Corposcindosis (Split from: Can Someone Explain Some of the Theories About 911?)

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

Whoa, I'm mean, wooooo, I mean . . .


I'm no woo! This is off-topic here, but I need to direct your attention to the following treatise:

http://www.editthis.info/corposcindosis/Corposcindosis

This is the world's most comprehensive and scientifically developed theory of a complex physiological condition brought about by a particular form of nerve damage. I administrate and have helped author this work. I think you will find it very nicely referenced, and obedient to the scientific method. I requested that TAM review it, and as yet has not pointed out any errors.

I've already said I think the 9/11 conspiracists are wrong. After reading some NIST, and some other papers in Gravy's links, I got the impression that no scientists supported the conspiracy theories. I became intrigued when I learned that there are a few scientists who do indeed support conspiracy.

I stumbled on the Kurt King, I think RMackey has already pointed out its false premise.

Apollo20, can you link me to your paper on 911myths? Are you Mark Roberts?

I split this topic off from the original thread. It really deserved its own and seemed better-suited for this sub-forum than CT. I hope that this interesting-sounding topic can find some life here.

[rwguinn]

Whoa, I'm mean, wooooo, I mean . . .


I'm no woo! This is off-topic here, but I need to direct your attention to the following treatise:

http://www.editthis.info/corposcindosis/Corposcindosis

This is the world's most comprehensive and scientifically developed theory of a complex physiological condition brought about by a particular form of nerve damage. I administrate and have helped author this work. I think you will find it very nicely referenced, and obedient to the scientific method. I requested that TAM review it, and as yet has not pointed out any errors.

I've already said I think the 9/11 conspiracists are wrong. After reading some NIST, and some other papers in Gravy's links, I got the impression that no scientists supported the conspiracy theories. I became intrigued when I learned that there are a few scientists who do indeed support conspiracy.

I stumbled on the Kurt King, I think RMackey has already pointed out its false premise.

Apollo20, can you link me to your paper on 911myths? Are you Mark Roberts?
You lost me at "Bilateral thoracic sympathectomy involving the T2 ganglion"
"I'm only an engineer, Cap'n. Not a Miracle worker"--or somepin like that...

ETA: It is interesting, however, that puting "Corposcindosis" into google searches returns only references to your page--at least for the first 2 pages of "google search". No medical journals, nothing I would expect a condition such as that to be mentioned in...

[~enigma~]

You lost me at "Bilateral thoracic sympathectomy involving the T2 ganglion"
"I'm only an engineer, Cap'n. Not a Miracle worker"--or somepin like that...
Procedure has been banned in Sweden and Taiwan because it's effectiveness is about the same as a lobotomy. You want to see one, well a movie version of one? Rent the movie Sublime...

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

You lost me at "Bilateral thoracic sympathectomy involving the T2 ganglion"
"I'm only an engineer, Cap'n. Not a Miracle worker"--or somepin like that...

ETA: It is interesting, however, that puting "Corposcindosis" into google searches returns only references to your page--at least for the first 2 pages of "google search". No medical journals, nothing I would expect a condition such as that to be mentioned in...

"Corposcindosis" is a term coined by the original author of the treatise, it is not "official". He believes, and I concur, that the collection of physiological effects brought about by this nerve damage constitute a disease, and deserve a disease name.

Whatever it is called, the treatise stands as the foremost scientific resource on understanding the effects of damage to the upper-chest region of the sympathetic nervous system. If there is another, I'm all up for looking at it.

[~enigma~]

"Corposcindosis" is a term coined by the original author of the treatise, it is not "official". He believes, and I concur, that the collection of physiological effects brought about by this nerve damage constitute a disease, and deserve a disease name.

Whatever it is called, the treatise stands as the foremost scientific resource on understanding the effects of damage to the up chest region of the sympathetic nervous system. If there is another, I'm all up for looking at it.
There is another word for it but it is one of the forbidden words here...

