Notices
Results 1 to 74 of 74

Thread: We can control our immunity.

  1. #1 We can control our immunity. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    We can control our immunity. If I get some serious cooperation I will prove it.

    Before I explain in greater detail what I am referring to I would like to test the waters here. It is my intentions to convince enough of you that you can control your immune system in order to engage an immune response in much the same way as you control your fingers in typing an open minded response to this topic so that I can get a more scientific explanation on how the body is capable of immunity even to the point of being capable of curing existing diseases and pathogens. If there is no one here who wants immunity this could be a problem. I don’t want to be selling ice to Eskimos figuratively speaking. I would like to know there are people still looking for cures who haven't given up.

    I know the body can consistently cure diseases said to be incurable through medicine. I know that there are millions of woo woo scams and faith and belief healing modalities that claim to be able to cure diseases said to be incurable through medicine and the fact does remain some of them have been known to help people unexplainably cure diseases medicine could not cure, BUT there is one major difference between what I wish to share and discuss and all the woo woo “new age” modalities and that is consistency. To become consistent at curing diseases medicine cannot cure, all one must do is take the cure from woo woo new age modalities and remove the woo woo and the “new age” and pursue the science behind the unexplained cure. It really is that simple.

    Before I start sharing what I know to be true in hopes that some of you can explain how and why they are the results come about as in effective cures I would like to know that there are people here who are truly interested in cures that can be achieved outside of medicine, including alternative medicine?

    If there is no one here who is open to the immune system consistently curing diseases without any medicine I would just as soon go back to butting heads with laypersons.

    Mostly I would like to find scientific validation for what I know and do. My work is considered fiction by the masses because science has denied me the opportunity to prove what I do and it is touted that if I could do as I claim I would be famous. For 15 years I have been unsuccessful in telling anyone of importance what I do. I have tried hundreds of times but no one has been interested in cures that require no products of medicine, not the media, not universities and certainly not the medical industry and that includes conventional and “new age”. That’s right “new age” would cease to exist if cures became available without the need for the millions of “new age” products, gadgets, books and videos.

    I plan on editing this once I know there are people here open enough to the possibility that the human immune system is more powerful than science is aware of.

    I’ve had a pleasant discussion about “How do we walk” in biology. I’m hoping for the same kind of pleasant discussion here. Please consider some possibilities. Medicine has failed time and time again at curing deadly diseases but people are still looking and paying for potential cures, is it so hard to imagine the cure being completely unrelated to the constant failing of medicine? Couldn’t the never ending lack of medical productivity be evidence that they are not in the right type of science to find cures?

    Cheers.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Am I to assume there is no one open to the notion that we can control our immune responses?

    Are you open to discussing how you can control your lungs? How you can control your walk, your stride or your typing a comment here?

    Do you automatically dismiss immunity because someone associated health and healing with medicine and disregarded immunity as a goal?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    all of the things that we have "control" over (quite a subjective term, control is only the illusion that your thoughts cause your physical actions, which in reality both are results of basic chemical reactions) are connected to our nerves, which link back to the central nervous system, the brain. our ability to control our muscular functions is a result of electrical impulses sent through our bodies on these nerves and used to command our muscles.

    our immune responses on the other hand are generaly the result of white blood cells. these float around in the blood and have no direct connection to the nervous system

    any other means of affecting the immune system is related to external factors, and is the domain of modern medicine. so either you're claiming your body can do more than create a placebo effect, or you're slightly mistaken in believing that your big claim falls outside of the domain of medicine.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: We can control our immunity. 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    We can control our immunity. If I get some serious cooperation I will prove it.
    You did not intend it that way, but this reads like "If you will agree in advance that I am probably right then, and only then, I shall let you in on my little secret."

    You have, so far had only a single response. Why? Because you have offered nothing. You have dangled a carrot, but the carrot appears dessicated, shrivelled, fungus ridden and unpalatable. Either offer some detailed hypothesis, or some substantial observations and evidence, or go away.

    I am not asking you to go away. I am asking you to produce the data, not background stories of how difficult it is to convince the world of your great discovery. That only makes you sound like a woo-woo.

    If you view this post as combative and negative that would be a shame. It is probably the best piece of advice you will get on this forum. Over to you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    The human mind is a powerful thing yet we have yet to learn to use it, conscious control over ones immune system is not a load of hocus pocus… for this is the very process that occurs when one is under the ‘placebo’ affect. Perhaps not so focused or controlling as say typing or talking but some degree of consciousness anyway.

    I believe our emotional mindset is the blockade that prevents complete bodily focus. Particularly within modern human society and culture our minds are far too preoccupied to pay attention to many of our basic bodily functions. Even something as simple as digesting food requires a conscious effort to perform the process effectively. Scoffing a cheeseburger will cheat your digestive system of performing the complete process, from the preparation work underdone by tasting the actual food for fats and sugar. Adequate digestive enzymes must be produced by the body in order to effectively break down the food but as I said fast eating and living we are cheating our bodies of performing complete basic procedures.

    Sharks are the only know animal that are resistant to disease and illness. I believe this to be a good example as to the degree emotions play upon the mind blockade on the functions of the brain and body. As sharks are hardly deemed emotional creatures they are seldom distressed. I believe it is distress that causes a break down in the immune system because of the ‘emotional’ overriding on the control centre (the brain/mind function).

    It’s quite a complex thing, this brain of ours, something that should NOT be overlooked when looking to find a healthier and more affective approach to tackling diseases.

    For anyone working in immunology, I would recommend a study on Indigenous peoples who have ‘recently’ been forced to transist into a complete new way of living such as that promoted by ‘western’ standards.

    I would claim that these are the people most at risk of developing illnesses for reasons beyond their poor economic conditions. More so for their cultural transition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    The human mind is a powerful thing yet we have yet to learn to use it, conscious control over ones immune system is not a load of hocus pocus… for this is the very process that occurs when one is under the ‘placebo’ affect.
    When has the placebo effect been demonstrated to influence immunity? Not saying it hasn't been shown, but last I checked the closest we'd come to something like that was conditioning, which is not really the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I believe our emotional mindset is the blockade that prevents complete bodily focus. Particularly within modern human society and culture our minds are far too preoccupied to pay attention to many of our basic bodily functions. Even something as simple as digesting food requires a conscious effort to perform the process effectively.
    How do you know this to be true?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Scoffing a cheeseburger will cheat your digestive system of performing the complete process, from the preparation work underdone by tasting the actual food for fats and sugar. Adequate digestive enzymes must be produced by the body in order to effectively break down the food but as I said fast eating and living we are cheating our bodies of performing complete basic procedures.
    That doesn't make much sense to me- if anything we take more time with our food in our laid back modern society than we would have in our ancient past. You don't see other animal species taking an hour to cook and season a meal. You don't seem them taking another hour to sit down with their family to talk, eat and drink.

    Generally, you see them killing and eating their food as quickly as possible to avoid spoilage and theft by competitors. Before fire and settlement, humans would have been much the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Sharks are the only know animal that are resistant to disease and illness.
    Says who? How are they more resistant than we are?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I believe this to be a good example as to the degree emotions play upon the mind blockade on the functions of the brain and body. As sharks are hardly deemed emotional creatures they are seldom distressed.
    Again, says who? How do you know that sharks are less emotional than we are? How do you know that the are less frequently distressed? Human assessments of shark emotion seem to be mostly based on anecdotes of how inexpressive they appear from the outside. Not a great way of judging.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I believe it is distress that causes a break down in the immune system because of the ‘emotional’ overriding on the control centre (the brain/mind function).
    Why do you believe that? I don't doubt that emotions and psychology may influence immunity, but I don't think they're as central as you're suggesting. How do you know there is a correlation between emotion and immunity? If there is one, how do you know what the nature of the correlation is? How do you know, for example, that strong negative emotions or stress don't simply make an individual more likely to engage in behaviour that poses a risk to health? Or to sleep less and thus compromise the immune system via simple fatigue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    It’s quite a complex thing, this brain of ours, something that should NOT be overlooked when looking to find a healthier and more affective approach to tackling diseases.
    Who is overlooking it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    For anyone working in immunology, I would recommend a study on Indigenous peoples who have ‘recently’ been forced to transist into a complete new way of living such as that promoted by ‘western’ standards.
    For example?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I would claim that these are the people most at risk of developing illnesses for reasons beyond their poor economic conditions. More so for their cultural transition.
    What is the basis in evidence for that claim?

    This all reads like a fairly vague and clichéd indictment of our oh-so-unhealthy modern lifestyle. Not like the olden days eh? When we crouched in caves eating burnt deer, dying at the age of 40 due to septicaemia brought on by a minor hunting injury. Golden times.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I was about to begin a detailed response, but I see The Biologista has beaten me to it, asking all of the questions I had in mind. Everything you have said, Commander Cosmos, seems to be based on what you imagine or believe to be true. None of it - thus far - has been substantiated by you in any way.

    I don't think either of us is saying you are wrong, only that you have offered no evidence to suggest you may be right. Indeed, on some points I sense you are wrong. I am not aware of any greater emotional content in the life of a frog compared with a shark, yet frog certainly become ill - perhaps they regret not being princes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    When I speak of emotion I am more referring to the chemicals or hormones that are been produced within the brain that actually induce the corresponding state of mind or feelings. Which indeed we call emotions. I don’t just limit emotions in this context to happy, sad or fear. Probably more so what I mean is in the reactionary sense of the word from that of a living organism. Perhaps what is more commonly referred to as the ‘flight or fight’ response.

    Some of the following links I hope will at least give my view point some degree of validly.
    On the topic of the placebo effect the brains role on psychical health.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_..._of_physiology

    I concede my statements are rather vague but please excuse my doing so as time is money within the commercial internet cafes I have to use. Anyway. To go further on the point I am making as to the conscious control of one’s immune system I would argue that the mental trickery of the placebo effect is done so out of a mental effort to practically delude itself. Likewise I refer to an incident I read of in the biography of a hemophilic man whom despite crippling arthritis came under the influence of ecstasy (MDMA) and managed to avoid severe internal bleeding just after performing intense bodily movement and contact from running & jumping. (The book is Aprils Fools day by Australia Author Bryce Courtnay, remarkable story of human resilience and strength that derives from great suffrage).

    Again time will tell with further study into the relationship between the brain and the body a much fuller extent into which the mind’s role upon our health actually has. (Excuse he poor grammar, I am in a hurry).
    It is well documented that sharks are highly resilient to diseases and pretty much immune of all cancer types. A common theory for this is their lack of cartilage (bone)… but I go one further and claim that any animal that bears the burden of a bone structure must be of greater distress levels due to the efforts required to carry them. I propose in this incident for one to compare the variance between the stress hormones (or genes responsible) within a shark to that of an animal with a back bone.

    That is all for now.. I look forward to continuing this argument.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Are you suggesting that sharks are not vertebrates? Yes, you are - "I propose in this incident for one to compare the variance between the stress hormones (or genes responsible) within a shark to that of an animal with a back bone."

    Can you see that this poor appreciation of your subject matter leaves many readers sceptical of your imagined hypothesis?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Are you suggesting that sharks are not vertebrates? Yes, you are - "I propose in this incident for one to compare the variance between the stress hormones (or genes responsible) within a shark to that of an animal with a back bone."

    Can you see that this poor appreciation of your subject matter leaves many readers sceptical of your imagined hypothesis?
    Actually, he is technically correct. Sharks do not have a 'back bone'. They have a cartilaginous skeleton that gives them a cartilage spine over a bony spine. So they do not, in fact, have a back bone, despite them being vertebrates.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Yes, Arcane is right, sharks are Chordates, but they aren't vertebrates, but the distinction being made here seems pretty arbitrary since bony fish are certainly much closer to sharks than to human beings even if the two are both vertebrates.

    He also claimed that sharks have no cartilage though, so I think Ophi was right to question his command of biology. Shark cartilage is often used as a snake oil medicine for cancer. This arises out of a belief, largely driven by anecdotal evidence from fishermen, that sharks never have disease. However, this isn't true, but there might be a lower incidence of cancer in sharks. The problem is that no one has bothered to conduct a study to actually ascertain if there is a statistical difference in how many sharks fished up have cancer.

    Key to this though is that sharks are not immune to cancer.

