Cancer/Infections and Iron relations? [Archive] - Page 2

MRC_Hans

23rd May 2005, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
If you are trying to say that Benveniste denounced Louis Rey's work on thermoluminescence then you better be prepared to show me where.

I think you are making it up. Besides, I now have evidence that supports his findings.

Certainly:

After his own experience, Benveniste advises caution. "This is interesting work, but Rey's experiments were not blinded and although he says the work is reproducible, he doesn't say how many experiments he did," he says. "As I know to my cost, this is such a controversial field, it is mandatory to be as foolproof as possible." From here (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3817)

Always glad to be of help :rolleyes:.

Hans

Olaf/QII

23rd May 2005, 07:35 AM

This is all rather strange as a lot of you are scientists and I would think that you would be fascinated with a new discovery.

The discovery that I am referring to is that water can be imprinted with information.

The evidence is irrefutable and eventually you will just have to accept it.

this evidence lays the foundation for why all the basophil/histamine experiments keep coming up so resoundingly positive in favor of ultra dilute solutions.

MRC_Hans

23rd May 2005, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Not sure. Might have been a stuck record?

Nothing to do with the subject of the thread, anyway.

Rolfe. It has nothing to do with the title of the thread, that's for sure. I don't know if anybody ever discovered what the subject was.

Hans

Donks

23rd May 2005, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
This is all rather strange as a lot of you are scientists and I would think that you would be fascinated with a new discovery.

The discovery that I am referring to is that water can be imprinted with information.

The evidence is irrefutable and eventually you will just have to accept it.

this evidence lays the foundation for why all the basophil/histamine experiments keep coming up so resoundingly positive in favor of ultra dilute solutions.
So present your evidence.

MRC_Hans

23rd May 2005, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
This is all rather strange as a lot of you are scientists and I would think that you would be fascinated with a new discovery.

*snip* We would, we would, sonny. Now, weren't you off to get some evidence? Ya know, we are NOT going to just take your word for this....

Hans

MRC_Hans

23rd May 2005, 07:41 AM

Mmm I'm beginning to think Nature abhorrs a vaccum of trolls. As soon as one burns out, another pops up.

Hans

Olaf/QII

23rd May 2005, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
We would, we would, sonny. Now, weren't you off to get some evidence? Ya know, we are NOT going to just take your word for this....

Hans

Yes, I am about to get the confirmation work that proves Louis Rey's Physica A paper of 2003.

Are you excited?

You will need to give me some time. i will also need to figure out how to present it since there is no copy of it other than in PDF format.

geni

23rd May 2005, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
hello guys, just want to warn you that I have uncovered a new batch of information to support the science of ultra dilute solutions.

One of them is from no other than Louis Rey himself. It seems that his work has been confirmed. Any hysterical shrieks of "CONTAMINATION" are now beyond ridiculous.

Prove it.

Olaf/QII

23rd May 2005, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by Donks
So present your evidence.

Believe me i will even though i know that you will cover your eyes and ears.

i am very curious as to what you will all have to say about this confirmation of his work.

Olaf/QII

23rd May 2005, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by geni
Prove it.

as you are one of the more hysterical and irrational ones around here that will be very difficult for you accept nothing that does not suit your bias.

Mojo

23rd May 2005, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
You will need to give me some time. i will also need to figure out how to present it since there is no copy of it other than in PDF format. If it's on the web, you could provide a link. If not, you could at least provide a reference so that people can look it up for themselves.

Donks

23rd May 2005, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
Believe me i will even though i know that you will cover your eyes and ears.
Post it so we can cover our eyes and ears and you can begin with the I-told-you-soes.

i am very curious as to what you will all have to say about this confirmation of his work.
Just as curious as me.

Goddoesnotplaydice

23rd May 2005, 07:53 AM

actually is was incorrect about the doctors subject matter, it is going to be about radio oblation.

so the corrective pH and bio energy excitation radio issues will have to wait until someone "other then a non degreed" person figures it out, or someone gets away from the academic circle of grant money long enough to figure it out on their own? I don't know. history is a broken record in this area.

Its really sad, we humans seem to typically perform destructive procedures before we even know how the whole system works.

You can't get away with that in electronics without wasting significant amounts of energy. this i learned early on in electrodynamics.

Its far easyer to bring the body and the environmental system into balance gradually instaed of using a brute force methodology. Typical human response is to "force" a system back into balance. It will usually fail!

gdnpd

Olaf/QII

23rd May 2005, 07:55 AM

Concerning Louis Rey's work on thermoluminescence, it was reported by his peers that it is "trustworthy physics". It was trustworthy then and it is trustworthy now.

You will need to be patient. I will be back in about 4 hours or so.

Mojo

23rd May 2005, 08:02 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
Concerning Louis Rey's work on thermoluminescence, it was reported by his peers that it is "trustworthy physics". It was trustworthy then and it is trustworthy now.

You will need to be patient. I will be back in about 4 hours or so. Well get on with it. It's now over half an hour since you said "--so i am now off to the research library," and you're still posting.

Badly Shaved Monkey

23rd May 2005, 08:03 AM

Fortunately, some of us know how to use Google better than Olaf

www.vhan.nl/documents/Rey.thermoluminescence.pdf

geni

23rd May 2005, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
as you are one of the more hysterical and irrational ones around here that will be very difficult for you accept nothing that does not suit your bias.

I just know a lot more about analyitical chemistry than you.

Badly Shaved Monkey

23rd May 2005, 08:15 AM

geni,

Have you had a look yet?

I'll leave it to Olaf to explain how all this matters when the water is dried onto a sugar tablet and when that sugar tablet fails to perform any better than a placebo in trial.

geni

23rd May 2005, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
geni,

Have you had a look yet?

I've seen it before. They can't rule out contamination and I don't trust Bioron.

Rolfe

23rd May 2005, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
I'll leave it to Olaf to explain how all this matters when the water is dried onto a sugar tablet and when that sugar tablet fails to perform any better than a placebo in trial. Well, that's sort of the point, isn't it. We all know Xanta doesn't come here to discuss scientific knowledge for the sake of it. Her entire obsessed little life revolves around validating her belief that "homoeopathy works". So far, she's not doing noticeably better than the Pakistani contingent.

The work she's going on about seems a bit flaky to me, and I'd be surprised if it turned out to be anything really interesting. Much more likely to be contamination artefact. But whether or not that is the case, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with Hahnemann's practice of homoeopathy.

Even if homoeopaths did habitually use water to prepare their dilutions (which they don't, most use a water/alcohol mixture), and even if the did use the liquid dilution to dose the patients (which they mostly don't, preferring to use sugar pills), there's still the little problem of showing how these questionable and ephemeral findings could possibly affect the physiology of the body.

In fact, they need to to some experiments with the actual solvents used by homoeopaths and see of they can find anything interesting in these, and then show that this is preserved when a drop of the solvent is placed on a sugar pill and allowed to dry, and then that there was some way for this to affect the body.

All a bit of a waste of time, when you consider that no homoeopathic remedy has ever been shown to have a demonstrable, repeatable effect on the body.

Still looking for an explanation of an effect that doesn't exist. Poor Xanta.

Rolfe.

Olaf/QII

23rd May 2005, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
geni,

Have you had a look yet?

I'll leave it to Olaf to explain how all this matters when the water is dried onto a sugar tablet and when that sugar tablet fails to perform any better than a placebo in trial.

BSM,

first off, the study you posted by Louis Rey is his work that was published in 2003. The confirming work that I am speaking of is much more recent.

I will offer a sound explanation on why it is no stretch whatsoever for a container of "memory water" to be able to transfer the encoded information onto another polar compound -- whether it be solid, gas, or liquid. Afterall, if the memory water were to be mixed with another container of pure water it only makes sense that the pure water would be affected somehow or another.

----

Now that that is said I have some bad news to report. The University research library that I just dropped in on is closed till summer break.

Not to worry though, there is a university medical center across town that is open, so i will have the research that confirms Louis Rey's 2003 Physica A paper by either tonight or tomorrow.

Once again, it is "TRUSTWORTHY PHYSICS".

athon

23rd May 2005, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
BSM,

first off, the study you posted by Louis Rey is his work that was published in 2003. The confirming work that I am speaking of is much more recent.

I will offer a sound explanation on why it is no stretch whatsoever for a container of "memory water" to be able to transfer the encoded information onto another polar compound -- whether it be solid, gas, or liquid. Afterall, if the memory water were to be mixed with another container of pure water it only makes sense that the pure water would be affected somehow or another.

----

Now that that is said I have some bad news to report. The University research library that I just dropped in on is closed till summer break.

Not to worry though, there is a university medical center across town that is open, so i will have the research that confirms Louis Rey's 2003 Physica A paper by either tonight or tomorrow.

Once again, it is "TRUSTWORTHY PHYSICS".

I'm looking forward to seeing any evidence you have that the polarity of water could have lasting effects on the polarity of lactose. It's easy to model the polarity of each, and incredibly difficult to permanently alter the polarity of a substance without altering its chemical makeup.

Without evidence, I'm inclined to say this is another star-trek use of the word - itself without any real valid meaning.

Athon

Olaf/QII

23rd May 2005, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Well, that's sort of the point, isn't it. We all know Xanta doesn't come here to discuss scientific knowledge for the sake of it. Her entire obsessed little life revolves around validating her belief that "homoeopathy works". So far, she's not doing noticeably better than the Pakistani contingent.

The work she's going on about seems a bit flaky to me, and I'd be surprised if it turned out to be anything really interesting. Much more likely to be contamination artefact. But whether or not that is the case, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with Hahnemann's practice of homoeopathy.

Even if homoeopaths did habitually use water to prepare their dilutions (which they don't, most use a water/alcohol mixture), and even if the did use the liquid dilution to dose the patients (which they mostly don't, preferring to use sugar pills), there's still the little problem of showing how these questionable and ephemeral findings could possibly affect the physiology of the body.