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

There is another word for it but it is one of the forbidden words here...

I don't understand. I'm not a woo. It's important to me that I not be characterized as one. I offer nothing less than a medical treatise in support of my scientific research abilities. Admittedly, I was not the original author, but I have contributed to it, and actually rewrote and reorganized the thing after I took it over.

Can you point to one mistake, either in the theory or in the research, or any scientific problem with it at all? Why do you say what you say?

[rwguinn]

"Corposcindosis" is a term coined by the original author of the treatise, it is not "official". He believes, and I concur, that the collection of physiological effects brought about by this nerve damage constitute a disease, and deserve a disease name.

Whatever it is called, the treatise stands as the foremost scientific resource on understanding the effects of damage to the upper-chest region of the sympathetic nervous system. If there is another, I'm all up for looking at it.
So. broken arms and severed spinal columns are also diseases?
It sounds more like a symptom to this non-medical guy.

[Steven Lupo Grossi]

So. broken arms and severed spinal columns are also diseases?
It sounds more like a symptom to this non-medical guy.

Well, certainly it's an injury, and that's never what the surgical practitioners would call it. However, the term "disease" is entirely accurate. For one thing, the symptoms change and progress over time. For the complete explanation, we begin with the definition.

I quote from the treatise:

Is Corposcindosis a Disease?

University of Ontario Health Glossary offers three possible definitions of "disease", and corposcindosis easily meets all three, including all of the criteria in number 2:

An interruption, cessation, or disorder of body functions, systems, or organs. Synonym: illness, morbus, sickness.
A morbid entity characterized usually by at least two of these criteria: recognized etiologic agent(s), identifiable group of signs and symptoms, or consistent anatomical alterations. See also: syndrome.
Literally, dis-ease, the opposite of ease, when something is wrong with a bodily function (Ontario Health Glossary (http://www.med.uwo.ca/ecosystemhealth/education/glossary.htm#D)) Current mainstream literature does not include "corposcindosis", or any disease-name for the effects of ETS. "Anhidrosis" is an established disease-name; and is but one of many proven, unhealthy, abnormal, disorderly interruptions and cessations of body functions, systems, organs, glands, and muscles. Corposcindosis has an identifiable group of signs and symptoms; and is caused by a recognized etiologic agent - ETS surgery. Yet mainstream literature does not dare refer to the effects of ETS as a disease. Why not? Is it simply that whatever surgeons do is theraputic by definition? Did we learn nothing from the experience of lobotomy? (see psychosurgery.org (http://www.psychosurgery.org/))
Neuropathy is neuropathy, regardless of what initiates the nerve damage. This point was made in a 2005 paper on diabetic neuropathy:
The occurrence of peripheral vasomotor instability and peripheral sudomotor neuropathy is termed "autosympathectomy.” The patient with autosympathectomy has peripheral vasomotor reflexes similar to those in a nondiabetic patient after sympathectomy. (Aring et al. 2005 (http://editthis.info/corposcindosis/References#Aring2005)) Mailis and Furlan titled their 2000 survery, "Are We Paying a High Price for Surgical Sympathectomy?". They state:
Surgical sympathectomy, irrespective of approach, is accompanied by several potentially disabling complications. Furlan et al. 2000 (http://editthis.info/corposcindosis/References#Furlan2000) Reasonable people must agree that "disabling complications" is equivalent to a disease state, especially when there are potentially "several" of them. Corposcindosis is a disease.
QED

[T.A.M.]

In Stephen's defense, I would say that he is proposing a potential CT, in that he believes the surgeons of the USA are CONSPIRING to keep the bad outcomes reflected in Corposcindosis, via ETS Surgery, secret or supressed. I am not agreeing with this asertion, just pointing out it is a legit CT...that said.

1. It belongs in its own thread.
2. the change to a "disease" listing is not a CT topic.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

As I have said to you before Stephen, and it is just my sole opinion, but I believe getting it labeled a SYNDROME, would be easier for you than a DISEASE.