    Edit: Need to make a correction. Sharks are vertebrates, they begin life only with a notochord, but they do develop a cartilage vertebrate in adulthood. So, they fall within the vertebrates.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by saul
    other means of affecting the immune system is related to external factors, and is the domain of modern medicine. so either you're claiming your body can do more than create a placebo effect, or you're slightly mistaken in believing that your big claim falls outside of the domain of medicine.
    Saul, there we have it. "domain of medicine". What if I do not give medicine the kind of authority consumers do? What if a person does not wait, expect, need or have any use in medicine outside of repairmen like trauma surgeons and they wanted cures now or better yet wanted cures 15 years ago?

    Clearly these people would have their own "domain". After all you can go to college and study "medicine" but you can't go to college to study "cures".

    "Domain of Medicine", this is the obstacle in the way of "cures". If the "domain of medicine" does not cures something, the consumers who consider them the final word say "it can't be cured". If the "domain of medicine" does not wish to research, validate or investigate the body's ability to cure diseases there are no questions asked. Why, Because consumers have been lead to believe that anything health related is "medical domain" and as such medicine has the final word.

    Cures cannot be discussed without medical approval and to do such comes as great risk of being censored.

    How did "medical science domain" come to have the final word over people's health? How did it get to be above question? How did restoring or maintaining proper health become a "consumer" matter where one must consume products for any hope for proper or better health?

    How did "medical domain" ever get classified as true science when the only real obvious science behind it is the chemist mixing up the next potion. Medicine isn't made up of hypotheses it is made up of something a whole lot weaker. It is made up of "is thought to be" or "may be caused by" and consumers call it science.

    We can control our immunity and if I do not get banned from this forum for being able to prove it I will prove it. Forums with "medical domain" would remove this thread now. Is this "medical domain" here or is this a forum of scientist who are capable of thinking for themselves. I'm looking for scientist not sellouts who go to the highest bidder.

    My body and your body can do more than create an placebo effect.

    Thanks for getting the ball rolling Saul. I've been away from the computer for a few days and I was happy to see the key issues addressed first. Because the "medical domain" can't cure something as simple as herpes I have just as much confidence in your understanding of herpes and I would just as soon keep it simple and leave the circus of medicine out of it. Herpes is a pathogenic condition maybe related to viruses maybe it is only "thought to be caused" by a virus so why don't people put more faith in their immune system which is known to kill pathogens than they put into Valtrex?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    By all means, please, if you know this to be true; learn more about it, refine your theory, and figure out an effective way to communicate it. Id start from learning about biochemistry, with a focus on how the immune system works.

    This is big business, and if it's true, then you could easily put yourself through grad school selling self help pamphlets supported by your research.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: We can control our immunity. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    If you view this post as combative and negative that would be a shame. It is probably the best piece of advice you will get on this forum. Over to you.
    I've been in rough waters for 15 years Ophiolite and I dare say it wouldn't make the average person combative. You mentioned "woo woo", funny thing is the "woo woo" are just as quick to censor the fact that all there "woo woo" stems from their clients manifesting an immune response the same way any immune response is manifested. As such there is no need for the "woo woo" drama and glitter and certainly no place for "woo woo" products and gadgets.

    So when "woo woo" gets beaten down by western conventional medicine and medicine gets slightly bruised by "woo woo" I take an intense barrage by both, after all they are both in the exact same business of selling products.

    "Combative", it was my intentions to see if this was a forum that bans discussion of cures that require no products, woo woo or medicine? I wanted to know if people here are open to formulating their own ideas, theories or hypotheses or if they were going to use "medical science" to contradict my claims? If the latter is the case, I concede, "medical science" says there is no cure for herpes, HIV, HCV, allergies, asthma, lyme disease, and so on. If anyone wishes to dispute my claims using "medical domain" data I concede that they cannot cure the above mentioned diseases and as such are not a reliable source when it comes to understanding cures or the human immune system.

    I'm not interested in debating the differences between "medical science" / "domain of medicine" and actual cures. I am well aware of the differences.

    To have real cures disputed for 15 years because the "medical domain" say's the diseases are not curable will make a person somewhat combative, "scientifically speaking" that is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    When I speak of emotion I am more referring to the chemicals or hormones that are been produced within the brain that actually induce the corresponding state of mind or feelings. Which indeed we call emotions. I don’t just limit emotions in this context to happy, sad or fear. Probably more so what I mean is in the reactionary sense of the word from that of a living organism. Perhaps what is more commonly referred to as the ‘flight or fight’ response.

    Some of the following links I hope will at least give my view point some degree of validly.
    On the topic of the placebo effect the brains role on psychical health.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_..._of_physiology

    I concede my statements are rather vague but please excuse my doing so as time is money within the commercial internet cafes I have to use. Anyway. To go further on the point I am making as to the conscious control of one’s immune system I would argue that the mental trickery of the placebo effect is done so out of a mental effort to practically delude itself. Likewise I refer to an incident I read of in the biography of a hemophilic man whom despite crippling arthritis came under the influence of ecstasy (MDMA) and managed to avoid severe internal bleeding just after performing intense bodily movement and contact from running & jumping. (The book is Aprils Fools day by Australia Author Bryce Courtnay, remarkable story of human resilience and strength that derives from great suffrage).

    Again time will tell with further study into the relationship between the brain and the body a much fuller extent into which the mind’s role upon our health actually has. (Excuse he poor grammar, I am in a hurry).
    It is well documented that sharks are highly resilient to diseases and pretty much immune of all cancer types. A common theory for this is their lack of cartilage (bone)… but I go one further and claim that any animal that bears the burden of a bone structure must be of greater distress levels due to the efforts required to carry them. I propose in this incident for one to compare the variance between the stress hormones (or genes responsible) within a shark to that of an animal with a back bone.

    That is all for now.. I look forward to continuing this argument.
    Hey CC, why does it have to be an argument?


    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Again time will tell with further study into the relationship between the brain and the body a much fuller extent into which the mind’s role upon our health actually has.
    Why does this have to be an argument. Shouldn't it be understood and zillions of dollars donated to the the pursuit of understanding the relationship between the brain and the body and it's relation to our health? The placebo is there, why not do as I did and discover how to make the placebo completely consistent and permanent.

    I'm happy to forgive any poor grammar. Great grammar hasn't done much for curing herpes but great understanding makes curing herpes a cinch.

    Let's talk about what would need to take place for the body to actively search and destroy what causes herpes.

    Am I the only person here that believe the body and mind does not want to be infected with herpes?

    For the sake of discussion, can we assume that the body and brain do not want to be sick hence the reason for the immune system in the first place?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Yes, Arcane is right, sharks are Chordates, but they aren't vertebrates, but the distinction being made here seems pretty arbitrary since bony fish are certainly much closer to sharks than to human beings even if the two are both vertebrates.

    He also claimed that sharks have no cartilage though, so I think Ophi was right to question his command of biology. Shark cartilage is often used as a snake oil medicine for cancer. This arises out of a belief, largely driven by anecdotal evidence from fishermen, that sharks never have disease. However, this isn't true, but there might be a lower incidence of cancer in sharks. The problem is that no one has bothered to conduct a study to actually ascertain if there is a statistical difference in how many sharks fished up have cancer.

    Key to this though is that sharks are not immune to cancer.

    Edit: Need to make a correction. Sharks are vertebrates, they begin life only with a notochord, but they do develop a cartilage vertebrate in adulthood. So, they fall within the vertebrates.
    Yes, Shark research is going to be for consumer driven medical goods. Before people start attacking shark woo woo, it is still considered "medicine" and the "medical domain" or "domain of medicine" has paved the way for this kind of woo woo, even if it is only because of conventional medicines lack of effectiveness driving people to such foolish pursuits of health and healing answers. Sharks have nothing on the human immune system.

    People will bottle up shark in a handy pill and people will take it and people will get relief and some people will be cured but it will not be the shark byproducts causing the relief or the potential cure. It will be the person taking the products getting out of their own way and allowing their brain and body to effectively engage an immune response.

    And the debate between woo woo and western conventional medicine over the unexplained occurrences from shark byproduct will muddy up the water to the point where no one will ever look past the nose on their face and the truth will be forever buried.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos

    I believe our emotional mindset is the blockade that prevents complete bodily focus. Particularly within modern human society and culture our minds are far too preoccupied to pay attention to many of our basic bodily functions.
    What kind of effect does the "belief" that health and healing can only be a result of adding a chemical or supplement to the body to gain improved health have on emotional mindset? I think you hit the nail on the head here. Without focus we cannot build an IPhone, without focus we cannot build immunity.

    You may agree, there is certainly nothing more unnatural than trying to chemically alter ones health for an actual improvement in health.

    Thanks CC. Immunity may be a lost instinct, lost when we started looking for it in a bottle.

    The beautiful thing is we can get the instinct back, probably because we are the supreme beings.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    The human mind is a powerful thing yet we have yet to learn to use it, conscious control over ones immune system is not a load of hocus pocus… for this is the very process that occurs when one is under the ‘placebo’ affect.
    When has the placebo effect been demonstrated to influence immunity? Not saying it hasn't been shown, but last I checked the closest we'd come to something like that was conditioning, which is not really the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I believe our emotional mindset is the blockade that prevents complete bodily focus. Particularly within modern human society and culture our minds are far too preoccupied to pay attention to many of our basic bodily functions. Even something as simple as digesting food requires a conscious effort to perform the process effectively.
    How do you know this to be true?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Scoffing a cheeseburger will cheat your digestive system of performing the complete process, from the preparation work underdone by tasting the actual food for fats and sugar. Adequate digestive enzymes must be produced by the body in order to effectively break down the food but as I said fast eating and living we are cheating our bodies of performing complete basic procedures.
    That doesn't make much sense to me- if anything we take more time with our food in our laid back modern society than we would have in our ancient past. You don't see other animal species taking an hour to cook and season a meal. You don't seem them taking another hour to sit down with their family to talk, eat and drink.

    Generally, you see them killing and eating their food as quickly as possible to avoid spoilage and theft by competitors. Before fire and settlement, humans would have been much the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Sharks are the only know animal that are resistant to disease and illness.
    Says who? How are they more resistant than we are?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I believe this to be a good example as to the degree emotions play upon the mind blockade on the functions of the brain and body. As sharks are hardly deemed emotional creatures they are seldom distressed.
    Again, says who? How do you know that sharks are less emotional than we are? How do you know that the are less frequently distressed? Human assessments of shark emotion seem to be mostly based on anecdotes of how inexpressive they appear from the outside. Not a great way of judging.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I believe it is distress that causes a break down in the immune system because of the ‘emotional’ overriding on the control centre (the brain/mind function).
    Why do you believe that? I don't doubt that emotions and psychology may influence immunity, but I don't think they're as central as you're suggesting. How do you know there is a correlation between emotion and immunity? If there is one, how do you know what the nature of the correlation is? How do you know, for example, that strong negative emotions or stress don't simply make an individual more likely to engage in behaviour that poses a risk to health? Or to sleep less and thus compromise the immune system via simple fatigue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    It’s quite a complex thing, this brain of ours, something that should NOT be overlooked when looking to find a healthier and more affective approach to tackling diseases.
    Who is overlooking it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    For anyone working in immunology, I would recommend a study on Indigenous peoples who have ‘recently’ been forced to transist into a complete new way of living such as that promoted by ‘western’ standards.
    For example?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I would claim that these are the people most at risk of developing illnesses for reasons beyond their poor economic conditions. More so for their cultural transition.
    What is the basis in evidence for that claim?

    This all reads like a fairly vague and clichéd indictment of our oh-so-unhealthy modern lifestyle. Not like the olden days eh? When we crouched in caves eating burnt deer, dying at the age of 40 due to septicaemia brought on by a minor hunting injury. Golden times.
    How does CC know this to be true? CC said they "believe".

    Quite frankly there is no scientific way to disprove what CC 'believes" either. This is where naysayers dispute existing cures based on the "medical domain" having the final word. That notion is PROVING extremely deadly.

    The "domain of medicine" cannot prove there is no cure for herpes, but I can prove there is. Will I get the chance on a grand scale? Very unlikely. Will I get the chance on a small scale here? If I don't get banned we will take science to a new level right here and change the world as we know it.

    You can argue and debate or you can make a difference.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    By all means, please, if you know this to be true; learn more about it, refine your theory, and figure out an effective way to communicate it. Id start from learning about biochemistry, with a focus on how the immune system works.

    This is big business, and if it's true, then you could easily put yourself through grad school selling self help pamphlets supported by your research.
    15+ years ago I was helping people cure diseases medicine could not cure. This was about the time we started kicking out cookie cutter alternative doctors creating a new competition.