In fact, they need to to some experiments with the actual solvents used by homoeopaths and see of they can find anything interesting in these, and then show that this is preserved when a drop of the solvent is placed on a sugar pill and allowed to dry, and then that there was some way for this to affect the body.

All a bit of a waste of time, when you consider that no homoeopathic remedy has ever been shown to have a demonstrable, repeatable effect on the body.

Still looking for an explanation of an effect that doesn't exist. Poor Xanta.

Rolfe.

1. I think you are the one who is obsessed.

2. the work is not flaky. This work is the work that lays the foundation for the dozens upon dozens of DBPC studies that show an effect. The Basophil/Histamine studies are the most credible ---I have much more to say about these later. (i.e., a most interesting study uncovered from 1994 Hirst, et al)

3. there is a way for this to affect the body as i will present evidence from a prominent microbiologist who has collaborated with a physicist (more on this later... i'm having to much fun with Louis Rey's work)

4. "All a bit of a waste of time, when you consider that no homoeopathic remedy has ever been shown to have a demonstrable, repeatable effect on the body."

this is a bit trickier to demonstrate due to dozens of variables and i will not waste my time on it due to that fact. instead i will spend my time on thermoluminescence and the basophil experiments.

Olaf/QII

23rd May 2005, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by athon
I'm looking forward to seeing any evidence you have that the polarity of water could have lasting effects on the polarity of lactose. It's easy to model the polarity of each, and incredibly difficult to permanently alter the polarity of a substance without altering its chemical makeup.

Without evidence, I'm inclined to say this is another star-trek use of the word - itself without any real valid meaning.

Athon

polarity is most likely what makes the encoding of information possible but beyond that it must be far more complicated than "water polarity effecting lactose polarity".

I certainly don't have the faintest clue as to what is going on. All I know is that something definitely is going on and that it explains why we see study after study wherebly ghost solutions of histamine are delivering p < .0001 type results. More on this later. Stay tuned.

Rolfe

23rd May 2005, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
Afterall, if the memory water were to be mixed with another container of pure water it only makes sense that the pure water would be affected somehow or another.And since when did homoeopaths start using "pure water" exclusively for their preparations? I know there is one US firm ("King Bio") which boasts about using only water when preparing remedies - this is a sales pitch to people who disapprove of alcohol, because there is a lot of alcohol in most homoeopathic solutions. But the vast majority are using the water/alcohol mixture (proportions not usually specified).

So, is this work only applicable to King Bio's products or something?Originally posted by Olaf/QII
4. "All a bit of a waste of time, when you consider that no homoeopathic remedy has ever been shown to have a demonstrable, repeatable effect on the body."

this is a bit trickier due to demonstrate due to dozens of variables and i will not waste my time on it due to that fact. instead i will spend my time on thermoluminescence and the basophil experiments. Fine, that makes a change. Finally realised that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that homoeopathic remedies (despite all the ambitious claims of miracle cures) actually perform no better than placebo? Good, we're getting somewhere.

Just makes me wonder what the point of all the scratching about looking for these flaky water memory papers is, when you don't actually have an effect to explain in the first place.

And don't think you can go from any demonstration that there's any substance in this train of argument (which I frankly doubt will happen anyway) to any assertion that "homoeopathy works". Not unless one brick lying on the grass makes a house.

Rolfe.

Olaf/QII

23rd May 2005, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
And since when did homoeopaths start using "pure water" exclusively for their preparations? I know there is one US firm ("King Bio") which boasts about using only water when preparing remedies - this is a sales pitch to people who disapprove of alcohol, because there is a lot of alcohol in most homoeopathic solutions. But the vast majority are using the water/alcohol mixture (proportions not usually specified).

So, is this work only applicable to King Bio's products or something?Fine, that makes a change. Finally realised that the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that homoeopathic remedies (despite all the ambitious claims of miracle cures) actually perform no better than placebo? Good, we're getting somewhere.

Just makes me wonder what the point of all the scratching about looking for these flaky water memory papers is, when you don't actually have an effect to explain in the first place.

And don't think you can go from any demonstration that there's any substance in this train of argument (which I frankly doubt will happen anyway) to any assertion that "homoeopathy works". Not unless one brick lying on the grass makes a house.

Rolfe.

the reason i am not going to spend much time on the dozens upon dozens of homeopathic trials that have shown a resounding positive effect is because it is all falling on deaf ears. No use beating a dead horse.

It is my plan, however, to beat thermoluminescence and basophil/histamine (and other in vitro and ex vivo) studies into your consciousness.

You will NOT be able to escape the conclusion that something powerful is going on in the prescence of solutions that have the solute diluted far out of existance.

athon

23rd May 2005, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
polarity is most likely what makes the encoding of information possible but beyond that it must be far more complicated than "water polarity effecting lactose polarity".

Why must it be? Do you know what polarity is? I might stretch my imagination as far as seeing some form of complicated information being held in the alteration of polarity in a carbohydrate molecule, but in water? It's a bias of charge between the oxygen and hydrogen atoms.

If there is demonstrated some form of complicated encoding in a water molecule, the implications would be absolutely massive. Diagnostics, forensics, information technology, computing, geology...I could go on forever. So if you're telling me there is one little paper that demonstrates that information can be encoded in the polarity of a water molecule, and the scientific community has not jumped on it...

No wonder I'm skeptical.

BTW, if a synthetic drug performed what it was claimed to do as predictably as a homeopathic remedy, it would not be made available onto the market. So for all these 'scores' of studies you make claim of, they still seem to make an incredibly small percentage of replicated trials.

A bit hypocritical, no?

Athon

Rolfe

23rd May 2005, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
the reason i am not going to spend much time on the dozens upon dozens of homeopathic trials that have shown a resounding positive effect is because it is all falling on deaf ears. No use beating a dead horse.

It is my plan, however, to beat thermoluminescence and basophil/histamine (and other in vitro and ex vivo) studies into your consciousness.

You will NOT be able to escape the conclusion that something powerful is going on in the prescence of solutions that have the solute diluted far out of existance. "Dozens upon dozens of homoeoapthic trials that have shown a positive effect"? Excluding the contents of the homoeopathic fanzines (and even there, actual studies are few and far between), you'd have trouble finding ten. That is assuming you're talking about even half-way properly-conducted controlled trials.

So, back to lying and exaggerating already. Not a good start.

If there's something strange going on in these peculiar preparations, why are you so keen to "beat it into our consciousness"? Why should we care, particularly? Something that big can't be overlooked for very long, all you have to do is wait for the real experts to agree that it is replicable.

Or on the other hand wait for it all to go the way of F&P's cold fusion phenomenon, which I have to say seems the likely outcome at the moment.

Now, you were telling us about how you're the former boss of a construction company, but declined to give any further details about yout scientific credentials. You don't have to tell us who you are (as if we didn't already have a pretty good idea....), but you don't need to do that to tell us what your scientific qualifications are. So, you have this burning desire to convince the JREF forum of the validity some rather kooky and way-out effects that have been published. What makes you such a suitable person to pronounce on the validity of this sort of thing? Post-doctoral physics or chemistry qualifications? Or what?

Rolfe.

Edited to add: A quick look at previous credentials offered by this poster. For clarity, it should be remembered that as well as being "Olaf/QII", the poster's other JREF identities are "Gold" and "Yaw". As "Gold", she was anxious to assure us she was in fact male, and posted this very convincing demonstration of scientific credibility (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870298853#post1870298853). This is the "expert" who understands the physics (oops sorry chemistry) so well that she's going to teach everyone here at JREF. Right....

geni

23rd May 2005, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII

Once again, it is "TRUSTWORTHY PHYSICS".

No it chemistry. If you can't even get subject areas right we have a problem.

Mojo

23rd May 2005, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
No use beating a dead horse.Why not? Homeopaths have been doing it for 200 years.

Mojo

23rd May 2005, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Offal
Now that that is said I have some bad news to report. The University research library that I just dropped in on is closed till summer break.If you can't get hold of it yourself, why not give us some sort of reference so we can look for it ourselves?

You know the kind of thing: authors' names, title, date, where it was published...

Why can't you provide this information?

Mojo

23rd May 2005, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
The University research library that I just dropped in on is closed till summer break.And anyway, what kind of "University research library" shuts down in the middle of May? It sounds a bit [rule 8] to me.

Kumar

23rd May 2005, 10:02 PM

Have I not mentioned it previously;-
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:5dav_Qdv3j4J:www.skepp.be:8080/skepp/artikels/alternatieve_behandelingen/ECH_report_research112004-1.pdf+thermoluminescence+and+the+basophil+experime nts.&hl=en

http://www.skepp.be:8080/skepp/artikels/alternatieve_behandelingen/ECH_report_research112004-1.pdf.

Just check inter-molecular structural changes in carrier's substances effected by raw remedy & potentization, since you deny isomer & other structural changes, intra-molecular.

To the subject;

Check possibility of water blocks & mucus blocks relation with insulin resistances & diabetes type2.

Goddoesnotplaydice

24th May 2005, 12:29 AM

If there is demonstrated some form of complicated encoding in a water molecule, the implications would be absolutely massive. Diagnostics, forensics, information technology, computing, geology...I could go on forever. So if you're telling me there is one little paper that demonstrates that information can be encoded in the polarity of a water molecule, and the scientific community has not jumped on it...

hmmm ...... HOH again, how interesting!

your all getting warmer! (well actually cooler i hope) you know this little H in the HOH is very abundant! so is water.... you know water gets around on this planet. in fact the statistics are staggering!

keep looking! almost there! godspeed!

39.2 ring a bell? ding ding!

gdnpd

MRC_Hans

24th May 2005, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
Yes, I am about to get the confirmation work that proves Louis Rey's Physica A paper of 2003.

We are waiting.

Are you excited?

Not exactly. Based on your track record, the best I can do is "mildly interested".

You will need to give me some time.

