Re: duesberg

[Guest guest]

> So true! There are some generally ignored studies that the

> body can regenerate nerve damage, and regrow the myelin

> sheath. There are folks with MS who are improving. The

> problem is that it's nutritional medicine, nothing you can

> patent, so no cash to study the solution.

Science is funded. The first question you should ask about any

scientific study is, " Who funded the study. "

Speaking of regenerating nerve damage, there was a study done in

China over three years starting in 1966. This study was documented

in French and Soviet medical journals, but strangely was not picked

up by any North American journal.

From a book called " Acupuncture " , Chapter 1, " The Startling Cures " ,

I quote from the beginning (that means not taken out of context):

" At the Peking Hospital of Chinese Medicine, in 1966, physicians

gathered 151 paraplegics who had been pronounced incurable by

Western doctors. All had lost the power of movement from the waist

down. The doctors began prodding their patients with long steel

needles. Soon, some were able to wiggle their toes and feet, then

bend their knees, and finally move their entire legs. The exercised

for hours each day, rebuilding wasted muscles and gaining back the

confidence lost in years of paralysis.

Thirty-six months after the acupuncture treatments started, 124 of

the 151 patients were able to walk without the aid of another

person.* China's doctors had accomplished the impossible, using a

five-thousand-year-old medical technique. "

Vaguely remember reading that no one in China has MS or one of the other similar

diseases because acupuncture cures it. If I were rich, I'd get an acupuncture

treatment once a week.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

On 1/21/06, haecklers <haecklers@...> wrote:

> So true! There are some generally ignored studies that the body can

> regenerate nerve damage, and regrow the myelin sheath. There are

> folks with MS who are improving. The problem is that it's nutritional

> medicine, nothing you can patent, so no cash to study the solution.

> Without that, the FDA and AMA say the doctors can't discuss it because

> it hasn't been proven.

Hmm. This is my understanding from conventional sources, that the

body has some capacity to regenerate nerve damage. I don't think it's

a secret?

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> Science is funded. The first question you should ask about any

> scientific study is, " Who funded the study. "

True, it's an important question to ask, but it doesn't tell you

anything about the findings. It's dangerous to assume that if the

people you distrust funded the study, that it must be biased or fraud,

because that allows one to seal oneself off from opposing views.

Every study, like you say, is funded by someone -- and someone that is

distrusted by one or another group.

I have a study by Pfizer showing that statins double the risk of

stroke -- so funding doesn't guarantee an outcome. I'm not

disagreeing with your statement, just pointing out a caveat.

> The easiest thing to do with this experiment is to dismiss it as

> fantasy. The hardest would be to actually repeat the experiment

> because, if the results turned out to be similar, you would have a

> tough time explaining why you waited so long to conduct a second,

> independent study to replicate the first.

But there's new researchers entering all the fields every year who

wouldn't have to explain. And acupuncture is kind of hot now, so it

would be a good opportunity -- and something that has been studied at

least a little. Deanna posted a few abstracts a while ago. I think

another problem is that not everyone digs through all the old research

from journals in languages they don't understand.

It would be nice if there were some internet forum for researchers

made for posting obscure experiments that have never been replicated!

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

> Hmm. This is my understanding from conventional sources,

> that the body has some capacity to regenerate nerve

> damage. I don't think it's a secret?

Hi Chris:

I don't think it's a secret either, as long as the nerve damage is not

in the brain or spinal cord. I would be interested in seeing what

reference you have from conventional sources on spinal cord nerve

regeneration. If I remember right, Becker explained in " The Body

Electric " why nerve tissue in the spinal cord does not regenerate.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> > Science is funded. The first question you should ask about any

> > scientific study is, " Who funded the study. "

> True, it's an important question to ask, but it doesn't tell

> you anything about the findings. It's dangerous

> to assume that if the people you distrust funded the

> study, that it must be biased or fraud, because that allows

> one to seal oneself off from opposing views. Every study,

> like you say, is funded by someone -- and someone that is

> distrusted by one or another group.

Trust or distrust has nothing to do with my understanding of a

study. You may distrust people who have funded a study and, as a

result, assume that it must be biased or fraudulent. It is a mistake

to think that I think that way just because you may think that way.

After I had learned about a possible role of the body's ablility to

metabolise copper in the causation of osteoporosis, I wanted to find

out what women were being advised regarding prevention of

osteoporosis and whether there was any mention of this possible role

of a problem in copper metabolism. Clearly, sufficient copper in the

diet might not be enough if the body in unable to metabolise it for

use in bones.