    My clients naturally suggested I go back to school and become a cookie cutter doctor. I couldn't do it. I couldn't see how it would improve my understanding of cures when the cookie cutters couldn't cut it.

    My instincts were correct. Had I got licensed to practice medicine I would have either gotten side tracked and accepted "medicines domain" and lost all effectiveness or I would have started practicing "cures" outside of my scope of training and had my license taken away from me which would have INSTANTLY destroyed any credibility I had.

    However, I would love to prove cures do exist and let "science" catch up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Yes, Arcane is right, sharks are Chordates, but they aren't vertebrates, but the distinction being made here seems pretty arbitrary since bony fish are certainly much closer to sharks than to human beings even if the two are both vertebrates.

    He also claimed that sharks have no cartilage though, so I think Ophi was right to question his command of biology. Shark cartilage is often used as a snake oil medicine for cancer. This arises out of a belief, largely driven by anecdotal evidence from fishermen, that sharks never have disease. However, this isn't true, but there might be a lower incidence of cancer in sharks. The problem is that no one has bothered to conduct a study to actually ascertain if there is a statistical difference in how many sharks fished up have cancer.

    Key to this though is that sharks are not immune to cancer.
    I just wanted to nitpick. It's more fun to nitpick the small corrections that I know someone like ophi actually appreciates.

    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    Edit: Need to make a correction. Sharks are vertebrates, they begin life only with a notochord, but they do develop a cartilage vertebrate in adulthood. So, they fall within the vertebrates.
    And apparently, my point was decidedly moot, anyway, seeing as you had to correct me.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Quite frankly there is no scientific way to disprove what CC 'believes" either.
    He has made specific statements without evidential support. Arguing, on a science forum, that we should accept, or even consider a particular point of view simply because it is someone's belief is either foolish or arrogant.

    We have reasonably asked for evidence to support the specific statements made, or at least those that seem questionable. No one, thus far, seems to be denying the possibility, but I for one would like to see some kind of evidential support. Until this is forthcoming the claims are at risk of appearting woo-woo.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    This is where naysayers dispute existing cures based on the "medical domain" having the final word. That notion is PROVING extremely deadly.
    This is scientists and those with scientific training making the reasonable request that claims should be backed up with evidence not anecdote. If you choose to reject that approach then you reject the approach that has produced the technological and scientific advances we enjoy today. And you ask we do this based upon someone else's belief? That does not seem a viable approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    The "domain of medicine" cannot prove there is no cure for herpes, but I can prove there is.
    Then do so.


    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Will I get the chance on a grand scale?
    We don't get chances, we create chances.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    You can argue and debate or you can make a difference.
    You can make a difference by losing the rhetoric and delivering meaning and substance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    The "domain of medicine" cannot prove there is no cure for herpes, but I can prove there is. Will I get the chance on a grand scale? Very unlikely. Will I get the chance on a small scale here? If I don't get banned we will take science to a new level right here and change the world as we know it.
    1: Non-existence is unprovable.
    2: If you have a cure for herpes, you will become VERY famous.
    3: you've already stated that you are an implicit troll, would you like to prove that statement wrong and post how to cure herpes? Something we can test to verify it's effectiveness?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Ophiolite, lets get to the rat killing. What kind of kind of evidential support would you like to see? You apparently have the scientific training and that is why I have come to this forum. Curing diseases said to be incurable by medicine is easy, it is the the evidential support that has proven to be scientifically impossible or maybe it is more correct to say mathematically impossible.

    I will address this more with my comment to Arcane_Mathematician.

    Arcane_Mathematician, I am well aware of the fact that "non-existence is unprovable" that's why I said it. I am very pleased that you agree and I assume the others here agree as well. I haven't been on a forum where people agreed with that simple fact. The general public believe is the "domain of medicine" says herpes cannot be cured, it means quite simply that herpes cannot be cured no ands ifs or buts.

    Arcane_Mathematician says; "If you have a cure for herpes, you will become VERY famous".

    Really, what would make you think so? Anyone else with the same opinion please join in and explain what would make me famous if I could cure herpes. I would like to see if scientifically trained people are as naive as I once was. I mean no disrespect, I simply want to see if we have more in common than breathing.

    Arcane_Mathematician says: "you've already stated that you are an implicit troll, would you like to prove that statement wrong and post how to cure herpes? Something we can test to verify it's effectiveness?"

    No, you are implying that I am an "implicit troll" probably for the sole purpose of creating a reason to ban this discussion before too much information is shared. As for for your question as to would I like to prove the statement wrong, I refer you to my original question to Ophiolite. Please, anyone with scientific training on providing evidence over the internet please feel free to join in and answer the question to Ophiolite.

    I have full intentions of going deep here but I won't do it without some cooperation. You guys tell me what you require for evidential support or proof and we can see what is reasonable and what is not.

    I am very excited that you all seem to agree that it is possible that we can control our immune systems and create immune responses. If you were to say that on medical forums you would run the risk of being banned and Arcane_Mathematician would then have to call you a troll.

    I think we can all agree that something goes on in regards to the placebo effect that warrants a closer look. With cooperation I think the best of the scientific minds here will enjoy the simplicity of what I wish to share. Cures are not difficult to achieve and I assume they seem far fetched because we have made them seem so elusive.

    If someone would like to address the questions to the posters above we can move forward. There is no point in moving forward if everyone is biased and in a frame of mind not conducive to understanding something as simple as what I wish to share. There simply is no point in making things complicated or debating issues.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Do you cure herpes through a medicine? A treatment process? A ritualistic method? How do you cure herpes, and know it's cured? It shouldn't be that hard to describe...

    And you are an implicit troll for assuming this discussion will be banned out of the starting gate, something common for trolls. If you are discussing a methodology or some type of cure, then why would it be banned? Seriously, that's one of the most ridiculous and stupid excuses to not post information I've ever heard.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    The general public believe is the "domain of medicine" says herpes cannot be cured, it means quite simply that herpes cannot be cured no ands ifs or buts.
    Actually, the "Domain of medicine" says there is no known cure for herpes. Again, a scientific institution will never explicitly say that something does not exist, when pushed, especially in terms of things such as this. There are no cures for Cancer, HIV, Herpes, nor certain other diseases. That does not mean that those cures do not exist, and medicine recognizes this. And there are treatments for these, that may or may not work, and in some individuals relieve them of their affliction entirely. Please, how do you cure Herpes?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Do you cure herpes through a medicine? A treatment process? A ritualistic method? How do you cure herpes, and know it's cured? It shouldn't be that hard to describe...

    And you are an implicit troll for assuming this discussion will be banned out of the starting gate, something common for trolls. If you are discussing a methodology or some type of cure, then why would it be banned? Seriously, that's one of the most ridiculous and stupid excuses to not post information I've ever heard.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    The general public believe is the "domain of medicine" says herpes cannot be cured, it means quite simply that herpes cannot be cured no ands ifs or buts.
    Actually, the "Domain of medicine" says there is no known cure for herpes. Again, a scientific institution will never explicitly say that something does not exist, when pushed, especially in terms of things such as this. There are no cures for Cancer, HIV, Herpes, nor certain other diseases. That does not mean that those cures do not exist, and medicine recognizes this. And there are treatments for these, that may or may not work, and in some individuals relieve them of their affliction entirely. Please, how do you cure Herpes?
    You do like pointing out the obvious don't you?
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    The general public believes when the "domain of medicine" says herpes cannot be cured, it means quite simply that herpes cannot be cured no ands ifs or buts.
    This means people assume there is no cure if medicine cannot cure it and as such when someone mentions cures outside of "medicine's domain" it is immediate grounds for dismissal.

    The fact that you wish to continue to refer to me as an implicit troll and you didn't answer the question as to why I would be famous if I could cure herpes leaves me thinking you are simply here to be argumentative and that isn't why I came to this forum. I'm not famous am I, so by your own irrational reasoning I cannot cure herpes based on your illogical theory.

    You tell me how I could be able to cure herpes and not be famous and I will answer you. Otherwise I will wait for my questions to what "evidential support" can I give here and why must I be famous if I can cure herpes. Once these are scientifically evaluated and addressed we can go on.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Lets stay on task. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Please try not to let the propaganda surrounding the topic of herpes impair your judgment. What I will share here when I have a person or two here in the proper mindset to understand will make the condition known as herpes as just another reason to create a proper immune response. Don't add propaganda hype to what is no more than a simple pathogen.

    Let's please leave out the emotion and the accusations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Ophiolite, lets get to the rat killing. What kind of kind of evidential support would you like to see?
    Something of the nature of a double blind study published in a peer reviewed journal is what I would like to see. I appreciate that you have already indicated this would not be possible.

    At the risk of being rude, cut to the frigging chase and give us whatever evidence you have. Stpehen Hawkings doesn't send out an email saying "before I publish my latest thoughts on information loss in black hole formation please let me know what you would consider acceptable evidence for my views." He publishes his frigging results and lets the scientitfic community have at them.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Curing diseases said to be incurable by medicine is easy, it is the the evidential support that has proven to be scientifically impossible or maybe it is more correct to say mathematically impossible.
    Why is that so? Please explain.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    The general public believe is the "domain of medicine" says herpes cannot be cured, it means quite simply that herpes cannot be cured no ands ifs or buts.
    I don't give a frigging aardvark's ass what the general public think. The general public are morons. Now can we get down to brass tacks please. Evidence!

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Arcane_Mathematician says; "If you have a cure for herpes, you will become VERY famous".

    Really, what would make you think so? Anyone else with the same opinion please join in and explain what would make me famous if I could cure herpes. .
    I am no expert on herpes, but I understand it is a viral disease. I further understand that at present we have had little or no sucess in curing viral diseases. It doesn't take a degree in media studies to see that if you can deliver such a cure you would have at least the requisite fifteen minutes of fame.

    Now stop being so frigging coy and passive aggressive. If you treat your audience like hostile ignoramouses they shall fulfill your expextations.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    No, you are implying that I am an "implicit troll" probably for the sole purpose of creating a reason to ban this discussion before too much information is shared. .
    Stop being frigging ridiculous. Give us the frigging facts and stop messing around with paranoid delusions and infantile "I've got a secret" nonsense. If you want to be treated seriously start acting seriously.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    I have full intentions of going deep here but I won't do it without some cooperation. You guys tell me what you require for evidential support or proof and we can see what is reasonable and what is not. .
    The point is already addressed above. Now give us what you have or piss off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    I would just as soon "piss off" and wait till someone rational is interested in cures for diseases science and medicine cannot cure today.

    For the record, there will never be any double blind or triple blind studies because there are no products, gadgets or medicine to study.

    There will never be any peer reviewed journals for publishing information about cures that require no medicine or products unless I find someone outside of the current medical industry willing to do the research and I ask each and every one of you to consider how effective your published journal would be if you investigated and researched man's ability to control their immune system. Imagine what it would be like trying to convince people like Ophiolite and Arcane_Mathematician. I have been around these kinds for 15 years and they are as transparent as they come. I have never ever been around a scientist that can see past all the medical industry hype, propaganda and greed in order to even consider cures outside of medicine as a possibility.

    There will never be 15 minutes of fame either. The consistency of cures without products and medicine will see to that. If I could be proven a fraud I would already be infamous.

    PRIDE. Pride is the reason cures are not socially acceptable today. Here I am with no formal scientific training yet I can cure any disease known to man without medicine or products and no one of importance knows about it. I'm good at "pissing off", the medical industry and medical science industry has been seeing to it that I have been "pissing off" for the last 15 years.

    So, many of you agree that it is possible that either there could be cures for what today's scientist cannot cure. Some of you may believe that in theory the immune system could be that cure.

    Do any of you believe a person outside of science could develop such a cure?

    Do any of you believe such a cure could be met with resistance being that it requires no technology, products or medicine?

    If no one is willing to honestly answer these last two questions with their hat in their hands, I will be happy to "piss off". I understand this is grounds for being banned and I will take my chances. Either someone shows a real interest in cures outside of medicine with their hat in their hand or I would just as soon be banned. I'm not interested in wasting my time with Ophiolite and Arcane_Mathematician.

    Do any of you believe a person outside of science could develop such a cure?

    Do any of you believe such a cure could be met with resistance being that it requires no technology, products or medicine? Completely unmarketable.