Why? Is it there, or is it not? Why don't you have your documentation ready before you post about it?

i will also need to figure out how to present it since there is no copy of it other than in PDF format.

Just post a link to it. Anybody can read PDF, since the reader is available online, for free.

You are waffling.

Hans

MRC_Hans

24th May 2005, 12:39 AM

Goddoesnotplaydice

24th May 2005, 12:41 AM

now were going to learn about E fields and B fields... then? oooooo I can't wait!! I know whats coming
this water thing will start to get real JUICY!

then we will soon discover some real JUICY ressonance things!

I cant wait.... I will just sit back and watch this discussion unfold! :)

Olaf/QII,

very good! I will give you an A+ in ? lets call it HOH electro dynamics!

Olaf! don't give up! keep on your path!

Boy I AM THIRSTY! all i really need is HHHHHH and some photons!
Oooops, and a little ressonance!

gdnpd

Mojo

24th May 2005, 01:52 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
4. "All a bit of a waste of time, when you consider that no homoeopathic remedy has ever been shown to have a demonstrable, repeatable effect on the body."

this is a bit trickier to demonstrate due to dozens of variables and i will not waste my time on it due to that fact.Ah yes, those pesky variables. It's such a shame that when trials that are designed well enough to eliminate them are carried out, the effects of homeopathy also vanish.

athon

24th May 2005, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Goddoesnotplaydice
hmmm ...... HOH again, how interesting!

your all getting warmer! (well actually cooler i hope) you know this little H in the HOH is very abundant! so is water.... you know water gets around on this planet. in fact the statistics are staggering!

keep looking! almost there! godspeed!

39.2 ring a bell? ding ding!

gdnpd

Either half or double your medication. Or maybe just butt out altogether; too many loonies in one place just upsets the ducks.

Athon

Olaf/QII

24th May 2005, 08:33 AM

Bad news. They changed their rules recently and I was not allowed to use their library. I have the abstract of the paper but until i look at it and judge the evidence for myself I will not reveal it.

Count yourselves lucky for now.

But in the meantime we are going to have to discuss why we are getting such spectacularly consistant results with the basophil/histamine studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7917505&dopt=Abstract&itool=iconabstr

Critical review and meta-analysis of serial agitated dilutions in experimental toxicology.

Linde K, Jonas WB, Melchart D, Worku F, Wagner H, Eitel F.
6. Among the high quality studies, positive effects were reported 50% more often than negative effects. 7. Four of 5 outcomes meeting quality and comparability criteria for meta-analysis showed positive effects from SAD preparations. 8. Average percent protection over controls in these preparations was 19.7 (95%Cl 6.2-33.2). 9. Further research with special attention to methodological detail and independent replication should be done.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15105967

2004

Inflamm Res. 2004 Apr;53(5):181-8. Epub 2004 Apr 21. Related Articles, Links

CONCLUSIONS: In 3 different types of experiment, it has been shown that high dilutions of histamine may indeed exert an effect on basophil activity. This activity observed by staining basophils with alcian blue was confirmed by flow cytometry. Inhibition by histamine was reversed by anti-H2 and was not observed with histidine these results being in favour of the specificity of this effect We are however unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon.

PMID: 15105967 [PubMed - in process]

Olaf/QII

24th May 2005, 08:41 AM

http://rheumatology.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/short/keh111v1

Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo
I. R. Bell 1*, D. A. Lewis II 2, A. J. Brooks 3, G. E. Schwartz 4, S. E. Lewis 2, B. T. Walsh 5, and C. M. Baldwin 6
1 Program in Integrative Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; The Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
2 Saybrook Graduate School and Research Institute, San Francisco, California, USA
3 Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
4 Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
5 Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
6 Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Arizona Respiratory Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; The Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
* Corresponding author. E-mail: IBELL@U.ARIZONA.EDU.
Received 9 July 2003 ; accepted 12 November 2003
Abstract

Results. Fifty-three people completed the treatment protocol. Participants on active treatment showed significantly greater improvements in tender point count and tender point pain, quality of life, global health and a trend toward less depression compared with those on placebo.
Conclusions. This study replicates and extends a previous 1-month placebo-controlled crossover study in fibromyalgia that pre-screened for only one homeopathic remedy. Using a broad selection of remedies and the flexible LM dose (1/50 000 dilution factor) series, the present study demonstrated that individualized homeopathy is significantly better than placebo in lessening tender point pain and improving the quality of life and global health of persons with fibromyalgia.

Kumar

24th May 2005, 08:56 AM

DNA is encoded with four interchangeable "building blocks", called "bases", which can be abbreviated A, T, C, and G; each base "pairs up" with only one other base: A+T, T+A, C+G and G+C; that is, an "A" on one strand of double-stranded DNA will "mate" properly only with a "T" on the other, complementary strand;
The order does matter: A+T is not the same as T+A, just as C+G is not the same as G+C;
However, since there are just four possible combinations, naming only one base on the conventionally chosen side of the strand is enough to describe the sequence;
The order of the bases along the length of the DNA is what it's all about, the sequence itself is the description for genes;

Mutations are simply chemical imperfections in this process: a base is accidentally skipped, inserted, or incorrectly copied, or the chain is trimmed, or added to; all other basic mutations can be described as combinations of these accidental "operations".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

Whether DNA of different person is different due to a structural change or chemical change?

Donks

24th May 2005, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
Whether DNA of different person is different due to a structural change or chemical change?
Good luck getting someone to explain DNA to you.

Kumar

24th May 2005, 09:23 AM

[quote]Homeopathy for childhood diarrhea:
RESULTS: Combined analysis shows a duration of diarrhea of 3.3 days in the homeopathy group compared with 4.1 in the placebo group (P = 0.008). The metaanalysis shows a consistent effect-size difference of approximately 0.66 day (P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The results from these studies confirm that individualized homeopathic treatment decreases the duration of acute childhood diarrhea.

Many other studies can be found by searching the following links (obiously if anyone is really interested in finding the positives without any vested interest;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Link&db=PubMed&dbFrom=PubMed&from_uid=14734789

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

Perpetual Notion

24th May 2005, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
http://rheumatology.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/short/keh111v1

Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo
I. R. Bell 1*, D. A. Lewis II 2, A. J. Brooks 3, G. E. Schwartz 4, S. E. Lewis 2, B. T. Walsh 5, and C. M. Baldwin 6
1 Program in Integrative Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Psychiatry, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; The Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
2 Saybrook Graduate School and Research Institute, San Francisco, California, USA
3 Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
4 Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Neurology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Surgery, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
5 Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
6 Department of Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Department of Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; Arizona Respiratory Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA; The Mel and Enid Zuckerman Arizona College of Public Health at the University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
* Corresponding author. E-mail: IBELL@U.ARIZONA.EDU.
Received 9 July 2003 ; accepted 12 November 2003
Abstract

The Gary Schwartz?! How do you know he didn't use his psychic powers to cure them?

Rolfe

24th May 2005, 10:20 AM

You know, I'm so tired of posting exactly the same rebuttals to exactly the same flukey papers trotted out time and time again. Kumar knows perfectly well that paper is a load of what-it-was-all-about. So I'll just link to the last time I typed it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870904102#post1870904102). Which I'm quite certain Kumar has read.

Rolfe.

Donks

24th May 2005, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
You know, I'm so tired of posting exactly the same rebuttals to exactly the same flukey papers trotted out time and time again. Kumar knows perfectly well that paper is a load of what-it-was-all-about. So I'll just link to the last time I typed it (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870904102#post1870904102). Which I'm quite certain Kumar has read.

Rolfe.
Someone should do a website with the criticisms of the homeopaths' favorite studies.

Mojo

24th May 2005, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Olaf/QII
Bad news. They changed their rules recently and I was not allowed to use their library. I have the abstract of the paper but until i look at it and judge the evidence for myself I will not reveal it.This is a method of evasion that even Dr. MAS hasn't tried yet: "I can't post my evidence because the library was closed."

Anyway, you have already told us that it isOriginally posted by Olaf/QII
the confirmation work that proves Louis Rey's Physica A paper of 2003.If you were so sure, why do you now need to "judge the evidence?"

Surely the best way to sort this out is to post a reference to the paper here so that other people can have a look at the paper and judge the evidence for themselves. If it is as strong as you claim, what are you afraid of?

Rolfe

24th May 2005, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Donks
Someone should do a website with the criticisms of the homeopaths' favorite studies. Well, there's this post I wrote (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870903773#post1870903773) (and have repeated a couple of times). Interestingly enough, it was originally composed to deal with Xanta in one of her earleir incarnations, and her habit of spamming threads (and indeed forums) repeatedly with biassed and frankly inaccurate summaries of the same three long-discredited papers.

There's always going to be the odd proponent fanzine article coming out, no matter what. But it's interesting that Xanta has had to resort to something with Gary Schwartz as an author. In this case I think argumentum ad hominem is entirely appropriate!

Rolfe.

Goddoesnotplaydice

25th May 2005, 04:13 AM

Kumar,

I forgot to say hello! I hope you and yours are doing well.

anthon you wrote:

Either half or double your medication. Or maybe just butt out altogether; too many loonies in one place just upsets the ducks.

athon,

1. I don't any take >>anything<< or meds unless I would die without them.

I could try "half" or "double" but I might be dead soon so I will not do somthing "loonie" like you suggest. here you go with assumptions again! Sooooo Unscientific!

Q? Are you a medical doctor? I suspect NOT!
Might I suggest that you should not dispense medical "advice" without the proper training and authority??? homeopathy armchair advice can be dangerous! especially when you suggest that I modify my medications before proper diag!

2.the nobel prize winners + associates didn't call me "looney" but you are entitled to your "loonie" opinions...

3. try remembering those "loonies" also thought the world was "round", others were sure it was "flat" so they burned them at the stake.

