not
bring it up further."
Though, indeed, why I bother is a mystery even to me.
"You must know me so well, because it is absolutely impossible to
provide me with a more persuasive argument for a theory then by
telling me that there is an entire bureaucracy devoted to it. "
on the exact topic you were referring to and you dismiss it, why? It
is demonstrated fact that healthcare workers ARE exposed to pathogens
and that their response and exposure is worthy of study. But for you,
the fact that a government department studies is enough to dismiss it?
"I am unbelievably good at pointing out the bleeding obvious when
everyone around me would rather listen to the siren song of authority.
"
case?
"That is my talent."
That's certainly one word for it.
"That is precisely why it is a talent you see Observing the bleeding
to point it out is not."
hardly prove what exists in the minds of others. This is, in and of
itself, quite interesting. Don't you think?
"I don’t really care what you agree or disagree with."
way you do.
"I know that when I ask laypeople why doctors don’t get sick all the
time they find the question extremely disconcerting because as much as
they are naturally inclined to follow the authorities they can’t for
the life of them get their heads around that fact either."
temperature when you're in the doctor's office? Do you chart their
sick days? Do you check their white cell counts? How do you know that
they don't have acquired immunity greater than the public due to their
constant exposure? You don't know any of those things, do you? You
take a hole which you can't fill, assume there is no filling for the
hole, and then predicate an argument on what you don't know. You
postulate from a LACK of information.
"The difference is that whereas most people have the ability to push
such thoughts to the back of their minds and console themselves that
someone, somewhere must have a good explanation for it I simply can’t
do that. "
breach.
"Is this another attempt at wit?"
"Another helpful lesson for you, in order for it to make sense I would
have had to have previously made the argument that all historically
accepted virtues must be valid."
"But I haven’t so it makes no sense and is therefore not funny. "
Does that mean he's not funny? I think he's funny. No accounting for
taste, I suppose.
"Right. So everybody who doesn’t give medical treatment to anybody who
doesn’t want it is a murderer?"
offer an interesting insight into the mind of a patient to whom failed
exclusive treatment was recommended. I see a lot of similarities
between Francine Scrayen and Hamer.
"You make the absolutely preposterous assertion that the only reason
anybody could have not to take chemo is because they were brainwashed
by Hamer. "
opinions, as I have pointed out: you are terrible at it.
"How many children have been vaccinated? If, like me, you think that
every vaccine presents some level of danger then clearly billions of
people have been injured. Some gravely, some not so. "
reality. Here is a genuine snippet of "skeptic logic": you're entitled
to your own opinion, not your own facts.
"Ummm, do you not know who created this thread – and do you not know
why this particularly person did it? "
don't believe he is, your argumentation is not legitimised. Two wrongs
do not make a right.
"Actually I don’t doubt for a second he would agree with you. It isn’t
called group think for nothing."
sake of forming a group with me, ostensibly against you? That is a
rather elaborate point of view.
"Que? Why can’t you leave things like this be? Surely your best option
was just to ignore the whole Billl Bibb thing and go on to the next
point but for some reason you just couldn’t help yourself. Why? "
definition of the word inert was demonstrably incorrect, not shared by
anyone with practical experience in chemistry, and inapplicable in the
given context. The arbitrary definition for "inert" to fulfil the
criteria of "true placebo" according to punter describes something
that is completely biologically inactive and assuredly, no such thing
exists.
I tried to explain to you that the salt matrix which composes saline
is not exactly biologically identical to everybody's whole blood or
even their plasma but is, in fact, a reasonable facsimile that will
illicit minimal biological response. Thus, saline does not fit the
punter definition of what constitutes a true placebo. Indeed, nothing
fits a plan text reading of your definition. If, however, you would
like to join me in the land of the grey, we could have meaningful
discussion.
"And how many times do you have to be told: What if the dose that is
in vaccines – because they are generally injected rather than imbibed
– is, in fact, poisonous? "
vaccines is not deleterious.
"but they then mixed the placebo group with the aluminium containing
“control” group so that you couldn’t tell which group suffered the
most systemic side effects. So that is an example where a (reportedly)
saline placebo was used for safety but the results were nonetheless
fraudulent.”
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/janak1.html ? If it was that, and I'm not
saying for sure that it was, but if it was that, good noodlyness, it
WAS that wasn't it? That's where this whole thing came from, isn't it?
One journalist's opinion on something they don't understand
substantiated by what their friends at school reckon? That accusation
is entirely baseless, moronic AND based in irrational, illogical
paranoia. But hey, you're the one that sees the obvious.
"I can’t access your reference on KS and premature babies. "
the discussion is actually about the occurrence of KS in ALL infant
patients, not just premature ones. The key factor, you will find, is
exposure from the maternal source. To wit, immunocompromised infants
cannot exhibit symptoms of a disease to which they have not had
exposure.
"Greg and I are amongst the few people to actually give a long hard
think about the germ theory and not end it by saying “Oh well, I don’t
understand it but I’m sure someone else does.” "
about germ theory? Good heavens, what do you think people did at the
time the theory was postulated? You've both expounded at length at the
recalcitrance of science towards adopting new theories, you think the
professoriate were MORE credulous in days gone by?
"I said that if the germ theory were true then this would be the
normal experience – indeed it would be the only experience. "
implies this?
"And yet, apparently you believe that if I don’t vaccinate my children
I am putting every other child in mortal danger. "
related to quoted text.
"No just being consistent."
That does not discount my troll theory.
"Maybe if you had an example whereby there was clearly no conflict-
shock involved and large numbers of people died after a biological
warfare program (which didn’t involve poisons) then it would be a
useful starting point."
individuals is IMPOSSIBLE to ascertain so, under GNM, there can be no
rational explanation for what causes diseases that "appear"
communicable or why biological weapons work.
> Que? Why can’t you leave things like this be? Surely your best option
> was just to ignore the whole Billl Bibb thing and go on to the next
> point but for some reason you just couldn’t help yourself. Why?
>
> >YES. How many times have you been told? THE DOSE MAKES THE POISON. >
>
> And how many times do you have to be told: What if the dose that is in
> vaccines – because they are generally injected rather than imbibed –
> is, in fact, poisonous? That is the question that we pose and instead
>
> read more »