    If no one votes yes on both questions please excuse my intrusion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 This is what I read before posting here. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Karlson
    Don't do it. The question is a setup.

    Anything you post will be attacked by the horde of morons inhabiting these forums.

    You will be verbally harrassed and abused until you wonder if you have stumbled into a zoo instead of an internet forums inhabited by human beings.
    Nope. I'll be enforcing a strict "no attacks rule" on this particular thread, as per the OP. This is a thread for fun, one-off ideas. Any debates can be taken to a new thread. Sound fair?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    I would just as soon "piss off" and wait till someone rational is interested in cures for diseases science and medicine cannot cure today.

    For the record, there will never be any double blind or triple blind studies because there are no products, gadgets or medicine to study.

    There will never be any peer reviewed journals for publishing information about cures that require no medicine or products unless I find someone outside of the current medical industry willing to do the research and I ask each and every one of you to consider how effective your published journal would be if you investigated and researched man's ability to control their immune system. Imagine what it would be like trying to convince people like Ophiolite and Arcane_Mathematician. I have been around these kinds for 15 years and they are as transparent as they come. I have never ever been around a scientist that can see past all the medical industry hype, propaganda and greed in order to even consider cures outside of medicine as a possibility.

    There will never be 15 minutes of fame either. The consistency of cures without products and medicine will see to that. If I could be proven a fraud I would already be infamous.

    PRIDE. Pride is the reason cures are not socially acceptable today. Here I am with no formal scientific training yet I can cure any disease known to man without medicine or products and no one of importance knows about it. I'm good at "pissing off", the medical industry and medical science industry has been seeing to it that I have been "pissing off" for the last 15 years.

    So, many of you agree that it is possible that either there could be cures for what today's scientist cannot cure. Some of you may believe that in theory the immune system could be that cure.

    Do any of you believe a person outside of science could develop such a cure?

    Do any of you believe such a cure could be met with resistance being that it requires no technology, products or medicine?

    If no one is willing to honestly answer these last two questions with their hat in their hands, I will be happy to "piss off". I understand this is grounds for being banned and I will take my chances. Either someone shows a real interest in cures outside of medicine with their hat in their hand or I would just as soon be banned. I'm not interested in wasting my time with Ophiolite and Arcane_Mathematician.

    Do any of you believe a person outside of science could develop such a cure?

    Do any of you believe such a cure could be met with resistance being that it requires no technology, products or medicine? Completely unmarketable.

    If no one votes yes on both questions please excuse my intrusion.
    Are you also an AIDS denier?

    IF there is a way to control the immune system, to target specific virus's as they enter the body, then that would be a medical marvel. the issue is there is no documented instance of this happening. There are no documented cases of individuals having a recurrent viral disease and then being suddenly cured.

    As per your questions, 1)(pending you change the word "science" to "medicine") absolutely, and 2) absolutely not. Once demonstrated, there would be NO resistance. If it's testable, repeatable, and consistently doable, there will be no resistance from any scientist that your cure is, in fact, a cure.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31 Prove science and medicine is looking for cures. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    This is a "science" forum but maybe I was a bit presumptuous in assuming there would be scientist here.

    I haven't even explained how man can control their immune system in order to cure diseases and I have already been discredited on the principal that if I could cure diseases medicine cannot cure it would be known to all indiscriminately suggesting I am a fraud because you people are still unaware of cures for pathogenic diseases said to be incurable by medicine or any disease for that matter.

    Those of you who believe this to be reasonable, I can only respond with this, please find me a scientist in a position to research, validate and publish data for the whole world to read in regards to consistent cures that have no possible way to generate revenue. Prove science and medicine is looking for cures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,064
    Just ot be pedantic about the point of shark classification. the Class Chondrihcthyes which includes sharks, is part of subphylum Vertebrata. The possession of a cartilage skeleton, rather then a calcium bases skeleton means it is in the sister group to Teleostomi, the verts with calcium based skeletons.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33 Re: Prove science and medicine is looking for cures. 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    This is a "science" forum but maybe I was a bit presumptuous in assuming there would be scientist here.
    You are a pretentious prick, aren't you?

    I just spent a portion of this afternoon savaging a hypothesis that seeks to explain a particular and unique condition of damage and wear that is occassionally seen on drilling bits used in the oil industry. While I was somewhat diplomatic and tactful I made it clear that the hypothesis was riddled with inadequacies and likely required a major rethink and probably abandoment.

    Why do I mention this? The hypothesis I was savaging was my own; I still remain wedded to it; that did not prevent me from demanding a higher standard of evidence be delivered to support it than I am currently able to provide.

    Yey you expect me to treat you more openly and generously than I treat myself! Get real. I am simply asking for facts, not fatuous comments; evidence, not paranoia. You seem well versed in the latter.

    I am potentially your greatest supporter on this forum. I believe most illnesses are psychosomatic in origin. The role of the immune system as a vehicle through which such illnesses can express themselves is an obvious one. I strongly desire that your hypothesis be true. Now get off the fucking pot and give us some substance and not this emotional waffle that simply discredits the entire idea.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Scoffing a cheeseburger will cheat your digestive system of performing the complete process, from the preparation work underdone by tasting the actual food for fats and sugar. Adequate digestive enzymes must be produced by the body in order to effectively break down the food but as I said fast eating and living we are cheating our bodies of performing complete basic procedures.
    That doesn't make much sense to me- if anything we take more time with our food in our laid back modern society than we would have in our ancient past. You don't see other animal species taking an hour to cook and season a meal. You don't seem them taking another hour to sit down with their family to talk, eat and drink.
    Ok, fair comment to make however I feel you may have missed the point I am trying to make here which is entirely regarding the concept of the tasting process the body has to perform. Increasingly difficult I would suggest when it comes to eating processed foods high in both fats and sugar. Forgive me here for not providing the actual source but some private research of your own and you will find the evidence to support my claim. The point I make in relation to the digestion of fats and sugar within foods is that it requires greater effort by the body.

    For my next point I am sure you will also find evidence to support my claim if you just look, it is on the potential for poorly digested food to enter the blood stream containing 'impurities' or products conventionally alien to the blood stream. I would refer you to the inflammatory disease acne as one potential reference for such happening. (yes of course it has not been PROVEN, in the way you claim everything should but at least just consider it).



    Why do you believe that? I don't doubt that emotions and psychology may influence immunity, but I don't think they're as central as you're suggesting. How do you know there is a correlation between emotion and immunity? If there is one, how do you know what the nature of the correlation is? How do you know, for example, that strong negative emotions or stress don't simply make an individual more likely to engage in behavior that poses a risk to health? Or to sleep less and thus compromise the immune system via simple fatigue?
    I would suggest research into the possibility of depressed people contracting diseases and illness more greatly than that of non depressed people. I would also refer you to the broken heart syndrome (ie when a grieving widow or widower dies soon after their loved one). Most depressed people lack sleep and yes I do agree it does compromise the immune system as it has been proven to do so.



    As regards the point I am making on the relationship between mental focus and that of bodily functions, I would refer to several incidents of meditative stated people been capable of consciously stopping blood flow to a wound. Again as with the actual truth to these claims I do not know but I do remain open minded of the possibility. Likewise, it could also be possible for one to consciously take control of the white blood cell producers.

    The possibilities are there
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Re: Prove science and medicine is looking for cures. 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    This is a "science" forum but maybe I was a bit presumptuous in assuming there would be scientist here.
    You are a pretentious prick, aren't you?

    I just spent a portion of this afternoon savaging a hypothesis that seeks to explain a particular and unique condition of damage and wear that is occassionally seen on drilling bits used in the oil industry. While I was somewhat diplomatic and tactful I made it clear that the hypothesis was riddled with inadequacies and likely required a major rethink and probably abandoment.

    Why do I mention this? The hypothesis I was savaging was my own; I still remain wedded to it; that did not prevent me from demanding a higher standard of evidence be delivered to support it than I am currently able to provide.

    Yey you expect me to treat you more openly and generously than I treat myself! Get real. I am simply asking for facts, not fatuous comments; evidence, not paranoia. You seem well versed in the latter.

    I am potentially your greatest supporter on this forum. I believe most illnesses are psychosomatic in origin. The role of the immune system as a vehicle through which such illnesses can express themselves is an obvious one. I strongly desire that your hypothesis be true. Now get off the fucking pot and give us some substance and not this emotional waffle that simply discredits the entire idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    This is a "science" forum but maybe I was a bit presumptuous in assuming there would be scientist here.
    You are a pretentious prick, aren't you?

    I just spent a portion of this afternoon savaging a hypothesis that seeks to explain a particular and unique condition of damage and wear that is occassionally seen on drilling bits used in the oil industry. While I was somewhat diplomatic and tactful I made it clear that the hypothesis was riddled with inadequacies and likely required a major rethink and probably abandoment.
    I very well may be a pretentious prick but please do not assume to know what I am being a pretentious prick about. You see there is no science for cures outside of my own science that is perfect with almost complete consistency so I am not about to abandon perfection.

    Now, I'm not so pretentious to think so highly of myself because I don't, I just think much less of others because it doesn't take a genius to discover actual cures, it only takes humility which despite my pretentious appearance now I had loads of humility during the course of my discoveries. I had my ups and downs but the ups far exceeded the downs. I have been living a life of poverty for almost 15 years and very well may seem pretentious now because that is what happens when you discover how easy it is to cure diseases medical science cannot cure and then be completely ignored. Yeah, anyone would become a pretentious prick at best.

    Here is why.
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Bleep

    I cannot help you, and no-one I know of in this or other forums, can help you in getting your claims checked.

    The problem is that there have been plenty of other people with claims similar to yours. In a few cases, those people managed to get their claims checked by proper medical researchers, and the claims were found to be incorrect. For example : researchers have checked the 'power of prayer' and found it to be no better than suggestion. It did not work at all when the people being prayed for did not know they were being prayed for.

    Without meaning to be impolite, my view is that there is a close to 100% probability that your claims also would prove to be incorrect.

    Medical researchers are very smart people. They will not spend their time and their research dollars investigating something that appears to be so seriously unlikely to prove positive.
    Science and medicine are not going to investigate my claims and as such I will not be famous. What Skeptic is not aware of is my claims will prove to be correct which is the precise reason I am not investigated. If my claims could be proven incorrect they would have already.

    There will be no higher standard of evidence as Skeptic so well pointed out. Medical science will see to this. Medical science has effectively sabotaged cures outside of medicine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    I am potentially your greatest supporter on this forum. I believe most illnesses are psychosomatic in origin. The role of the immune system as a vehicle through which such illnesses can express themselves is an obvious one. I strongly desire that your hypothesis be true. Now get off the fucking pot and give us some substance and not this emotional waffle that simply discredits the entire idea.
    Based on the "science of cures" by yours truly I can tell you that you are way off track in your belief that most illnesses are psychosomatic in origin.

    Yes, I'm a pretentious prick, because medical science won't let me in their club I had to start my own "cure science" specifically based on existing cures medical science fails to grasp.

    Most illnesses are pathogenic in origin which is why they are so easily cured because it turns out we already have an immune system in place to eliminate pathogens. I KNOW, isn't it crazy? It's been here all along and for some crazy notion we have been seeking health and healing from external products, machines and medicine?

    I started a topic over in health and medicine if you are really interested in cures.
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/Place...es.-26688t.php

    If you would like us to put our differences aside I ask that you be patient. If you are highly motivated about being cured of something I suggest you take a "science of cures" approach and we start documentation now.

    If you take a quick glance at the other topic I started it will prepare you for what I wish to share.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Scoffing a cheeseburger will cheat your digestive system of performing the complete process, from the preparation work underdone by tasting the actual food for fats and sugar. Adequate digestive enzymes must be produced by the body in order to effectively break down the food but as I said fast eating and living we are cheating our bodies of performing complete basic procedures.
    That doesn't make much sense to me- if anything we take more time with our food in our laid back modern society than we would have in our ancient past. You don't see other animal species taking an hour to cook and season a meal. You don't seem them taking another hour to sit down with their family to talk, eat and drink.
    Ok, fair comment to make however I feel you may have missed the point I am trying to make here which is entirely regarding the concept of the tasting process the body has to perform. Increasingly difficult I would suggest when it comes to eating processed foods high in both fats and sugar. Forgive me here for not providing the actual source but some private research of your own and you will find the evidence to support my claim. The point I make in relation to the digestion of fats and sugar within foods is that it requires greater effort by the body.