I smell smoke! ohh wait I have some HOH, i will just throw it around and save us all from burning!

gdnpd

Goddoesnotplaydice

25th May 2005, 04:44 AM

Mojo,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Goddoesnotplaydice
where did you get the idea that your urine pH can not change very much over time? Blood pH i will agree...it moves very little BUT IT STILL MOVES TOO! but Urine not moving??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where did you get the idea that Rolfe stated that urine pH can not change?

ans> from the range and limit assumptions that were made about "normal".

I saw what I thought was an assumption based on a possible overgeneralization. Finding and challenging basic assumptions using symbolic metaphores is very imporant in this world of "assumptions"! lest we keep assuming...

Now your not going to tell me you don't "assume" also Mojo are you? WE ALL DO! If you say you do not, you open yourself up to a whole other conversation about truth, science and methodology. I should not assume about you either, maybe you are not human! Are you a cat or a dog?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rolfe
A urine pH that is constantly in this range is normal in man. Also normal in dogs and cats and most if not all carnivores. In contrast, horses, rabbits, cattle and other herbivores normally have a urine pH which is 7 or greater. Vegetarian humans also tend to have a higher urine pH.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes! rolfe just illustrated my point above... so we we assume then that vegetarian humans are not "normal" and meat eaters are?
hmmmm??? what is this "normal".... assumptions again!

You omitted an important part of the message!

again I am not arguing just to argue! ohh, this is just totally useless! you people just do not get it!

Note: This post stated that animals that eat veggies have a higher urine pH than those that eat meat. It also stated that humans who don't eat meat have a higher urine pH than those who do. So, if a human stops eating meat their urine pH is going to get higher.

You really should try to read and understand the posts you are replying to. At the moment you don't seem to be doing much better than Kumar in this regard. "Even though," as you said, "he barely speaks english!"

ohhh GOD help us! GO defend Mc Donalds!

no, Kumar is doing just fine! He might even be doing better than all of us! You just never know! Don't assume anything!

ok, you are entitled to your assumptions I guess... go ahead keeep assuming, I will try not to!

gdnpd

MRC_Hans

25th May 2005, 04:49 AM

The static is growing in here. I wonder if there's a free slot on my ignore list. Youp! There was :D.

Hans

Goddoesnotplaydice

25th May 2005, 04:51 AM

bye!

flume

25th May 2005, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Goddoesnotplaydice Note: This post stated that animals that eat veggies have a higher urine pH than those that eat meat. It also stated that humans who don't eat meat have a higher urine pH than those who do. So, if a human stops eating meat their urine pH is going to get higher. ] Uh, yes we know that. Sulfur-containing amino acids. So?

athon

25th May 2005, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by flume
Uh, yes we know that. Sulfur-containing amino acids. So?

That was not GDNPD's post. It was a reference to an earlier post Rolfe made. GDNPD was making some bizarre, obscure statement about it.

Ignore him. He thinks he's people.

Athon

flume

25th May 2005, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by athon
That was not GDNPD's post. It was a reference to an earlier post Rolfe made. GDNPD was making some bizarre, obscure statement about it.

Ignore him. He thinks he's people. You're right.

Kumar

25th May 2005, 10:28 PM

Nothing can always be correct unless "absolute".

To be productive;

Whether DNA of different people are different just in designs/arrangements or different in chemical compositions?

Many sets of equal numbers of balls of Four colours if arranged differently--will be what--a structural/form/design/pattern/form...change or a chemical change?

Donks

25th May 2005, 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Nothing can always be correct unless "absolute".

To be productive;

Whether DNA of different people are different just in designs/arrangements or different in chemical compositions?

Many sets of equal numbers of balls of Four colours if arranged differently--will be what--a structural/form/design/pattern/form...change or a chemical change?
The DNA of different people is different in that there are different differences that differ differently in different people..

Jocce

25th May 2005, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Donks
The DNA of different people is different in that there are different differences that differ differently in different people..

I beg to differ....

Kumar

25th May 2005, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Donks
The DNA of different people is different in that there are different differences that differ differently in different people..

Yes, it tells slight design/form change as differ is common.;)

Badly Shaved Monkey

25th May 2005, 11:35 PM

You tell us, Kumar. If there is a Guanine residue at one location in the DNA of one person and a Cytosine in another, is that a structural change or a chemical change?

Try giving an answer then I'll give you the right answer.

Donks

25th May 2005, 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Jocce
I beg to differ....
I differ to beg....

Perpetual Notion

25th May 2005, 11:56 PM

I have a feeling the OJ jury knows more about DNA than Kumar. :rolleyes:

Donks

25th May 2005, 11:59 PM

Originally posted by Perpetual Notion
I have a feeling the OJ jury knows more about DNA than Kumar. :rolleyes:
It's not the ignorance that bothers me, it's the intentional refusal to learn.

Perpetual Notion

26th May 2005, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Donks
It's not the ignorance that bothers me, it's the intentional refusal to learn.

Agreed. I'd never make fun of someone who was honestly trying to learn. I'm surprised people have humored him so long. It's a shame he's squandered such a great resource here :(

Kumar

26th May 2005, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
You tell us, Kumar. If there is a Guanine residue at one location in the DNA of one person and a Cytosine in another, is that a structural change or a chemical change?

Try giving an answer then I'll give you the right answer.

I think it is intermolecular structural/arrangement change but I can be wrong therefore asking. I am more concerned about specific structural/arrangement changes in intra or intermolecular arrangements in a lattice on mixing active substances in carrier's substances & potentising it.

Rolfe

26th May 2005, 03:14 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
I am more concerned about specific structural/arrangement changes in intra or intermolecular arrangements in a lattice on mixing active substances in carrier's substances & potentising it. :dl:

This is what comes of allowing trolls to meddle with concepts they simply don't understand.

Rolfe.

Kumar

26th May 2005, 03:43 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe

This is what comes of allowing trolls to meddle with concepts they simply don't understand.

Rolfe.

TTTT/TTT/DTT:(

Alike allowing trolling on homeopathy, which you may simply don't understand in its sense & in practical experiances.

I am bit concinced about possibilities of structural changes in intra or inter- molecular arrangements effected specifically by mixing active substances & carries then potentising these resulting in storing of memory/information of active substances on cariers eg;

The authors were able to distinguish the properly prepared sulphur 12X from the others, and concluded "some form of energy is imparted by succussion to a homeopathic drug, resulting in a slight change of the alcohol in these dilutions. There is a structural change in the solvent as the potency is made from the tincture to a higher dilution."

A more recent experiment measured the changes in hydroalcoholic solutions prepared with serial dilution and succussion. Dilutions of sulphur from 5X to 30X were prepared using succussion, vial rotation and neither succussion nor rotation. Measurable and characteristic changes in the spectra were found at each stage of dilution with succussion. These characteristics were absent in analogous solutions prepared without succussion or solute.

http://www.kulisz.com/how_does_homeopathy_work.htm

Dragon

26th May 2005, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
... snip ...

I am bit concinced about possibilities of structural changes in intra or inter- molecular arrangements effected specifically by mixing active substances & carries then potentising these resulting in storing of memory/information of active substances on cariers eg;
The authors were able to distinguish the properly prepared sulphur 12X from the others, and concluded "some form of energy is imparted by succussion to a homeopathic drug, resulting in a slight change of the alcohol in these dilutions. There is a structural change in the solvent as the potency is made from the tincture to a higher dilution."

A more recent experiment measured the changes in hydroalcoholic solutions prepared with serial dilution and succussion. Dilutions of sulphur from 5X to 30X were prepared using succussion, vial rotation and neither succussion nor rotation. Measurable and characteristic changes in the spectra were found at each stage of dilution with succussion. These characteristics were absent in analogous solutions prepared without succussion or solute.

http://www.kulisz.com/how_does_homeopathy_work.htm

Amazing! - I know where your friends can win $1,000,000 (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) .

Kumar

26th May 2005, 03:57 AM

Originally posted by Donks
It's not the ignorance that bothers me, it's the intentional refusal to learn.

Homeopathy is observed & experianced by mass.....Then tell/teach me 'how it works' & 'what is its science'?

If you can't teach/tell this science, don't use above words in future.:o Either tell the solution or just try or see what others are trying.

I think it was somewhere in pub-med;

"If you can't do or don't want to do, don't stop/resist others doing"

I think it meant indirectly; impotent person should not stop/resist/discourage potent person for try towords progress.:o

Mojo

26th May 2005, 04:11 AM

Originally posted by Dragon

Amazing! - I know where your friends can win $1,000,000 (http://www.randi.org/research/index.html) . Well, if they're still around: the quotation Kumar posted is about what is described on the page he linked to as "a more recent experiment" but published 30 years ago. In view of the continuing contrversy in this area, I wonder why the page doesn't cite any more recent studies. ;)

Edited to add:The first paragraph Kumar posted is about papers published in the mid 60s. I'm amazed they have made so little progress in 40 years...

Kumar

26th May 2005, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by Mojo
Well, if they're still around: the quotation Kumar posted is about what is described on the page he linked to as "a more recent experiment" but published 30 years ago. In view of the continuing contrversy in this area, I wonder why the page doesn't cite any more recent studies. ;)

Edited to add:The first paragraph Kumar posted is about papers published in the mid 60s. I'm amazed they have made so little progress in 40 years...

Yes, this is a point. It is common in all or most of these of studies. Why?? One group, might had not cared much for furthur research as not in their interests or starved of public means & money. Other modern group who, inspite given much of public means & money, may not be interested in furthur pursuing these types of studies due to.........................?????:( Anyway why don't you try as indicated in many studies? Can you ONLY speak TTTT/TTT/DTT/ITT?

Rolfe

26th May 2005, 04:42 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
Homeopathy is observed & experianced by mass.....Then tell/teach me 'how it works' & 'what is its science'?We've told you many times. A combination of wishful thinking and coincidental recovery. That is the "scientific" (that is, realistic) explanation of "how homoeopathy works". Every single fact and observation related to homoeopathy can be completely explained by this. And indeed, we find that the observed world is exactly as we would expect it to be if this were the "science" of what is going on.