After making a phone call to the local osteoporosis society and

finding that at least the person who answered the phone knew nothing

about any possible role of copper or copper metabolism in the

causation of osteoporosis, I learned there was a talk on

osteoporosis being given that I could attend. I went to the talk and

actually found I was the only man there. The talk was presented and

then a video on osteoporosis was shown and then questions were

answered at the end. I noticed during the video there seemed to be a

strong emphasis on consuming milk in preventing osteoporosis. At the

end of the video when the credits were listed attention turned away

from it to the discussion that followed. I read the credits and

noticed the video had been produced by the dairy industry. Perhaps

you have great confidence in the dairy industry and you would not

distrust them and thus think their presentation was biased. When I

saw who made the video, I just smiled and left.

> > The easiest thing to do with this experiment is to dismiss it as

> > fantasy. The hardest would be to actually repeat the experiment

> > because, if the results turned out to be similar, you would have

a

> > tough time explaining why you waited so long to conduct a second,

> > independent study to replicate the first.

> But there's new researchers entering all the fields every

> year who wouldn't have to explain. And acupuncture is

> kind of hot now, so it would be a good opportunity --

> and something that has been studied at least a little.

> Deanna posted a few abstracts a while ago. I think another

> problem is that not everyone digs through all the old research

> from journals in languages they don't understand.

Too bad acupuncture wasn't " kind of hot " when Becker was funded to

do his research on acupuncture. When he started obtaining

significant results about the electrical nature of acupuncture his

funding was cut. I guess English speaking researchers just

don't " dig " 5000 years of the practice of acupuncture in China

because they do it in Chinese instead of English. If those English

speaking researchers would just do a little research outside their

direct area of expertise, they would find out that there exists

other expert called translators who can acutally convert that

language they don't understand into English that they might be able

to understand. I wonder who you would expect to fund research to

investigate the role of acupuncture in allowing the possibility for

paraplegics to walk again.

> It would be nice if there were some internet forum for

> researchers made for posting obscure experiments

> that have never been replicated!

Haha. It might be useful to have an internet forum for researchers

listing obscure experiments where a follow up would never receive

funding and might cost them their professional standing if they

tried to obtain funding. I guess there is no need for such a forum

as researchers already know that.

Chi

[Guest guest]

> from journals in languages they don't understand.

>

> It would be nice if there were some internet forum for researchers

> made for posting obscure experiments that have never been replicated!

>

> Chris

So why don't you start one...in your spare time?

Ellen

[Guest guest]

On 1/22/06, Ellen Ussery <ellenjill@...> wrote:

> So why don't you start one...in your spare time?

Because I don't have any!

Also I don't have the resources really, like I wouldn't know where to

start. Maybe in a couple years.

By the way: PPNF *is* working on putting Price's work up online for a

hefty access fee, but they need to raise the funding for the project.

They want to put all 18,000 photos up too.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Chi,

> Trust or distrust has nothing to do with my understanding of a

> study.

I didn't say you did.

> You may distrust people who have funded a study and, as a

> result, assume that it must be biased or fraudulent.

I don't.

> It is a mistake

> to think that I think that way just because you may think that way.

I didn't give any indication that I did, and the fact that I don't was

readily apparent, in fact explicitly stated, in what I wrote. For

some reason this reminds me of " I know you are, but what am I? " I

wasn't saying you thought that way; I was simply elaborating on how to

interpret the point you made about funding, as there are certainly

people who do think this way.

[snip]

> I read the credits and

> noticed the video had been produced by the dairy industry. Perhaps

> you have great confidence in the dairy industry and you would not

> distrust them and thus think their presentation was biased. When I

> saw who made the video, I just smiled and left.

Yes, that's pretty funny.

> Too bad acupuncture wasn't " kind of hot " when Becker was funded to

> do his research on acupuncture. When he started obtaining

> significant results about the electrical nature of acupuncture his

> funding was cut.

I don't know the story, but I've read of similar instances in

research. That isn't some type of universal law, though -- that your

funding will be cut if you discover something inconvenient for some

people. It certainly happens, but there is all sorts of research

published constantly that conflicts with large financial interests,

like on trans fats, or benefits of DHA for Alzheimer's while drugs are

trying to be developed, or on antioxidants and resveratrol that

reverse heart disease in rabbits without billion-dollar-industry drugs

like Lipitor, and so on. There are too many sources of funding, and

the system is too decentralized to shut out any given thing forever,

even though there are apparent cases of malice that stops important

research.