    For my next point I am sure you will also find evidence to support my claim if you just look, it is on the potential for poorly digested food to enter the blood stream containing 'impurities' or products conventionally alien to the blood stream. I would refer you to the inflammatory disease acne as one potential reference for such happening. (yes of course it has not been PROVEN, in the way you claim everything should but at least just consider it).



    Why do you believe that? I don't doubt that emotions and psychology may influence immunity, but I don't think they're as central as you're suggesting. How do you know there is a correlation between emotion and immunity? If there is one, how do you know what the nature of the correlation is? How do you know, for example, that strong negative emotions or stress don't simply make an individual more likely to engage in behavior that poses a risk to health? Or to sleep less and thus compromise the immune system via simple fatigue?
    I would suggest research into the possibility of depressed people contracting diseases and illness more greatly than that of non depressed people. I would also refer you to the broken heart syndrome (ie when a grieving widow or widower dies soon after their loved one). Most depressed people lack sleep and yes I do agree it does compromise the immune system as it has been proven to do so.



    As regards the point I am making on the relationship between mental focus and that of bodily functions, I would refer to several incidents of meditative stated people been capable of consciously stopping blood flow to a wound. Again as with the actual truth to these claims I do not know but I do remain open minded of the possibility. Likewise, it could also be possible for one to consciously take control of the white blood cell producers.

    The possibilities are there
    Commander Cosmos, at the threat of sounding like a pretentious prick, I must save you some energy the part about digestion is moot and has little to no bearing on health and healing based on "science of cures". The digestive track is perfectly capable of scoffing down cheese burgers and turning it into life giving energy.

    Your second part about emotions has merit based on "science of cures". However don't get all woo woo there is no need or way to alternatively treat emotions. Emotions cause immune failure because they cause stress when the emotions are not emotions of joy and or peace of mind. With stress comes interrupted or poor quality of sleep and with less sleep comes less immunity.

    Meditative state for stopping blood flow to a wound can be done without meditation. Meditation is woo woo and does not even fit into the "science of cures". Meditation and alternative woo woo is the reason it is so easy for people to ignore true "science of cures".

    Medical science says sleep, stress, dehydration and poisons have no effect on immunity and they are wrong which is why they are so severely limited in effectiveness. The "science of cures" relies on these to make certain cures are not only consistent but extremely efficient as well.

    I hope I did not offend you. I'm just giving you a chance to learn from my past mistakes. You only have so much time and energy so make the best of it.

    Cheers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I would suggest research into the possibility of depressed people contracting diseases and illness more greatly than that of non depressed people.
    Don't tell me to go researching your claims, please. Support them yourself. You haven't yet pointed us to one piece of empirical evidence to support your assertions. You haven't shown us how you know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    The human mind is a powerful thing yet we have yet to learn to use it, conscious control over ones immune system is not a load of hocus pocus… for this is the very process that occurs when one is under the ‘placebo’ affect.
    When has the placebo effect been demonstrated to influence immunity? Not saying it hasn't been shown, but last I checked the closest we'd come to something like that was conditioning, which is not really the same thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I believe our emotional mindset is the blockade that prevents complete bodily focus. Particularly within modern human society and culture our minds are far too preoccupied to pay attention to many of our basic bodily functions. Even something as simple as digesting food requires a conscious effort to perform the process effectively.
    How do you know this to be true?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Scoffing a cheeseburger will cheat your digestive system of performing the complete process, from the preparation work underdone by tasting the actual food for fats and sugar. Adequate digestive enzymes must be produced by the body in order to effectively break down the food but as I said fast eating and living we are cheating our bodies of performing complete basic procedures.
    That doesn't make much sense to me- if anything we take more time with our food in our laid back modern society than we would have in our ancient past. You don't see other animal species taking an hour to cook and season a meal. You don't seem them taking another hour to sit down with their family to talk, eat and drink.

    Generally, you see them killing and eating their food as quickly as possible to avoid spoilage and theft by competitors. Before fire and settlement, humans would have been much the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Sharks are the only know animal that are resistant to disease and illness.
    Says who? How are they more resistant than we are?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I believe this to be a good example as to the degree emotions play upon the mind blockade on the functions of the brain and body. As sharks are hardly deemed emotional creatures they are seldom distressed.
    Again, says who? How do you know that sharks are less emotional than we are? How do you know that the are less frequently distressed? Human assessments of shark emotion seem to be mostly based on anecdotes of how inexpressive they appear from the outside. Not a great way of judging.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I believe it is distress that causes a break down in the immune system because of the ‘emotional’ overriding on the control centre (the brain/mind function).
    Why do you believe that? I don't doubt that emotions and psychology may influence immunity, but I don't think they're as central as you're suggesting. How do you know there is a correlation between emotion and immunity? If there is one, how do you know what the nature of the correlation is? How do you know, for example, that strong negative emotions or stress don't simply make an individual more likely to engage in behaviour that poses a risk to health? Or to sleep less and thus compromise the immune system via simple fatigue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    It’s quite a complex thing, this brain of ours, something that should NOT be overlooked when looking to find a healthier and more affective approach to tackling diseases.
    Who is overlooking it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    For anyone working in immunology, I would recommend a study on Indigenous peoples who have ‘recently’ been forced to transist into a complete new way of living such as that promoted by ‘western’ standards.
    For example?

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I would claim that these are the people most at risk of developing illnesses for reasons beyond their poor economic conditions. More so for their cultural transition.
    What is the basis in evidence for that claim?

    This all reads like a fairly vague and clichéd indictment of our oh-so-unhealthy modern lifestyle. Not like the olden days eh? When we crouched in caves eating burnt deer, dying at the age of 40 due to septicaemia brought on by a minor hunting injury. Golden times.
    How does CC know this to be true? CC said they "believe".

    Quite frankly there is no scientific way to disprove what CC 'believes" either. This is where naysayers dispute existing cures based on the "medical domain" having the final word. That notion is PROVING extremely deadly.

    The "domain of medicine" cannot prove there is no cure for herpes, but I can prove there is. Will I get the chance on a grand scale? Very unlikely. Will I get the chance on a small scale here? If I don't get banned we will take science to a new level right here and change the world as we know it.

    You can argue and debate or you can make a difference.
    I guess you don't use the word 'believe' in the same way I do. When I hold a belief, I do so on some basis greater than a whim. Don't you? He also, you will notice, used the word 'claim'. I tend to make claims, I do so on some basis. I am asking him to explain on what basis he believes, claims and knows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    TheBiologista, I totally see your point. CC is enthusiastic and knows something is a muck and is just trying to get to the bottom of it with what is available and that sure isn't much which brings me to my next statement.

    Your demand for "empirical evidence" though it seems logical isn't logical. Skeptic and I have already shown that medicine and its evidence is biased. This is found on my topic about placebo. Real evidence is going to be hard to find for issues that really matter. It's a money thing.

    Claims of cures are always going to be dismissed by science under the excuse that too many crazies have already been proven to be placebo. So with that kind of scientific bias it is very easy to say that the truth about actual health and healing as it pertains to cures will always be ignored and asking for "empirical evidence" is just mean and rubbing salt in a wound.

    I don't know who we blame this conundrum on? I do believe it is largely based on a corrupt medical establishment because at any time science could have gone a different direction when investigating claims of cures, instead of dubbing them as placebo and then writing them off as completely useless, science could have investigated the "effect" under the placebo and learned what caused the one or two our however many to show results from the modality but they didn't.

    You see, had science focused on the people who responded to the sugar pills they could have learned what took place internally causing their improvement and then once they learned what it was, they could simply duplicate it and do so with great consistency BUT how would they make money? Would the price of sugar go up? No of course not. There is no way to make money of a natural immune response there fore you and everyone else here will only assume medicine and medical science is based on "empirical evidence" when in reality it is mostly science fiction.

    I hope those aren't fightin' words. It's inevitable, what doesn't go to the highest bidder these days? Corruption cannot be stopped when fortunes can be made and no one will make a fortune off of cures.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    TheBiologista, I totally see your point. CC is enthusiastic and that is all.

    However your search and demand for empirical evidence isn't logical. Skeptic and I have already shown that medicine and its evidence is biased on my topic about placebo. Real evidence is going to be hard to find for issues that really matter. Its a money thing. Got to go.
    It is perfectly logical to ask for evidence when a claim is made. How else can a claim be substantiated? The absence of 'real evidence' does not make the request for evidence illogical. It makes the claim unsubstantiated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    TheBiologista, I totally see your point. CC is enthusiastic and that is all.

    However your search and demand for empirical evidence isn't logical. Skeptic and I have already shown that medicine and its evidence is biased on my topic about placebo. Real evidence is going to be hard to find for issues that really matter. Its a money thing. Got to go.
    It is perfectly logical to ask for evidence when a claim is made. How else can a claim be substantiated? The absence of 'real evidence' does not make the request for evidence illogical. It makes the claim unsubstantiated.
    Darn, you beat me to it. I made a big edit because I was in a hurry while ago.

    Sure asking for evidence is perfectly logical but examples of "empirical evidence" can be easily questioned.

    I don't really have a choice but fortunately for me there is no such thing as "empirical evidence" except first hand knowledge and experience. Pretty much everything else boils down to hearsay so when I say I can help a person cure Lyme disease or a deadly allergy all I have to do is prove it to the person who wants to be cured. I say I am fortunate because medical hearsay often referred to as "empirical evidence" will never get on board.

    Cures are going to be word of mouth and as long as people feel threatened by discussing them because of attacks word of mouth is only going to be minimally effective.

    So back to the conundrum. The only evidence that can prove to you that I can cure a disease medicine cannot cure is if you have such a disease and you become cured of it, everything else would be hearsay or if hearsay isn't a the right term maybe try second hand information taken at face value.

    Isn't it sad how medicine isn't held to the same high standard?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    It is well documented that sharks are highly resilient to diseases and pretty much immune of all cancer types.
    Please cite some references.

    There are few observed diseased sharks, but then we only observe a handful the general shark population, relatively speaking. Moreover, the sea is deep, so when a diseased shark dies, they sink and become eaten.

    But please feel free to cite the references to these "well documented" data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    It is well documented that sharks are highly resilient to diseases and pretty much immune of all cancer types.
    Please cite some references.

    There are few observed diseased sharks, but then we only observe a handful the general shark population, relatively speaking. Moreover, the sea is deep, so when a diseased shark dies, they sink and become eaten.

    But please feel free to cite the references to these "well documented" data.
    Now SkinWalker, lets play nice. I just responded in length on my other topic you moved and I would like to see if you are interested in playing a little game.

    Would you like to make a reference to a scientific fact that cannot be easily and reasonably questioned or flat out disputed? Remember popularity doesn't make it true or factual because that would mean the earth is flat.

    This isn't an exercise for argument or for debate, it is an exercise to prove that proof and evidence is relative and largely opinion and not real at all in many cases. This is why it is so difficult for people here to wrap their heads around the fact that the body has an immune system designed to offer immunity hence the name "immune" system. In the third grade you liked your immune system no because of biased and corrupt evidence you no longer support your immune system and you seek your health needs from ingesting products, typically chemical products. WOW, how did that happen?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Sure asking for evidence is perfectly logical but examples of "empirical evidence" can be easily questioned.
    You appear to be using empirical evidence to mean anecdotal evidence gathered in an informal manner. That is not what empirical evidence is.

    Further, all evidence can, should and must be questioned. That is how science works. Contrary to your beliefs, science is not a conspiracy.

    you say the resistance is because no money could be made from your cures. Humbug. If you are correct, then within two years I estimate I could make at least ten million dollars from the process - and I'm crap at business.

    And still, pages later, you still have offered not one hint of either method or evidence. If you don't want to be thought of as an empty windbag stop acting like one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Sure asking for evidence is perfectly logical but examples of "empirical evidence" can be easily questioned.
    You appear to be using empirical evidence to mean anecdotal evidence gathered in an informal manner. That is not what empirical evidence is.

    Further, all evidence can, should and must be questioned. That is how science works. Contrary to your beliefs, science is not a conspiracy.

    you say the resistance is because no money could be made from your cures. Humbug. If you are correct, then within two years I estimate I could make at least ten million dollars from the process - and I'm crap at business.

    And still, pages later, you still have offered not one hint of either method or evidence. If you don't want to be thought of as an empty windbag stop acting like one.
    Nope I am claiming that "formal" or "informal" is a matter of opinion and so is evidence unless it is is firsthand knowledge through firsthand experience.