Your problem, Kumar, is that you willfully refuse to learn and understand this scientific explanation.

Rolfe.

Mojo

26th May 2005, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
Yes, this is a point. It is common in all or most of these of studies. Why?? One group, might had not cared much for furthur research as not in their interests or starved of public means & money. Other modern group who, inspite given much of public means & money, may not be interested in furthur pursuing these types of studies due to.........................?????:( Anyway why don't you try as indicated in many studies? Can you ONLY speak TTTT/TTT/DTT/ITT? Or perhaps there have been attempts to repeat the findings but they didn't produce the results the homeopaths wanted?

"...might had not cared much for further research as not in their interests..."?????

Let's face it, if the sort of results claimed here could be repeated and explained, you'd be looking at a Nobel prize. Why on earth would they not have wanted to continue with this line of research if the results could be repeated?

Kumar

26th May 2005, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
We've told you many times. A combination of wishful thinking and coincidental recovery. That is the "scientific" (that is, realistic) explanation of "how homoeopathy works". Every single fact and observation related to homoeopathy can be completely explained by this. And indeed, we find that the observed world is exactly as we would expect it to be if this were the "science" of what is going on.

Your problem, Kumar, is that you willfully refuse to learn and understand this scientific explanation.

Rolfe.

Thanks.

Are all these possible by your above scientific conclusion i.e. some chronic/serious diseases are claimed/observed/experianced to have been got cured by homeopathy, need to change the remedies to cure one disease on mistaken judgements, aggravations, proving symptoms, mistakes in prescriptions....?

How your conclusion can't be somewhat applicable to all systems-i.e. by self healing effects? People behave differently with different healing substances of all systems & people with different immunity defence power also find differanciating effects of their healing substances. HOW?

Kumar

26th May 2005, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Mojo
Or perhaps there have been attempts to repeat the findings but they didn't produce the results the homeopaths wanted?

"...might had not cared much for further research as not in their interests..."?????

Let's face it, if the sort of results claimed here could be repeated and explained, you'd be looking at a Nobel prize. Why on earth would they not have wanted to continue with this line of research if the results could be repeated?

Don't ASSUME, show me the furthur studies.

Mojo

26th May 2005, 05:18 AM

Mojo

26th May 2005, 05:20 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
Don't ASSUME, show me the furthur studies.Why should I do your work for you? If you think the studies you referred to have been successfully followed up, it's up to you to prove it. If you can't find any successful follow-ups, what conclusion do you think you should draw from this?

Rolfe

26th May 2005, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
How your conclusion can't be somewhat applicable to all systems-i.e. by self healing effects? People behave differently with different healing substances of all systems & people with different immunity defence power also find differanciating effects of their healing substances. HOW? Properly conducted, controlled trials, Kumar. This is how you find out whether the treatment you're looking at is doing more than just the same old wishful thinking and coincidental recovery.

There is simply no way at all the the effects of real medicine can all be attributed to wishful thinking and coincidental recovery. We know that (most) diabetics will die without insulin, for example, and there are many more similar examples. However, there is no study that has been able to show conclusively that any homoeopathic remedy has made any difference at all to patient outcome. When an effect is claimed, the reported observations always fit the hypothesis that the improvement was either coincidental or illusory.

All the playing around with different remedies and case-takings and potencies simply gives a bigger window of opportunity for the coincidental improvement to happen.

That's the scientific explanation for you. And that is what you have to disprove.

Rolfe.

Donks

26th May 2005, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
Homeopathy is observed & experianced by mass.....Then tell/teach me 'how it works' & 'what is its science'?
Ok, Rolfe covered this already.

If you can't teach/tell this science, don't use above words in future.:o
I'll use whichever words I want, whenever I want to use them.
/TV Themesong mode
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now
You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big

Either tell the solution or just try or see what others are trying.
You've been told the solution, countless times.
It's not the ignorance that bothers me, it's the intentional refusal to learn.
I think it was somewhere in pub-med;
Inspector Gadget mode
Go, go gadget Pubmed!
"If you can't do or don't want to do, don't stop/resist others doing"
If you actually were trying to learn, I'd help you, but...
It's not the ignorance that bothers me, it's the intentional refusal to learn.
I think it meant indirectly; impotent person should not stop/resist/discourage potent person for try towords progress.:o
Hey! Who are you calling impotent?! I'll have you know Little Donks works just fine!
And, Mr. Hypocrite, you advocate we stop those awful, nasty crude medicines which have so many adverse effects and ae the cause of so many imbalances, with their lack of an inherent sense of right and wrong. So who's the one that wants to stop progress of something he doesn't understand?
"If you can't do or don't want to do, don't stop/resist others doing"

Goddoesnotplaydice

26th May 2005, 07:10 AM

He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
He who knows not and knows he knows not is wise, follow him.

goodbye all...

gdnpd

Badly Shaved Monkey

26th May 2005, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
I think it is intermolecular structural/arrangement change but I can be wrong therefore asking.

And chemistry is about the "intermolecular structural/arrangement change" of molecules. So a base change in DNA is chemistry and structural because they are the same thing.

See? Ask a simple question and respond reasonably, you'll get a simple answer.

Where you have taken that simple answer is another flight f fancy but that's your problem, not mine. If you have another simple question you can have another simple answer, but I'm not going to bother with your nonsense posts.

I also notice that you asked the Good Grammar Fairy for help in that post. I think I shall make it a condition of further questions that they must be asked sensibly. I'm not engaging in any more Kumarology trying to work out what the question means then attempting to answer a best guess as to what the question is really about.

Fair?

Donks

26th May 2005, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Goddoesnotplaydice
He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
He who knows not and knows he knows not is wise, follow him.

goodbye all...

gdnpd
Ok, I'll take your advice and not follow you, or Kumar.

Kumar

26th May 2005, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Properly conducted, controlled trials, Kumar. This is how you find out whether the treatment you're looking at is doing more than just the same old wishful thinking and coincidental recovery.

There is simply no way at all the the effects of real medicine can all be attributed to wishful thinking and coincidental recovery. We know that (most) diabetics will die without insulin, for example, and there are many more similar examples. However, there is no study that has been able to show conclusively that any homoeopathic remedy has made any difference at all to patient outcome. When an effect is claimed, the reported observations always fit the hypothesis that the improvement was either coincidental or illusory.

All the playing around with different remedies and case-takings and potencies simply gives a bigger window of opportunity for the coincidental improvement to happen.

That's the scientific explanation for you. And that is what you have to disprove.

Rolfe. [/B]

How can you measure 'healing by self' or by 'self healing/immunity? How can you measure ' real healing effects ' & 'adverse/side effects' seprately & be sure what is what, in a medicine which can also cause adverse/side effects?

Pls consider insulin & other harmones, enzymes etc. as replacement not medicine also supplements, foods, classical substances etc.

Let me present one thought;

Suppose a person is exposed to TB bacterias & got some passing acute reactions but didn't get it as full active stage. So he aquire latent TB infections with out any symptoms. I think it is due to inability of immunity to handle all the bacterias on its exposure at that time. Our defence system then opt for 2nd option--arrest/encapsule these bacterias as latent stage to stop their multiplication & spread or starve these in capsule by arresting or wait for the right oppurtunity by improving the immunity/defence power to kil them. Is it right?

Now suppose that person got his immunity/defence power suitably improved after some time to handle those hidden/dormant or encapsuled bacterias OR weakens it.

What will happen? On improved immunity--will those bacterias be resurfaced/directly exposed to immune agents to kill them as a "direction towards cure" & presenting an apparent impression of active stage OR not? On weakened immunity--will these infecting agents be resurfaced, multiply & spread as a "direction towards spread of disease" OR not?

In short; can impression of active stage/spread after a latency/tumor formation be a direction towards cure on improved immunity AND a direction of increase the infection/disease on weakening of immunity/defence power?

Donks

26th May 2005, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
How can you measure 'healing by self' or by 'self healing/immunity? How can you measure ' real healing effects ' & 'adverse/side effects' seprately & be sure what is what, in a medicine which can also cause adverse/side effects?
Suppose it doesn't matter. Suppose the 'self healing/immunity/real healing effects' are only triggered by actual medicine, and not by placebo or homeopathy.

Pls consider insulin & other harmones as replacement not medicine also alongwith supplements, foods, classical substances etc.
Would you like to consider AZT, Combivir and Sustiva instead?

Let me present one thought;

Suppose a person is exposed to TB bacterias but he got acute reactions by didn't get it as full active stage. So he aquire latent TB infections with out any symptoms. I think it is due to inability of immunity to handle all the bacterias on its exposure at that time. Our defence system then opt for 2nd option--arrest/encapsule these bacterias as latent stage to stop their multiplication & spread or starve these in capsule or wait for the right oppurtunity by improving the immunity/defence power to kil them. Is it right?
I'm quite sure I had already given you a source that said why TB goes into the latent stage, yet from this pargraph you seem to not have noticed. Or perhaps you just refuse to learn?

Now suppose that person got his immunity/defence power suitably improved after some time to handle those hidden/dormant or encapsuled bacterias OR weakens it.

What will happen? On improved immunity--will those bacterias be resurfaced/directly exposed to immune agents to kill as a direction towards cure but presenting an impression of active stage OR not? On weakened immunity--will these infecting agents will be resurfaced & multiply as a direction towards spread of disease or not?

In short; can impression of active stage/spread after a latency/tumor formation be a direction of cure on improved immunity AND a direction of increase in infection/disease in case of weakening of immunity/defence power?
Can goobledigook bleargh rocks stomp?

Kumar

26th May 2005, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
And chemistry is about the "intermolecular structural/arrangement change" of molecules. So a base change in DNA is chemistry and structural because they are the same thing.

See? Ask a simple question and respond reasonably, you'll get a simple answer.

Will chemical formulas & structural formulas of all DNA in any person or in different people be same or different?

Badly Shaved Monkey

26th May 2005, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Will chemical formulas & structural formulas of all DNA in any person or in different people be same or different?