> I guess English speaking researchers just

> don't " dig " 5000 years of the practice of acupuncture in China

> because they do it in Chinese instead of English. If those English

> speaking researchers would just do a little research outside their

> direct area of expertise, they would find out that there exists

> other expert called translators who can acutally convert that

> language they don't understand into English that they might be able

> to understand.

It's not part of the paradigm. A researcher who is not aware that

there are potentially credible claims of curing parapalegics in

foreign journals is not going to go through the effort of trying to

find them, and many of them probably assume that if such credible

evidence existed, it would be in their basic textbooks that they use

as a starting point for their research. That doesn't mean that some

of those same researchers, if confronted with a convincing claim that

there may be a credible lead down that path, wouldn't jump on the

chance to look into it.

> I wonder who you would expect to fund research to

> investigate the role of acupuncture in allowing the possibility for

> paraplegics to walk again.

Are you kidding? How about a rich parapalegic? There are LOTS of

rich people, and a lot of them are eccentric. Reeve

would, I'm sure, love to fund the study if someone convinced him it

was a credible lead. But if his paradigm is too conservative for it,

there are plenty of somewhat eccentric or very liberal rich people who

would love to spend a spare million or billion to topple our basic

understanding of paralysis on its head.

> > It would be nice if there were some internet forum for

> > researchers made for posting obscure experiments

> > that have never been replicated!

> Haha. It might be useful to have an internet forum for researchers

> listing obscure experiments where a follow up would never receive

> funding and might cost them their professional standing if they

> tried to obtain funding. I guess there is no need for such a forum

> as researchers already know that.

You underestimate the curiosity of the typical researcher. There are

too many researchers for all of them to be corporate shills. There's

tons of research that is done with no financial interest behind it.

For example there's no financial interest that is driving researchers

to say we should lower the amount of fortification of vitamin A in

milk products because vitamin A is causing osteoporosis. It's

basically neutral with respect to financial interests. Melhus and

Johansson and so on are excited to have a new theory, I think.

There are such forums out there. For example the Alzheimer's Research

Forum (www.alzforum.org) is a decentralized research network where

anyone can log in and comment on studies and anyone can post something

in their " hypothesis factory. " There's a lot of research posted on

natural cures that have nothing for backing, and there's lots of

comments tearing apart drug studies too. It's a general research

forum, and it promotes the exchange of ideas. People who read it may

be researchers, or journalists, doctors, or people who have family

members or others under their care with Alzheimer's. If you post

something inconveinent for big pharma, there is no corporate shill

administrator to delete the post.

So my thought is to set up something like that, only with a different

theme -- one for rejuvenating lost theories and lost leads in science.

If you think osteoporosis researchers wouldn't grab the chance to

investigate those claims about the role of copper in bone anatomy,

then I think you ought to read some of the osteoporosis research.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html

[Guest guest]

Masterjohn wrote:

> On 1/22/06, Ellen Ussery <ellenjill@...> wrote:

>

> > So why don't you start one...in your spare time?

>

> Because I don't have any!

>

> Also I don't have the resources really, like I wouldn't know where to

> start. Maybe in a couple years.

Well maybe with the concept in mind, opportunities will eventually

present themselves. Sure sounds like a good idea.

Ellen

[Guest guest]

>Also NASA recently released the Rife frequency for regenerating

>nerves. I don't know why NASA is studying Rife as the AMA branded

>that quackery decades ago, but interesting nonetheless.

Huh? Do you have a URL? That's quite... interesting, as you say.

-

[Guest guest]

Chi-

Well, frankly, I think the hardest thing would be to get funding and

approval for such a study, though the difficulty you cite may be a

large part of the reason.

>The hardest would be to actually repeat the experiment

>because, if the results turned out to be similar, you would have a

>tough time explaining why you waited so long to conduct a second,

>independent study to replicate the first.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

> Reeve

>would, I'm sure, love to fund the study if someone convinced him it

>was a credible lead. But if his paradigm is too conservative for it

It sure sucks how dying makes your paradigm more conservative, doesn't it? ;-)

-

[Guest guest]

On 1/22/06, Idol <paul_idol@...> wrote:

> Chris-

>

> > Reeve

> >would, I'm sure, love to fund the study if someone convinced him it

> >was a credible lead. But if his paradigm is too conservative for it

>

> It sure sucks how dying makes your paradigm more conservative, doesn't it?

;-)

LOL. I forgot, and the memory's hazy. I'm in a time warp.

Chris

--

Dioxins in Animal Foods:

A Case For Vegetarianism?

Find Out the Truth:

http://www.westonaprice.org/envtoxins/dioxins.html