    I know how science works, I know where science succeeds but more importantly I know where science fails and they fail because they have lousy evidence and easily corrupted.

    You yourself said you are crap at business so your opinion about making 10 million doesn't count/ :wink:

    However I will offer you a challenge. How about I teach you how to cure disease and you promise to give me me credit so I can move on. You can keep all the money you can make but I suggest you start researching ways to market such a cure because you will find no end of censorship when it comes to sharing cures that kill the golden medical goose.

    As for me not providing one hint, come on. If you haven't picked up any clues by now or formed any understanding provided you have read the other topic you aren't going to get it if I spell it out in black and white but don't be ashamed, no one will get it from being spelled out in black in white either but I have provided hundreds of very solid hints.

    I will repeat a hint that I have shared twice, when you cure yourself of a cold, flue or any other infection without the use of products or medicine would you consider it placebo or pseudoscience? Answer that and you will be moving in the right direction and my offer to teach you still stands, and I will teach you for free.

    Dang, I just read you are in Scotland. It won't be as easy to teach you for free. Expenses to get to Scotland and such.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    It is well documented that sharks are highly resilient to diseases and pretty much immune of all cancer types.
    Please cite some references.
    Now SkinWalker, lets play nice. I just responded in length on my other topic you moved and I would like to see if you are interested in playing a little game.
    I'm not particularly interested at all.

    The person above said "it is well documented that sharks are highly resilient to diseases and pretty much immune of all cancer types." I merely asked for the citations to the documentation he claims exists. I have little interest in your unsupported claims.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    It is well documented that sharks are highly resilient to diseases and pretty much immune of all cancer types.
    Please cite some references.
    Now SkinWalker, lets play nice. I just responded in length on my other topic you moved and I would like to see if you are interested in playing a little game.
    I'm not particularly interested at all.

    The person above said "it is well documented that sharks are highly resilient to diseases and pretty much immune of all cancer types." I merely asked for the citations to the documentation he claims exists. I have little interest in your unsupported claims.
    What makes my "unsupported claims" less interesting than your unsupported claims? At least you got the point and I appreciate that.

    If I threw a net over 100 people at the coming up super bowl chances are that the majority would exhibit "YOUR" evidence of having cancer and chances are all will exhibit serious health issues of various kinds obvious even to the untrained eye but if I net 100 sharks or a 500 sharks chances are you could go through them with a fine tooth comb and find very little of "YOUR" evidence of what you consider cancer or your understanding of cancer or any disease for that matter.

    Naturally you can rule this out because "your" science hasn't performed the research but your common sense has already conceded defeat.

    YOUR SCIENCE IS BIASED AND NOT REALLY SCIENCE AT ALL. Not yelling just pointing out that no matter what you say here, it is your opinion adopted from another's opinion.

    I kill pretty much every piece of meat I eat and I examine it all very closely because I eat a lot of organ meat. I remember every infected and apparently ill animal I have killed including upland game birds of thousands. I can remember because it just isn't that common. If we opened you up and exposed your innards here and I took a random deer from the back yard and we compared its organs to yours "your" evidence would show that you are very sickly compared to the deer. But again, your science is biased and would never do such research.

    Are sharks healthier than humans, absolutely. Is the answer to human immune failure found in sharks, absolutely NOT. You could eat raw shark, inject yourself with raw shark or breed with a shark and it isn't going to affect the immunity of humans at all.

    Shark research in regards to health is for the sole purpose of creating gimmick products to sell to mindless consumers. There is no product required to boost the immune system. Knowledge is the boost, not gimmick products or medicines.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    It is well documented that sharks are highly resilient to diseases and pretty much immune of all cancer types.
    Please cite some references.
    Now SkinWalker, lets play nice. I just responded in length on my other topic you moved and I would like to see if you are interested in playing a little game.
    I'm not particularly interested at all.

    The person above said "it is well documented that sharks are highly resilient to diseases and pretty much immune of all cancer types." I merely asked for the citations to the documentation he claims exists. I have little interest in your unsupported claims.
    What makes my "unsupported claims" less interesting than your unsupported claims? At least you got the point and I appreciate that.

    If I threw a net over 100 people at the coming up super bowl chances are that the majority would exhibit "YOUR" evidence of having cancer and chances are all will exhibit serious health issues of various kinds obvious even to the untrained eye but if I net 100 sharks or a 500 sharks chances are you could go through them with a fine tooth comb and find very little of "YOUR" evidence of what you consider cancer or your understanding of cancer or any disease for that matter.

    Naturally you can rule this out because "your" science hasn't performed the research but your common sense has already conceded defeat.

    YOUR SCIENCE IS BIASED AND NOT REALLY SCIENCE AT ALL. Not yelling just pointing out that no matter what you say here, it is your opinion adopted from another's opinion.

    I kill pretty much every piece of meat I eat and I examine it all very closely because I eat a lot of organ meat. I remember every infected and apparently ill animal I have killed including upland game birds of thousands. I can remember because it just isn't that common. If we opened you up and exposed your innards here and I took a random deer from the back yard and we compared its organs to yours "your" evidence would show that you are very sickly compared to the deer. But again, your science is biased and would never do such research.

    Are sharks healthier than humans, absolutely. Is the answer to human immune failure found in sharks, absolutely NOT. You could eat raw shark, inject yourself with raw shark or breed with a shark and it isn't going to affect the immunity of humans at all.

    Shark research in regards to health is for the sole purpose of creating gimmick products to sell to mindless consumers. There is no product required to boost the immune system. Knowledge is the boost, not gimmick products or medicines.
    Somebody said that something was "well documented". In response, an example of said documentation was asked for. Nothing you just posted changes the fact that this request has not been fulfilled.

    On your assertion that the only valid empirical evidence is first hand and that all else is hearsay well... there are no words actually.

    Moving to Pseudo btw.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    It is well documented that sharks are highly resilient to diseases and pretty much immune of all cancer types.
    Please cite some references.
    Now SkinWalker, lets play nice. I just responded in length on my other topic you moved and I would like to see if you are interested in playing a little game.
    I'm not particularly interested at all.

    The person above said "it is well documented that sharks are highly resilient to diseases and pretty much immune of all cancer types." I merely asked for the citations to the documentation he claims exists. I have little interest in your unsupported claims.
    What makes my "unsupported claims" less interesting than your unsupported claims? At least you got the point and I appreciate that.

    If I threw a net over 100 people at the coming up super bowl chances are that the majority would exhibit "YOUR" evidence of having cancer and chances are all will exhibit serious health issues of various kinds obvious even to the untrained eye but if I net 100 sharks or a 500 sharks chances are you could go through them with a fine tooth comb and find very little of "YOUR" evidence of what you consider cancer or your understanding of cancer or any disease for that matter.

    Naturally you can rule this out because "your" science hasn't performed the research but your common sense has already conceded defeat.

    YOUR SCIENCE IS BIASED AND NOT REALLY SCIENCE AT ALL. Not yelling just pointing out that no matter what you say here, it is your opinion adopted from another's opinion.

    I kill pretty much every piece of meat I eat and I examine it all very closely because I eat a lot of organ meat. I remember every infected and apparently ill animal I have killed including upland game birds of thousands. I can remember because it just isn't that common. If we opened you up and exposed your innards here and I took a random deer from the back yard and we compared its organs to yours "your" evidence would show that you are very sickly compared to the deer. But again, your science is biased and would never do such research.

    Are sharks healthier than humans, absolutely. Is the answer to human immune failure found in sharks, absolutely NOT. You could eat raw shark, inject yourself with raw shark or breed with a shark and it isn't going to affect the immunity of humans at all.

    Shark research in regards to health is for the sole purpose of creating gimmick products to sell to mindless consumers. There is no product required to boost the immune system. Knowledge is the boost, not gimmick products or medicines.
    Somebody said that something was "well documented". In response, an example of said documentation was asked for. Nothing you just posted changes the fact that this request has not been fulfilled.

    On your assertion that the only valid empirical evidence is first hand and that all else is hearsay well... there are no words actually.

    Moving to Pseudo btw.
    To you the comment I made didn't change anything but that doesn't mean that it didn't stimulate some doubt in mainstream science with others, or at least the greed behind mainstream science. And I am quite sure the attacks about shark immunity were not done in fairness and here are links to "well documented" shark immunity research.

    http://www.elasmo-research.org/educa..._on_cancer.htm

    http://www.cell.com/immunity/abstrac...2802%2900300-X

    Google shark and immunity and there are dozens of well documented theories on sharks and immunity and they are just as reliable as what you deem as "real" meaning they are no more reliable than what you deem as "real".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Nope I am claiming that "formal" or "informal" is a matter of opinion and so is evidence unless it is is firsthand knowledge through firsthand experience.
    .
    Firsthand knowledge through firsthand experience is abominable as evidence. Worth than worthless, it can be positively misleading. Experiments must be assessed by others, duplicated by others, interepreted by others for them to be of any value.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    I know how science works, .
    It is very clear that you have almost no idea how science works. What you have is a distorted, paranoid view of medical science, based - it seems - on the failure of your idea. Medical science must be to blame for their rejection of your ideas: it could hardly be possible that you are wrong.

    If you wonder why I am dealing with you in an emotive manner, then ask yourself just how much angst you have brought to the table and how little substance.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Nope I am claiming that "formal" or "informal" is a matter of opinion and so is evidence unless it is is firsthand knowledge through firsthand experience.
    .
    Firsthand knowledge through firsthand experience is abominable as evidence. Worth than worthless, it can be positively misleading. Experiments must be assessed by others, duplicated by others, interepreted by others for them to be of any value.

    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    I know how science works, .
    It is very clear that you have almost no idea how science works. What you have is a distorted, paranoid view of medical science, based - it seems - on the failure of your idea. Medical science must be to blame for their rejection of your ideas: it could hardly be possible that you are wrong.

    If you wonder why I am dealing with you in an emotive manner, then ask yourself just how much angst you have brought to the table and how little substance.
    I don't know, uhhh I got it, you tell me how to cure diseases science cannot cure now and then you lecture me about what is and what isn't.

    Damn, I really would like to share what I know in hopes of bringing acceptance to cures but I don't get that warm fuzzy feeling that suggest this is the a place to cast my pearls. Until the discussion becomes enjoyable for me, I would just as soon set it out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    If you are not willing to concede that mainstream medical science is seriously flawed then there is no way you could ever truly be interested in cures outside of medicine because cures outside of medical science AUTOMATICALLY proves medical science is seriously flawed.

    I'm not interested in arguing this conundrum any more. I will rejoin the conversation if or when the reality of this conundrum becomes accepted by more than just me.

    Right now I feel like I am surrounded by vultures waiting for me to say something so they can swoop in and start attacking me based on their understanding of the failing medical science when cures prove their science is useless in regards to finding cures.

    So you guys hash it out, enjoy the topic or delete it if you feel it is too threatening to your science, but count me out until there is EVIDENCE that there are people here who actually can handle the implications that existing cures will mean on science and medicine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    For the love of Christ. How dumb are you?

    I would welcome cures that lie outside of conventional medical science. I'll consider solutions that involve running naked round Trafalgar square singing the German national anthem. I'll go with anything that might extend my life beyond a further decade which is very likely all I've got left. I would be ecstatic if you were correct.

    However, I am not going to pin my hopes on an unknown poster who utterly refuses to divulge details of his methodology. Tell us why you have to come to believe your system works. Or piss off. But stop claiming there is no openess here. The openess is all on one side. Ours. Each of us is willing to be convinced and I want to be convinced, but so far you are fucking the whole business up by your coy refusal to deliver anything of substance.

    Ridiculous, frustrating, seriously anti-social, wholly unscientific, yet you want us to trust someone who displays such characteristics?

    Evidence. Now. Please. Or piss off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    57
    I came here looking for scientific validation and Skeptic explained that I will not get scientific validation here, on any other science forum or from medical science researchers and the reasons why. I accept Skeptic's explanation and I have no other reason for being here.

    http://truecures.com/ Now you know who I am and why I have washed my hands of this forum. If you want to know about cures you can put a little effort into it and quit looking for handouts. The only reason I posted my website is because I cannot turn my back on someone who might want to be disease free.

    Now you all have what you want, attack all you want. I've heard them all so don't puff up like you are original.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    We can control our immunity. If I get some serious cooperation I will prove it.
    Typical woo logical fallacy (poisoning the well). I predict that once it's clear you can't prove your claim, you'll simply resort back to this opening remark in attempt to transfer the blame for your failure to the people in this thread that were skeptical and questioned your claims.