Different, except in monozygotic twins or clones.

Kumar

27th May 2005, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Different, except in monozygotic twins or clones.

Thanks. It means DNA example was a wrong example to structural differences in carriers. Pls tell whether some structural or inter-molecular changes are possible in carriers substances by mixing active substances with water, alcohol or lactose & potentising these?

What makes chemical formulas of DNA different from DNA of other human being? Could chemical formulas of DNA of different perfect healthy people be the same?(I mean whether environmental factors/exposures makes DNA different in different people?) Will chemical formula of DNA be different due to different proportion of nucleobases in any DNA or due to different total numbers of all nucleobases(long & short DNA chain)?

Mojo

27th May 2005, 12:51 AM

flume

27th May 2005, 12:55 AM

Kumar, before you continue with your ideas, you need to go and read some basic stuff about DNA, genes, and inheritance.
From the questions you are asking, it sounds as if you have no idea at all about how DNA works. If this is true, you really need to do some basic reading before asking any questions or producing theories.
Don't just read some little unconnected bits. Read enough to understand the basic idea. Every educated person should know this.

Kumar

27th May 2005, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Mojo
When conducting proper tests of a treatment, 'healing by self' or by 'self healing/immunity' are eliminated from the results by means of double-blind placebo-controlled tests.

I think they may have been mentioned to you before.

Once placebo/spontaneous recovery etc. have been allowed for, any remaining effects that result in an improvement in the patient's condition are "real healing effects," and any that are undesirable are "adverse/side effects." Of course, it's not possible to observe them separately as all the effects of a treatment will occur together. It is not possible to only select specific effects of a remedy, except in the case of imaginary treatments such as homeopathy, where the alleged "proving" effects of a remedy are claimed to be totally different from the alleged "therapeutic" effects

I read your above reply as bit confusing. When you say that "it's not possible to observe them separately as all the effects of a treatment will occur together" how can you calculate/say "Once placebo/spontaneous recovery etc. have been allowed for, any remaining effects that result in an improvement in the patient's condition are "real healing effects," and any that are undesirable are "adverse/side effects"?

Are "self healing effects" measurable/explainable specifically? Just consider effects--not weak or strong effects? Are you sure effects of all healing substance/medicine are direct not via body's immune/defence system which goes into our imternal system/blood? EG; alike antacids effects directly wheras acid blockers may be effecting indirectly via our body's system.

Mojo

27th May 2005, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Different, except in monozygotic twins or clones. Originally posted by Kumar
Thanks. It means DNA example was a wrong example to structural differences in carriers.No, the reason that DNA is "a wrong example to structural differences in carriers" is that there is not going to be any DNA in a homeopathic preparation unless you were to prepare a remedy from DNA or something containing it.

Would homeopaths use a remedy made from a specific person's DNA to treat conditions with symptoms similar to those produced by the person themselves?

e.g.

Patient: Hello Mr. Homeopath. I seem to have this terrific pain in my rectum.

Homeopath: Hello Mr. Patient. Try this 200C Geneticum Kumarum. It should see you right in no time.

Kumar

27th May 2005, 01:22 AM

Originally posted by flume
Kumar, before you continue with your ideas, you need to go and read some basic stuff about DNA, genes, and inheritance.
From the questions you are asking, it sounds as if you have no idea at all about how DNA works. If this is true, you really need to do some basic reading before asking any questions or producing theories.
Don't just read some little unconnected bits. Read enough to understand the basic idea. Every educated person should know this.

flume, I am not pursuing this subject. Someone somewhere somewhat indicated DNA as a structural/sequence difference, so I mentioned this as an example. I read several links as this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) , but it is nowhere mentioned that chemical formulas of DNA of different people are different.

I just want to understand possibility of structural/arrangement changes in intermolecular carriers substances (alike somewhat indicated in one previous like provided by me).

Mojo

27th May 2005, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
I read your above reply as bit confusing. When you say that "it's not possible to observe them separately as all the effects of a treatment will occur together" how can you calculate/say "Once placebo/spontaneous recovery etc. have been allowed for, any remaining effects that result in an improvement in the patient's condition are "real healing effects," and any that are undesirable are "adverse/side effects"?

Are "self healing effects" measurable/explainable specifically? Just consider effects--not weak or strong effects? Are you sure effects of all healing substance/medicine are direct not via body's immune/defence system which goes into our imternal system/blood? EG; alike antacids effects directly wheras acid blockers may be effecting indirectly via our body's system. Originally posted by Donks
It's not the ignorance that bothers me, it's the intentional refusal to learn.

flume

27th May 2005, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by Kumar:
flume, I am not pursuing this subject. Okay, but sometime when you are bored you could read up on it. The Wikipedia site may have accurate info but it doesn't look like the best introduction to the subject, so you might want to look around some more.

Badly Shaved Monkey

27th May 2005, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
but it is nowhere mentioned that chemical formulas of DNA of different people are different.

Well, they are or else we would all be clones.

Perpetual Notion

27th May 2005, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by Donks
It's not the ignorance that bothers me, it's the intentional refusal to learn.tm

I just felt it was time for the tm. Congrats Donks.

Mojo

27th May 2005, 04:36 PM

Originally posted by Perpetual Notion
Originally posted by Donks
It's not the ignorance that bothers me, it's the intentional refusal to learn.tm

I just felt it was time for the tm. Congrats Donks. ;)

Donks

27th May 2005, 04:39 PM

Kumar

27th May 2005, 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

but it is nowhere mentioned that chemical formulas of DNA of different people are different.

Well, they are or else we would all be clones.

How? Whether difference in just structural arrangements of bases keeping same chemical formula can't make us different?

Kumar

27th May 2005, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
How can you measure 'healing by self' or by 'self healing/immunity? How can you measure ' real healing effects ' & 'adverse/side effects' seprately & be sure what is what, in a medicine which can also cause adverse/side effects?

Pls consider insulin & other harmones, enzymes etc. as replacement not medicine also supplements, foods, classical substances etc.

Let me present one thought;

Suppose a person is exposed to TB bacterias & got some passing acute reactions but didn't get it as full active stage. So he aquire latent TB infections with out any symptoms. I think it is due to inability of immunity to handle all the bacterias on its exposure at that time. Our defence system then opt for 2nd option--arrest/encapsule these bacterias as latent stage to stop their multiplication & spread or starve these in capsule by arresting or wait for the right oppurtunity by improving the immunity/defence power to kil them. Is it right?

Now suppose that person got his immunity/defence power suitably improved after some time to handle those hidden/dormant or encapsuled bacterias OR weakens it.

What will happen? On improved immunity--will those bacterias be resurfaced/directly exposed to immune agents to kill them as a "direction towards cure" & presenting an apparent impression of active stage OR not? On weakened immunity--will these infecting agents be resurfaced, multiply & spread as a "direction towards spread of disease" OR not?

In short; can impression of active stage/spread after a latency/tumor formation be a direction towards cure on improved immunity AND a direction of increase the infection/disease on weakening of immunity/defence power?

Rolfe,

You have not yet replied my above post. Waiting.

Donks

27th May 2005, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Rolfe,

You have not yet replied my above post. Waiting.
Hey Kummiewummie, did you finaly put me on ignore?

Kumar

27th May 2005, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by Donks
Hey Kummiewummie, did you finaly put me on ignore?

No, but I finally put TTTT/TTT/DTT/ITT..onto my ignore. I only see post not person.

flume

27th May 2005, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey

but it is nowhere mentioned that chemical formulas of DNA of different people are different.

Well, they are or else we would all be clones.

How? Whether difference in just structural arrangements of bases keeping same chemical formula can't make us different? In the first part you talked about the chemical forumlas of DNA as a whole. From the second part, it looks like you are talking about the formula of bases being the same. If the chemical formula of each base is the same but the bases are in a different order, then the DNA as a whole has a different chemical formula (if formula is the right word here). So there might be confusion in what you mean.

Badly Shaved Monkey

27th May 2005, 11:36 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Whether difference in just structural arrangements of bases keeping same chemical formula can't make us different? [/B]

I don't understand the question. Please rewrite it in a proper sentence.

Kumar

28th May 2005, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
I don't understand the question. Please rewrite it in a proper sentence.

Suppose two person have same chemical formula of their DNA(mean total numbers of nucleobases & backbones are same) but their nucleobases are arranged differently: will then these two person differ or not?

flume,

When chemical formula of DNA will be same then its constituent will be same in total quantity but still their structural arrangements can be different. Rest my above post will clear it.

Rolfe

28th May 2005, 03:56 AM

Just in case Kumar is under any illusions, he is on ignore. And I've no intention of wasting my time explaining complex concepts to him when Donks is basically so right.

Rolfe.

Kumar

28th May 2005, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Just in case Kumar is under any illusions, he is on ignore. And I've no intention of wasting my time explaining complex concepts to him when Donks is basically so right.

Rolfe.

DTT. This type is the post, where differences start. When I was discussing with you why other entered in this complex issue. Frankly, Do you know the reply or not--I think not as no one could reply positive or negative as yet?

OK other simple question:-

Whether excess/low gastric acid can effect the effectiveness of DOTS- TB durgs? A person under this TB tratment, if lives in a place with hard water/alkaline water supply OR take other foods which can raise his gastric pH, can get lesser effects of TB medicines or not? In short, I want to know whether digetive pH can effect the effectiveness/absorption of TB medicines or not?

Can low digestine pH also encourage intestinal mucus blocks resulting into low medicines absorption?

Eos of the Eons

28th May 2005, 07:58 AM

Rolfe

28th May 2005, 02:03 PM

[Darat, is there any way to get rid of the "view this post" button?]Originally posted by Kumar
DTT. This type is the post, where differences start. When I was discussing with you why other entered in this complex issue. Frankly, Do you know the reply or not--I think not as no one could reply positive or negative as yet?Kumar, I was discussing nothing of the sort with you. I was trying to correct some of gdnpd's gross misconceptions about the pH of body fluids, then I was rash enough to try once again to explain to you the sensible, obvious and as yet uncontested explanation of how homoeopathy works. There is no point in trying to answer you, because if the correct answer isn't to your liking (as is usually the case, since you seem to favour belief systems that are completely divorced from reality), you'll simply reject it and make up your own.