TAM:)

[Goshawk]

Well, I read your entire paper. I have several problems with it:

1. In your Peer Review section (which comprises only one person), you quote as follows:

David S. Goldstein M.D., Ph.D., Senior Investigator:

"(Corposcindosis) does present nicely several of the many adverse health effects of thoracic sympathectomy, at least some of which, for a variety of reasons, have been underemphasized. It does seem worthwhile to highlight these health effects, so that individuals considering undergoing the procedure are informed better about the potential consequences."


Question: What word or words did Dr. Goldstein use at the beginning of his review, that you substituted the word "Corposcindosis" for? What's missing, and why?

When someone provides you with a peer review, it's good form to reprint the thing verbatim. Otherwise people tend to wonder what you edited out, and why.

I also noted that his entire peer review consisted of two carefully phrased sentences:

"(Corposcindosis) does present nicely several of the many adverse health effects of thoracic sympathectomy, at least some of which, for a variety of reasons, have been underemphasized. It does seem worthwhile to highlight these health effects, so that individuals considering undergoing the procedure are informed better about the potential consequences."


Saying neutrally, "yeah, it does seem worthwhile to highlight these possible side effects of ETS" is hardly a ringing endorsement of corposcindosis as a disease, or even as a syndrome.


***********************


2. In your abstract, you say:

The CS model generates a great number of falsifiable predictions about physiological changes in autonomic function, most of which have been reported anecdotally in the oral history. Several of these changes have been empirically confirmed in humans, several others have been confirmed in animal studies only, none have been refuted, several have not been studied at all.

< snip >

Corposcindosis is definable, predictable, measurable, photographable, preventable, incurable and disabling.



Question: If it's measurable and photographable-then where are your measurements, where are your photographs, in other words, where is your data that shows the existence of corposcindosis as a syndrome? Because I sure didn't see any. I saw a lot of photographs of TV shows, a lot of tables that didn't really seem to have any actual information, a lot of colorful illustrations of this-and-that, and a LOT of assertions. But I didn't see any numbers, or statistics, or actual data proving, or even purporting to show, the existence of corposcindosis.


************************


3. Where are the "changes have been empirically confirmed in humans" listed? I see only mention of the changes due to "Thoracic sympathectomy [causing] anhidrosis in the denerved area." But this is not confirmation that ETS surgery causes a syndrome called corposcindosis--this is only confirmation that ETS surgery causes anhidrosis in the denerved area. And we already knew that. The Mayo Clinic (http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/inside.asp?AID=2388&UID=) says that ETS can stop palmar sweating in 98% of cases, and they perform it there. (http://www.mayoclinic.org/hyperhidrosis/surgery.html)


*********************************


4.

Can you point to one mistake, either in the theory or in the research, or any scientific problem with it at all?


There isn't any research. That's the whole point. You can't have a "scientific problem" with something that isn't scientific to begin with.

And what makes something "scientific" is...evidence. Proof. Documentation. Data. Statistics. Numbers.

You haven't got any, that I saw, and if you do, please point me at it.


********************

5.

I requested that TAM review it, and as yet has not pointed out any errors.


Sorry, but this means nothing. You can't have "errors" in a theory, outside of the obvious ones of math errors, or of directly contradicting yourself.

What I see is, your whole Wiki article boils down to, you have this theory, but no scientific evidence or actual documentation to back it up. And actually, all your Wiki article says is, basically, that "ETS can have some effects on the rest of the body". Well, we already knew that, but it doesn't add up to a "disease", or even a "syndrome".



And, it IS your paper. From your OP:

I administrate and have helped author this work.

[Graham Jackman]

I heartily agree with Goshawk. I can see why this has not been published in any medical journal - no real point to it. It certainly seems to be Grossi's paper since I could find no other authors mentioned in the article. If he had merely helped put it into presentable form it would be unethical to publich without permission or acknowledgement of the co-contributors.