    What makes my "unsupported claims" less interesting than your unsupported claims?
    What claim have I made that you would like support for?

    I'm obviously making no claim as to which are healthier between Homo or Elasmobranchii. These are two different genera which inhabit drastically different environments and have drastically different subsistence strategies. I'm simply questioning whether or not there are, indeed, any data to support the "healthiness" of Elasmobranchii and that Elasmobranchii are "immune" to cancer. They aren't. They're much better adapted to avoid cancerous tumors, but another difference between Elasmobranchii and [/i]Homo[/i] is the former is a genus that has evolved over millions of years. The latter is a relatively new genus compared to the former, having been taxonomically in existence for only about 1.7 Ma. The two genera have adapted to their own particular habitats, but it can easily be argued that Elasmobranchii had significantly more time to adapt to its habitat than Homo. And it can be argued that the habitat and subsistence strategies of Homo is significantly more diverse than Elasmobranchii.

    Oh, and the question about the documentation was directed to another member of the discussion.

    YOUR SCIENCE IS BIASED AND NOT REALLY SCIENCE AT ALL.
    Precisely the sort of statement one expects from woo arguments. Perhaps your claim isn't woo or pseudoscience (or just plain crackpottery). We await your willingness to "prove" your claim. My bet is that you won't provide us with any evidence at all and that you'll ultimately claim its because we weren't "open-minded enough" or some such other cop-out.

    If you are not willing to concede that mainstream medical science is seriously flawed then there is no way you could ever truly be interested in cures outside of medicine because cures outside of medical science AUTOMATICALLY proves medical science is seriously flawed.
    This statement is replete with logical fallacy. Flaws in medical science (or science in general) do not imply that non-science and non-medicine has any curing power. However "seriously" flawed medical science is, alternatives are non-efficacious. If a treatment has any efficacy, then it has the support of evidence. If it has the support of evidence, then it is embraced by science.

    You claim to have an "alternative" to evidence-based medicine yet I must have missed the post where you outlined the "proof."

    At this point, I think if you wish to continue in the thread and the discussion on this topic, it's fair to demand that you either post your "proof" or any evidence you have for your claim or abandon the discussion and we'll all go on about our business with the understanding that you couldn't support your claim.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Oops. I posted too late. My prediction came true before I could drop the post. Finally Mr. Flowers has posted a link to his site where he solicits "donations" for "curing" the maladies of the gullible.

    And he's apparently "washed his hands" of our forum where he came "looking for scientific validation."

    One is left to wonder why he should expect validation from "science" to begin with. Either you are using methods and theories that fit a scientific paradigm or you aren't. Science can't "validate" you. You have to validate yourself to science through careful research design, testing and demonstration of the results. Through it all, you should be trying like hell to falsify your hypotheses from every angle.

    Otherwise, you're a pseudoscientist at best; a crackpot at worse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    A basic summary of the immune system is that it is a bodily process of a living ‘organism’ that serves as a protection against harmful bodies or agents. It is a defense mechanism that also supports the repair of bodily cells that may become damaged.

    The question of whether or not conscious control of the immune system is possible is one of great complexity that requires knowledge into both what the immune system or any other bodily system actually is and more significantly an indebt understanding into the relatively unknown subject of human consciousness.

    It could be said that the immune system is a bodily process outside the jurisdiction of consciousness or mental control and efforts, such as limb movement or talking for example. Both of these performances are well known to most of us humans and we can perform them with relative ease mostly due to their frequent usage. Likewise conscious effort to regulate ones breathing is made possible by devoting mental focus of the mind to the cardio vascular system. Even without such mental focus our body continues to perform this necessary process automatically in order to keep us alive and pumped full of oxygenated blood.

    For most modern humans living a comforted life I would argue that through their lack of physical exercise (as compared to the standard of our primitive ancestors anyway) fail to fully develop greater capacity of their cardio vascular system. It could be therefore said that not a great deal of time has been spent by us to the mental efforts of the breathing system. In other words unfit people are not devoting ‘focused attention’ of their mind to the performance of their breathing. So their cardio vascular system is rather lacking the conditioning required for greater development.

    When I speak of focused attention I mean to the point of near entire concentration of mental thought or effort, where all else seems to be blocked out by the mind except for each and every breath the person has their mind on. This is the focus of the breathing system that is required for the high condition akin to the level that is seen of Olympic sprinters or runners.

    One question may here be raise as to whether or not it is actually physical conditioning reasonable for such bodily performance. Although I do agree that yes indeed there is physical growth and development within the body, it is only doing so out of service to the brain telling it to do so. In other words a heart valve widens, thus allowing greater flow of oxygen & blood as a result of conditioning to its demands.

    How quickly can your legs run? Only as quickly as your mind tells them. How loud can you shout, only as loud as your mind tell you. How quickly or greatly can you breathe air into your body? Only as quickly as your mind will allow. Point been mental effort is required to drive the body’s performance. An effort of mind measurable in standards whatever the concentration.

    So I would argue in this instance that the cardio vascular system is well within the jurisdiction of conscious effort or control. But what of other bodily functions deemed well beyond such mental control. The digestion system or metabolism even blood flow for example. Could it be that these are not outside our mental jurisdiction but instead deep well inside it. Perhaps maybe too deep for normal focus of mind to ever come to realize.

    Digestion for example is a bodily function we have little or no mental control over. For example the productive regulation of digestive enzymes or acids etc are done so out of ‘automatic’ efforts by the body. Our mind one could say is completely unaware to the food we break down into blood sugars and so on. Why is this so? A reasonable question to ask, one I by no means have the answer but one suggestion I will put forward is that our minds are drawn to the obvious. The aching of pain for example, in most people would take centre stage within their mind because nerve endings have triggered a sensory response. That is why we draw our attention to it. So it could be said that we are conscious to what it is we can sense. A smell, a sound, a feeling, a taste, a sight.

    So consciousness of one’s digestive system is made rather limited, although others are made known (usually with un pleasant results) it is the sense of ‘touch’ that we have to connect our conscious mind with this particular area of the body. For each part of the body is capable of feeling pain, it must therefore be true that we are capable of feeling each part of our body (mentally speaking of course!).

    As I mentioned before it is the most obvious of feelings that make it to the forefront of our mind while the least obvious (which are the ones in question) are cast aside and put to the back.

    I hereby purpose a question with this interruption of mental consciousness that bodily functions may be done so out of mental effort to some degree or another. As regards the production of digestive enzymes for example I do not know if they are done so automatically by the body or whether our mind is secretly working behind some closed doors to get the boring old jobs done. But I do know that whatever tiny part of our body is responsible for their production is capable of been ‘felt’. Perhaps it is just too small a body area for our mind to locate, yet alone take control of.

    The conventional likely hood is that our minds are not designed for such pin point focusing. Then again, it may be that we have yet to learn how to condition them for such micro concentration of thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Turns out, sharks do get cancer.

    http://scienceblogs.com/observations...nce_sharks.php

    In case I haven't been clear, let me say it again: Sharks do get cancer! There isn't even any evidence to say that they don't get cancer very often, as no one has systematically looked at cancer rates in them. So any statement that even suggests that sharks are cancer resistant is misleading at best, and down right wrong at worst.

    Perhaps the most disappointing part is that the shark immune system is incredibly fascinating and worth study whether or not it can squash out cancer. Sharks are the earliest evolutionary lineage to have developed an adaptive immune system complete with immunoglobin, T-cell receptors, MHCs and RAG proteins12, and they do it without bone marrow, the source of almost all of our immune system cells. Instead, they have two completely unique immune organs, the Leydig's and Epigonal organs, that are barely understood. Studying the shark immune system is essential to understanding the evolution of adaptive immunity that is present in all higher vertebrates. And if, indeed, they are resistant to cancer, then that makes the study of their immune system all that much more important. But instead, we mindlessly kill over 100 million of them a year to make Asian delicacies and ineffective cancer treatments, and we keep brainwashing our kids into believing that shark's don't get cancer.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by whatthebleepdoiknow
    Commander Cosmos, at the threat of sounding like a pretentious prick, I must save you some energy the part about digestion is moot and has little to no bearing on health and healing based on "science of cures". The digestive track is perfectly capable of scoffing down cheese burgers and turning it into life giving energy.
    Digestive Enzymes and Benefits

    Enzymes are energized protein molecules essential for the digestion of food, brain stimulation, tissue, cell and organ repairing and generating cellular energy. Even though they are a catalyst for many biochemical reactions they do not change or get consumed in the process.

    There are three types: metabolic, digestive and food.


    Digestive

    Digestive enzymes are secreted along the gastrointestinal tract and break down the food in the body so that the nutrients can be absorbed. Enzymes are present in the food you eat which is why there is great importance placed upon having plenty of raw foods in the diet. The enzymes in raw food help start the process of digestion which reduces the body's need to secret digestive enzymes.

    Food enzymes are destroyed when cooking at moderate or high temperatures. They are "turned off" at a dry-heat temperature of 150 degrees Fahrenheit and a wet-heat temperature of 118 degrees Fahrenheit.

    If your body has to rely too much on its own digestive enzymes the result is more stress is placed on your system and organs leaving less time and energy for other jobs such as rebuilding and replacing damaged cells and tissue and keeping your immune system strong.

    A diet that consists mainly of cooked food requires the pancreas to "work overtime" and the extra effort leaves it exhausted. If the pancreas is always having to produce enzymes that could come from food it will eventually cease to function properly. The late Dr. Edward Howell suggested that when a person eats an enzyme-poor diet consisting of lots of cooked food, the result is illness, lowered resistance to stress and a shortened life span.

    Eating lots of raw foods and taking a high-quality enzyme supplement can help avoid depletion of the body's own enzymes thereby reducing stress.

    In the book, The Healing Power of Enzymes, Dr. DicQie Fuller talks about the importance of enzymes and says:

    "Eighty percent of our body’s energy is expended by the digestive process. If you are run down, under stress, living in a very hot or very cold climate, pregnant or a frequent traveler, then enormous quantities of extra enzymes are required by your body. Because our entire system functions through enzymatic action, we must supplement our enzymes. Aging deprives us of our ability to produce necessary enzymes. The medical profession tells us that all disease is due to a lack or imbalance of enzymes. Our very lives are dependent upon them!"


    Importance of Digestive Enzymes

    There are approximately 45 essential nutrients that the body needs to carry out normal bodily functions. Essential means that the body cannot manufacture them and they must come from outside sources.

    There are at least 13 kinds of vitamins and 20 kinds of minerals, in addition to fats, carbohydrates and water that are required for proper metabolic function. When food is consumed it gets broken down for absorption and transported by the blood stream.

    Nutrients, including enzymes, work synergistically which means they cooperate with each other acting as catalysts. This promotes absorption and assimilation. The importance of digestive enzymes resides in the fact that the human body cannot absorb nutrients in food unless digestive enzymes break them down.

    The body progressively loses its ability to produce enzymes with major drops occurring roughly every ten years of life. At the beginning it may not be that noticeable, however, later on you will discover that you cannot tolerate or enjoy certain foods like you did before. This may also be accompanied by a feeling of reduced stamina. Yes, you're running low of enzymes.


    How Do You Know if You Are Lacking Enzymes?

    Heartburn, gas, constipation, bloating, allergies, ulcers, lack of energy and reduced functioning of the immune system may occur when there are not enough enzymes.


    Digestive Enzymes can be beneficial for more things than most people think. They have been shown to benefit people with:

    •Acne rosacea
    •GERD
    •Indigestion
    •Candidiasis
    •Crohn's disease
    •Food allergies
    •Low back pain
    •Sinusitis
    •Rheumatoid arthritis..

    among others.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Unless you personally authored those words, Commander Cosmos, you should truly cite the source from which you copy/pasted... instead of plagiarizing and presenting them here as your own.


    http://www.yourbodycanheal.com/enzymes.html
    http://www.lookgreat-loseweight-save...pplements.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Please be charitable inow: without plagiarism, people who have never had an original thought in their lives would feel inadequate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Please be charitable inow: without plagiarism, people who have never had an original thought in their lives would feel inadequate.
    Please dont insult my intelligence, my aim is to provide constuctive debate and discussions as to the possibilty of learning non-markatable or commercial ways in which people can live healthier, happier lives.