If I ever try to explain a scientific concept to you again, Hans and Donks have instructions to gag me. What I will never understand is why, when you reject every explanation I've ever given you for subjects that are well within my area of study and expertise, and insult me while you're at it, you nevertheless come back time and time again asking me for more explanations.

Well, tough. The well is dry.

Rolfe.

Badly Shaved Monkey

28th May 2005, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Suppose two person have same chemical formula of their DNA(mean total numbers of nucleobases & backbones are same) but their nucleobases are arranged differently

If the bases are ordered differently then the chemical formula is different, so once again your question is misconceived. It is a matter of convention and for simplicity that the structure of DNA is denoted by its base sequence instead of a very long-winded and highly redundant chemical formula.

Differently ordered bases = different chemical formula = different DNA structure = different genome

Badly Shaved Monkey

28th May 2005, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Well, tough. The well is dry.

Rolfe.

This tap has decided to drip-feed simple answers to simple questions and not to engage in any of the speculative stuff and see whether we can string together any sort of coherent path.

I predict Kumar will travel;

Drip.sqrt(N) from his starting point,

where

Drip = size of the drip and N = number of posts.

Kumar, do you know why this is a good model of your path?

Kumar

28th May 2005, 08:15 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
[Darat, is there any way to get rid of the "view this post" button?]Kumar, I was discussing nothing of the sort with you. I was trying to correct some of gdnpd's gross misconceptions about the pH of body fluids, then I was rash enough to try once again to explain to you the sensible, obvious and as yet uncontested explanation of how homoeopathy works. There is no point in trying to answer you, because if the correct answer isn't to your liking (as is usually the case, since you seem to favour belief systems that are completely divorced from reality), you'll simply reject it and make up your own.

If I ever try to explain a scientific concept to you again, Hans and Donks have instructions to gag me. What I will never understand is why, when you reject every explanation I've ever given you for subjects that are well within my area of study and expertise, and insult me while you're at it, you nevertheless come back time and time again asking me for more explanations.

Well, tough. The well is dry.

Rolfe.

Those questions were not related to homeopathy. I am not an advocater of homeopathy or a enemy of modern syste(proof; crude+potency and scientific & modern medical discussions/considerations). You/other just make big mistakes to this effect, most of the times. I just hate any contradiction t any mass...knowledge--alternative or conventional, ancient or new. I raised many points about doubts on some homeopathic aspects(proof; banned.opposed at some homeopathic forums).

Moreover, if you don't like/want that science & working of homeopathyscience should be known/tried--why you waste so much time on TTTT/TTT on homeopathy. I may be pursuing this subject thinking humanity/you/science/curiosity may want it. If you don't want, request administrater to discourage so much 'waste of time & forum capacity' in waste discussions on it.

Truely speaking, Sometimes I feel (can be wrong also) that whenever it is not possible to awnser of any of my question you/others just mention TTTT in egoistic consideration, otherwise you/all read all my posts & do reply whatever you/others can. This is not open hearted/true attitude.

Anyway another simple question:-

What is the difference in effects on our body by taking any natural food/substance to which we are habitual & adapted to since long AND of any newly developed or unnatural food/substance? Sometimes I finds that some single salt/compound/molecule based substance esp. inorganic, to which we are not commonly habitual in its individual form (eg; Mag. Hydroxide, Sodium Bicarbonte, Calcium carbonate etc.) creates effects alike homeopathic effects with added good or bad effects indicationg that food/substances which we take naturally effects as complex compostion alike some natural/homeostatic balance among its constituents. Some balance of its constituents is there in any natural food/substance to us which balances effects in us & do not create strange symptoms in us which any single constituent can make. Taking it can be a natural but taking any of its constituents individually, can be thought as unnatural/shocking effect. I mean we tollerate regular natural foods/substances to which we are habitual or adpated to-- better/naturally BUT gets therapeutic/shocking effects(good or bad) when we take their constituents individually. Is it right?

Kumar

28th May 2005, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
This tap has decided to drip-feed simple answers to simple questions and not to engage in any of the speculative stuff and see whether we can string together any sort of coherent path.

I predict Kumar will travel;

Drip.sqrt(N) from his starting point,

where

Drip = size of the drip and N = number of posts.

Kumar, do you know why this is a good model of your path?

BSM, thanks for your awnsers as those should be. As chemical formulas of different DNA are different it can't be taken as example in that theory.

The above is a complex issue for me or alike TTTT/TTT, and since you also insisted on simplicity, I shall be enable to awnser it. Sorry. ;)

I received an e.mail that Sciforums restarted.

Badly Shaved Monkey

29th May 2005, 01:14 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
BSM, thanks for your awnsers as those should be. As chemical formulas of different DNA are different it can't be taken as example in that theory.

So, as that theory turns out to be a dead end, ask another simple question.

Kumar

29th May 2005, 02:59 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
So, as that theory turns out to be a dead end, ask another simple question.

Not the theory but the example. Ok pls tell; can changes in structure/form/molecular arrangements be possible in carrier's substances water, alcohol or lactose during potentisation process of homeopathic remedies?

Mojo

29th May 2005, 03:08 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
Not the theory but the example. Ok pls tell; can changes in structure/form/molecular arrangements be possible in carrier's substances water, alcohol or lactose during potentisation process of homeopathic remedies? We've been into this before. Do you know the structure of a water molecule? It's not worth continuing with any of this until you can demonstrate that you do.

Badly Shaved Monkey

29th May 2005, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
Not the theory but the example. Ok pls tell; can changes in structure/form/molecular arrangements be possible in carrier's substances water, alcohol or lactose during potentisation process of homeopathic remedies?

Mojo's right. To earn another answer you are going to have to give a succinct explanation of the structure of a water molecule and how you can justify all that stuff about H2O/OHH/HOH and H2O3 etc.

Kumar

29th May 2005, 03:55 AM

Originally posted by Mojo
We've been into this before. Do you know the structure of a water molecule? It's not worth continuing with any of this until you can demonstrate that you do.

This is where you try to resist knowing its science. One can understand why its complete science couldn't yet be known. Why its tests & studies, found somewhat positive initially, lost where afterwords? It tells you ONLY don't want its science should be known in science, so it remained incolclusive as yet. Are you misutilizing/mis-appropriating the public money & means given to you for all type of researches not just for your research?

Donks

29th May 2005, 04:03 AM

Kumar

29th May 2005, 04:06 AM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Mojo's right. To earn another answer you are going to have to give a succinct explanation of the structure of a water molecule and how you can justify all that stuff about H2O/OHH/HOH and H2O3 etc.

Example only. Read statement above of that post. Telling 'sky is the limit' one can't show you that limit by touch of sky. Mentioning BSM, I can't show you as 'badly saved monkey'. I already told, will not repeat again now irrespective you/anyone behave anytype.:o

Mojo

29th May 2005, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
This is where you try to resist knowing its science. One can understand why its complete science couldn't yet be known. Why its tests & studies, found somewhat positive initially, lost where afterwords? It tells you ONLY don't want its science should be known in science, so it remained incolclusive as yet. Are you misutilizing/mis-appropriating the public money & means given to you for all type of researches not just for your research? I take it from this that you can't describe the structure of the water molecule and have no intention of learning anything about it, and so have resorted to posting this kind of rubbish. I have not tried to "resist knowing its science;" The only person here resisting knowing about science is you. I spent years studying chemistry at school, and a further 3 years studying for a degree in chemistry/biochemistry. I have never been given any public funds for research purposes beyond the research I did as part of that course (and I suspect that that will have come out of the education budget in any case). Last time you accused me of not using the public funding you claim I receive in an appropriate way, I pointed out to you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1870871837#post1870871837) that I am not in receipt of public funds. I am sure you are intelligent enough to have understood what I posted then. I put it to you, therefore, that you are a liar.

Edited to add link.

Badly Shaved Monkey

29th May 2005, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
Example only. Read statement above of that post. Telling 'sky is the limit' one can't show you that limit by touch of sky. Mentioning BSM, I can't show you as 'badly saved monkey'. I already told, will not repeat again now irrespective you/anyone behave anytype.:o

No, they are not examples. They are just plain wrong. You need to show that you understand why and how they are wrong if you are to proceed further. So, please, now explain what is wrong about those examples if you wish to discuss further the structure of water molecules.

Please note that by saying "Example only" you are claiming you know that your chemical formulae for water are wrong, but you need to explain in what way they are wrong.

Kumar

29th May 2005, 11:25 AM

Mojo,

You mean here as science.

BSM, sorry I can't carry TTT/TTTT any more or give exam. If you feel interested pls reply otherwise enjoy yourself. Best. :o

Eos of the Eons

29th May 2005, 12:57 PM

Cop out

Badly Shaved Monkey

29th May 2005, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Mojo,

You mean here as science.

BSM, sorry I can't carry TTT/TTTT any more or give exam. If you feel interested pls reply otherwise enjoy yourself. Best. :o

Kumar,

All that is being done is to try to maintain a sensibly tight and disciplined approach to discussion. If you really want to learn something then you need to accept that discipline. So far you have learnt nothing after months and months of Google searching and wild hypothesising. Why not do what we have advised you for so long and make a real attempt to gain an education?

Mojo

29th May 2005, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Mojo,

You mean here as science.Yes, Kumar, I "mean here as science." The same science that you have ignored during the entire time you have been posting on this forum because it doesn't suit your agenda. You are either a fool, a fraud or a troll. No other explanation fits the facts.

Kumar

29th May 2005, 07:27 PM

Poor assesments, assumtions or idiocy. I can't/will not convince/justify/satisfy any more:(

MRC_Hans

30th May 2005, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
Poor assesments, assumtions or idiocy.

Yes, I'm afraid that is the best description of all your "theories".

I can't/will not convince/justify/satisfy any more:(

Not only "anymore", but you have never, not even occasionally, been able to do so.I'm glad you have finally faced reality, Kumar. I know this must be painful to you, but you must look ahead and be constructive.

Hans

Kumar

30th May 2005, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I'm glad you have finally faced reality, Kumar. I know this must be painful to you, but you must look ahead and be constructive.

Hans

Hello Mr.Hans,

Yes, I can see constructive work which people are doing here in many threads esp. on homeopathy.

Kumar

30th May 2005, 01:57 AM

Rolfe,

Indication for one question:-

Among eight species of mycobacteria tested, there was a diversity of growth rates in media with acidic pH and low Mg2+ levels. M. tuberculosis was the most restricted in growth at pH 6.0, and all of this growth required elevated levels of Mg2+...These results demonstrate that M. tuberculosis is unique among the mycobacteria in its extreme sensitivity to acid and indicate that M. tuberculosis must acquire sufficient Mg2+ in order to grow in a mildly acidic environment such as within the phagosome of macrophages.

Link. (http://iai.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/8/4518?ijkey=2d5b7fb0c0d34f1b49ba5d303f01ffed7402fdb 5&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha)

Badly Shaved Monkey

30th May 2005, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
Rolfe,

Indication for one question:-

Indication of a reply.

Rolfe

30th May 2005, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
Indication of a reply. BSM, my greatly esteemed colleague, if you see me address another single word to that bloated-ego ignoramus Kumar, just SHOOT ME.

Rolfe.

Eos of the Eons

30th May 2005, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Rolfe,

Indication for one question:-

Still trying to compare this to what happens inside a human body?
A Human'a internal environment is nothing like those "mediums".

Kumar

30th May 2005, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by Rolfe
BSM, my greatly esteemed colleague, if you see me address another single word to that bloated-ego ignoramus Kumar, just SHOOT ME.

Rolfe.

Because, people just avoid to maintain their ego WHEN they don't know any particular aspect. People can POSE for so many degrees, speak..but can't DO/TELL, because nothing can stop to a knowledgable/good person not to manipulate by not telling for long, if you really know a thing. So I doubt all studies under those claimed degrees.

When many homeopaths with many claimed degrees, don't reply to your questions or iteract with you, similarily== what you say/consider them--a troll, an idiot..... Same you can apply to yourselves. It is quite logical/justififed or reciprocal.

Don't claim/pose or only speak much, in future.:o

Donks

30th May 2005, 10:34 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
Because, people just avoid to maintain their ego WHEN they don't know any particular aspect. People can POSE for so many degrees, speak..but can't DO/TELL, because nothing can stop to a knowledgable/good person not to manipulate by not telling for long, if you really know a thing. So I doubt all studies under those claimed degrees.

When many homeopaths with many claimed degrees, don't reply to your questions or iteract with you, similarily== what you say/consider them--a troll, an idiot..... Same you can apply to yourselves. It is quite logical/justififed or reciprocal.

Don't claim/pose or only speak much, in future.:o
Way to sweettalk Rolfe. I'm sure she'll fall for it and tell you everything she knows. Or not.
This childish reverse psychology of yours doesn't work. People don't refuse to answer your questions because they don't know, they don't answer because you spit on the faces of those who do.

Kumar

30th May 2005, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Donks
Way to sweettalk Rolfe. I'm sure she'll fall for it and tell you everything she knows. Or not.
This childish reverse psychology of yours doesn't work. People don't refuse to answer your questions because they don't know, they don't answer because you spit on the faces of those who do.

To awnser, discuss, tells etc. all in ones personal interests, here. Moreover I assess by posting not by person or his/her degrees.

Do you think/finds that I couldn't get awnser to my questions elesewhere on on internets etc.or you can tell somewhat better than what is available elsewher, on internets etc.? It for some obligation( diluting slowly) or other purposes or time pass bt TTTT/TTT as indicated several times that I just visit here. So don't bother much about my needs.:o

Badly Shaved Monkey

30th May 2005, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Kumar
To awnser, discuss, tells etc. all in ones personal interests, here. Moreover I assess by posting not by person or his/her degrees.

Do you think/finds that I couldn't get awnser to my questions elesewhere on on internets etc.or you can tell somewhat better than what is available elsewher, on internets etc.? It for some obligation( diluting slowly) or other purposes or time pass bt TTTT/TTT as indicated several times that I just visit here. So don't bother much about my needs.:o

Yeah, right, whatever. Stop complaining and get on with it.

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
To earn another answer you are going to have to give a succinct explanation of the structure of a water molecule and how you can justify all that stuff about H2O/OHH/HOH and H2O3 etc.

Rolfe

31st May 2005, 01:36 AM

When many homeopaths with many claimed degrees, don't reply to your questions or iteract with you, similarily== what you say/consider them--a troll, an idiot..... Same you can apply to yourselves.Since I'm not talking to Kumar any more, perhaps someone else would like to link to earlier posts where I and others have gone out of our way to explain things to Kumar - only to be ignored, contradicted and insulted for our pains.

Not going there any more.

Rolfe.

Kumar

31st May 2005, 01:59 AM

Originally posted by Rolfe
Since I'm not talking to Kumar any more, perhaps someone else would like to link to earlier posts where I and others have gone out of our way to explain things to Kumar - only to be ignored, contradicted and insulted for our pains.

Not going there any more.

Rolfe.

If one couldn't provide right awnsers to my satisfaction, if I questioned on that, if still I couldn't be satisfied, if then I requestioned or indicated some availabne doubts, if anyone then insult, contradiict or act, if then I react---if anyone consider it as INSULT or opposition, it is not & I can't satisfy furthur.

But I tell you that there can be many many unknown aspects to regular science person, or to science--whose awnsers are either not there/updated by ordinary/regular science person or not there with modern science. So if you/anyone can't give the reply--it is not a weakness or otherwise in consideration of 'Yet many misses & weaknesses' are/can there in a person or in science due to 'macro/gross level preferances & too much & too many aspects are now forced on to them. One can't be update or known to all these. So it can be wrong to take it as 'emotional/egoistic superiority complex.

Donks

31st May 2005, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
If one couldn't provide right awnsers to my satisfaction, if I questioned on that, if still I couldn't be satisfied, if then I requestioned or indicated some availabne doubts, if anyone then insult, contradiict or act, if then I react---if anyone consider it as INSULT or opposition, it is not & I can't satisfy furthur.

But I tell you that there can be many many unknown aspects to regular science person, or to science--whose awnsers are either not there/updated by ordinary/regular science person or not there with modern science. So if you/anyone can't give the reply--it is not a weakness or otherwise in consideration of 'Yet many misses & weaknesses' are/can there in a person or in science due to 'macro/gross level preferances & too much & too many aspects are now forced on to them. One can't be update or known to all these. So it can be wrong to take it as 'emotional/egoistic superiority complex.
When we give you an answer that is as short as possible to make it as easy to understand as possible, you reply with "Is that absolute?" When we reply with a detailed answer that would take most anyone some time to digest, you dismiss anything that contradicts your theories. It gets tiresome.

Why don't you ask BSM another simple question? Aything in your reply that is not a simple question will be taken as "TTT" and dismissed.

Kumar

31st May 2005, 04:14 AM

Originally posted by Donks
When we give you an answer that is as short as possible to make it as easy to understand as possible, you reply with "Is that absolute?" When we reply with a detailed answer that would take most anyone some time to digest, you dismiss anything that contradicts your theories. It gets tiresome.

Why don't you ask BSM another simple question? Aything in your reply that is not a simple question will be taken as "TTT" and dismissed.

It is not true. But I think you reply just by thinking that 'everything what I ask or indicate is that I intend to advocate homeopathy. You just consider me an only homeopathic person. This is where you make biggest mistakes.

Yes, anything mentioned which is beyond my head, is TTTT/TTT posting in my sense.

Mojo

31st May 2005, 04:22 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
Yes, anything mentioned which is beyond my head, is TTTT/TTT posting in my sense. So you've decided that anything you don't understand is irrelevant? Why not do some work and try to understand what you are told, and why it is relevant to your questions? Otherwise you will make no progress at all.

Mojo

31st May 2005, 04:25 AM

Incidentally, what became of Olaf's wonderful proof of homeopathy that all those nasty librarians prevented him/her from seeing?

Kumar

31st May 2005, 05:15 AM

Originally posted by Mojo
So you've decided that anything you don't understand is irrelevant? Why not do some work and try to understand what you are told, and why it is relevant to your questions? Otherwise you will make no progress at all.

POOR OBSERVATION.:o

Mojo

31st May 2005, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
POOR OBSERVATION.:o No, it was a comment that is entirely relevant to your apparent inability to comprehend what other posters tell you, and your apparent justification for this.

Your powers of observation, on the other hand, are so poor that you haven't even noticed that you've pressed Caps Lock.

Badly Shaved Monkey

31st May 2005, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Kumar
If one couldn't provide right awnsers to my satisfaction, if I questioned on that, if still I couldn't be satisfied, if then I requestioned or indicated some availabne doubts, if anyone then insult, contradiict or act, if then I react---if anyone consider it as INSULT or opposition, it is not & I can't satisfy furthur.

No, Kumar, you just ignore or throw back the thousands of words of patient explanation you have been given. That's why I'm not giving you any more answers until you show you can keep up your side of the conversation honestly.

So, yet again I ask you;

Originally posted by Badly Shaved Monkey
To earn another answer you are going to have to give a succinct explanation of the structure of a water molecule and how you can justify all that stuff about H2O/OHH/HOH and H2O3 etc.

If you refuse to respond reasonably this will be the last response you get from me and the way I'm counting you are running out of people willing to put up with you, so I suggest you play nicely.