    It doesn’t take a PhD in medicine to know adequate rest, healthy eating, plenty of exercise and a positive attitude goes a long way to keeping the doctor away.

    I didn’t know this forum took posts so seriously as to subject them to thorough analysis and ridicule. Here is the link to the digestive enzyme article I used as a response to someone questioning the importance of the digestive system in the body’s immune system..
    http://www.yourbodycanheal.com/enzymes.html

    Further from this here are more links to back up the ‘argument’ I put forward.
    http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/b...gestive_system
    http://science.nationalgeographic.co...m-article.html

    On the topic of the role of a persons emotional state and its affect on the immune system..
    http://media.abcnews.com/Health/Depr...ory?id=4355916
    http://www.biopsychiatry.com/immunesystem/index.html
    http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2009/august/depression.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    by the way Ophiolite you havent actually contributed a great deal of thought to the argument yourself other than ridiculing other people.

    how much do you know on the topic? what great ideas have you that could lead to a new understanding.

    Very little by the seems of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Please be charitable inow: without plagiarism, people who have never had an original thought in their lives would feel inadequate.
    Please dont insult my intelligence, my aim is to provide constuctive debate and discussions as to the possibilty of learning non-markatable or commercial ways in which people can live healthier, happier lives.

    It doesn’t take a PhD in medicine to know adequate rest, healthy eating, plenty of exercise and a positive attitude goes a long way to keeping the doctor away.

    I didn’t know this forum took posts so seriously as to subject them to thorough analysis and ridicule. Here is the link to the digestive enzyme article I used as a response to someone questioning the importance of the digestive system in the body’s immune system..
    http://www.yourbodycanheal.com/enzymes.html

    Further from this here are more links to back up the ‘argument’ I put forward.
    http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/b...gestive_system
    http://science.nationalgeographic.co...m-article.html

    On the topic of the role of a persons emotional state and its affect on the immune system..
    http://media.abcnews.com/Health/Depr...ory?id=4355916
    http://www.biopsychiatry.com/immunesystem/index.html
    http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2009/august/depression.html
    Cosmos, if you re-post material from other people's websites without credit again, you will have your account suspended.

    For the record, most forums with 'science' in the title or in their general remit, will dole out scepticism (including ridicule) in proportion to how extraordinary the claims are and in inverse proportion to how much good, primary evidence has been presented. This is a good rule of thumb to keep in mind if you don't enjoy being on the receiving end of such scepticism.

    As another aside, a doctor of medicine has an MD, not a PhD. Though it is of course possible to have a PhD in various topics in biology, PhDs do not treat patients.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    by the way Ophiolite you havent actually contributed a great deal of thought to the argument yourself other than ridiculing other people.

    how much do you know on the topic? what great ideas have you that could lead to a new understanding.

    Very little by the seems of it.
    How much Ophiolite knows about immunology is irrelevant, as nobody on this thread has yet presented any for us to consider. Ophiolite has done as he should in this situation, treated what has been presented with appropriate scepticism.

    Yourself and our now-suspended friend are presenting some new ideas- that means that the burden is on you to convince us that you are correct. It is an illogical tactic to respond to demands for evidence by asking your audience for evidence or worse still, demanding that they come up with alternative ideas. I mean, comments of the form 'if you think you're so smart, you explain it' ought never be heard outside of a playground. In a world where such an argument holds water, none of us would be able to express an opinion about a film, book or piece of music unless we were ourselves able to produce a similar work. That's plain crazy.

    Incidentally, if you do feel like getting into the nuts and bolts of immunology, at least two members of this forum, myself included, know plenty on that topic and would be happy to read any sources that support your position.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Please dont insult my intelligence, my aim is to provide constuctive debate and discussions as to the possibilty of learning non-markatable or commercial ways in which people can live healthier, happier lives.
    This is an admirable goal. My aim is to identify illogical arguments, question extraordinary claims and expose unscientific behaviour. When these aims are applied in a discussion of immunology they will actively support your aim. So our intentions appear, initially, to be the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I didn’t know this forum took posts so seriously as to subject them to thorough analysis and ridicule.
    This is an odd position to take given your stated aims. Don't you welcome posts being taken seriously? Do you doubt that science should treat any and all claims and evidence sceptically? (If you do doubt this then perhaps science is not for you and you would be happier in a field such witchcraft or tarot reading.) Do you feel your ideas cannot stand up to thorough analysis? Do you think ridiculous statements should be treated with awe and respect? Frankly your statement belies your claim to be seeking ways for people to lead healthier lives. It rather seems as if you simply want people to agree with you. Please explain how I have misinterpreted your intent by addressing my questions above.

    by the way Ophiolite you havent actually contributed a great deal of thought to the argument yourself other than ridiculing other people.
    My contribution has been to identify nonsense and attitude and ridicule those. The topic is to important to allow self appointed experts with ludicrous agendas to have free rein. Still, let's look at your contributions.

    Even something as simple as digesting food requires a conscious effort to perform the process effectively............(by) fast eating and living we are cheating our bodies of performing complete basic procedures.
    1. You have provided no evidence to support your remarkable suggestion that digesting food requires conscious effort.
    2. If you meant that consciously being more selective in our food selection and preparation and in the time and manner in which we eat it we would thereby improve our digestion, well!! That is so trivial and obvious it scarcely merits stating - it is certainly not new. My mother was making these points vigorously fifty years ago and her mother before her.

    Sharks are the only know animal that are resistant to disease and illness.
    You failed to provide any support for this claim and subsequently other posters have provided data that falsify it.

    As sharks are hardly deemed emotional creatures they are seldom distressed.
    You have utterly failed to provide any justification for this statement. Science does not work, as you and ***bleep** seem to think it does, by declaring some thought to be true then arguing for it in the face of contrary evidence.

    It’s quite a complex thing, this brain of ours, something that should NOT be overlooked when looking to find a healthier and more affective approach to tackling diseases.
    I have, to my regret, considerable experience of the medical profession. Uniformly all that I have met would agree completely with your statement. So? Implicitly you suggest the medical profession does not acknowledge the role of mind/brain in illness. That is simply untrue.

    Your subsequent posts are high on speculation and low on substance, it is consequently difficult to discern exactly what you are saying. At one end of the spectrum you are merely saying what no one is disputing - "what we think and feel effects our bodily health." This is a trivial observation and adds nothing to the discussion. At the other end of the spectrum your are claiming that conscious thought can be directed to control our immune system. You present this as a given, yet you provide no support for it.

    As far as I can see the material you have presented so far supports only the trivial position. On that basis your contribution to the discussion is largely superficial, thus far, with one exception.

    Quoting large portions of material without acknowledgement of the authors is wholly unacceptable behaviour. It is unethical. It is deceitful. It is contrary to procedures of scientific debate; it is against forum rules; it is downright dishonest. That is your lasting contribution to this debate: you committed a foul act. End of story.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Please dont insult my intelligence, my aim is to provide constuctive debate and discussions as to the possibilty of learning non-markatable or commercial ways in which people can live healthier, happier lives.
    This is an admirable goal. My aim is to identify illogical arguments, question extraordinary claims and expose unscientific behaviour. When these aims are applied in a discussion of immunology they will actively support your aim. So our intentions appear, initially, to be the same.

    I apologise for the mis-wording. The concept intended is for people not to take the 'posting process' of an online forum so seriously and strictly. Of course the written material deserves scrutiny but it is the basis of the scrutiny that is more important. I’m sure you would agree.

    perhaps I have failed to distinguish fact from potential fiction (well in respect to the point not having hardcore evidence and therefore been deemed as such by yourself). As you can see I am new to this forum, in fact the forum culture so excuse the inconstancies. I hope I can clear up any misdemeanours so we can get back on track with the topic in mention of the conscious control over the immune system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I didn’t know this forum took posts so seriously as to subject them to thorough analysis and ridicule.
    This is an odd position to take given your stated aims. Don't you welcome posts being taken seriously? Do you doubt that science should treat any and all claims and evidence sceptically? (If you do doubt this then perhaps science is not for you and you would be happier in a field such witchcraft or tarot reading.) Do you feel your ideas cannot stand up to thorough analysis? Do you think ridiculous statements should be treated with awe and respect? Frankly your statement belies your claim to be seeking ways for people to lead healthier lives. It rather seems as if you simply want people to agree with you. Please explain how I have misinterpreted your intent by addressing my questions above.
    I claim so on the basis of my knowledge. Again allow me to reword. The fact been told is that we consciously chew our food (obvious), what is also conscious to the mind is the tasting process. The tongue tastes for fats, sugars and so on, which in turn allows to the body (digestive system) to properly prepare for the digestion of that type of food.

    Now, the idea I tried to put forward in relation to one just scoffing a cheeseburger (which most are high in both sugars and fats) takes a great deal more effort by the body to digest because it has to to deal with both sugar and fat digestion. So for one not to take their time and effort to taste the food more thoroughly in the mouth could I my opinion distort the bodies capability to digest the food properly. Thus complications of system 'could' occur allowing for the potential of health problems. Again only an idea.

    For me to cite evidence for this claim (which you are right in asking for) for whatever reason at the time I did not deem necessary to do so. I presumed you people would have understood the concept. Which fair enough you did not because I failed in my wording to convey the point more properly.


    Further reading on the topic can be found here. I haven’t actually read the article in full but it more or less seems to back up my point. .http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks...ric/taste.html

    So yeah I guess your mother could have told you that one also, “take your time to chew your food“. pretty simple really.. I just think most of the science community try to hard to complicate matters.

    The ‘Conscious efforts’ I was more referring to here is the chewing and tasting process, allowing your mind to taste the food flavours. Again it’s a mind body relationship

    Sharks are the only know animal that are resistant to disease and illness.
    You failed to provide any support for this claim and subsequently other posters have provided data that falsify it.
    learn something new everyday, no harm in conceding I was wrong (or whatever the source I read from, think it was a new scientist article but not sure). However it could be agreed that they are highly resilient maybe not completely as you pointed out.

    As sharks are hardly deemed emotional creatures they are seldom distressed.
    You have utterly failed to provide any justification for this statement. Science does not work, as you and ***bleep** seem to think it does, by declaring some thought to be true then arguing for it in the face of contrary evidence.
    Now you're been emotional. It is a rather big claim to make but true if you compare the emotional hormone levels to that of land mammals. I have no reference in mind but please feel free to research it yourself.. I'll post something later but i haven’t the time to be googled around looking for it. I do not mean physical distress but mental distress that could distort signaling of the brain.


    It’s quite a complex thing, this brain of ours, something that should NOT be overlooked when looking to find a healthier and more affective approach to tackling diseases.
    I have, to my regret, considerable experience of the medical profession. Uniformly all that I have met would agree completely with your statement. So? Implicitly you suggest the medical profession does not acknowledge the role of mind/brain in illness. That is simply untrue.
    And so the role of the mind on the immune system should be more thoroughly investigated. However the commercialised world of medical research does NOT (in my opinion and that of many people) act entirely within the common interest but more so in the interest of themselves and profit. That been said I am sure there are many alternatively funded research projects such as government and NGO. But in this modern climate of political dealings one can hardly trust them.


    As far as I can see the material you have presented so far supports only the trivial position. On that basis your contribution to the discussion is largely superficial, thus far, with one exception.

    Quoting large portions of material without acknowledgement of the authors is wholly unacceptable behaviour. It is unethical. It is deceitful. It is contrary to procedures of scientific debate; it is against forum rules; it is downright dishonest. That is your lasting contribution to this debate: you committed a foul act. End of story.
    Wow, I really didn’t think it so serious... I never claimed it as my own, I googled a term, found an article that I found would address a point been made on here. People do it all the time. I hardly claim it as my own research when its a matter of fact. I'm sure you'd find most the stuff in school books for christs sake. Don’t worry your sweet little knickers about, wont be doing it again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Wow, I really didn’t think it so serious....
    That is exactly the point. You didn't think. You believe it is acceptable to use the work of others as if it were your own. That is stealing. That is dishonest, but - hey, you didn't think it was serious. Well now you know it is. I hope you also understand why.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    ... I never claimed it as my own,.
    Of course you did. The post contains the words of another. The post is identified as yours. No mention or indication is given that it was someone elses. Only inows alert eye caught. You implicitly claimed it as your own. You stole it. Yes, it's serious. Welcome to the real world where we take responsibility for our actions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    , I googled a term, found an article that I found would address a point been made on here. People do it all the time..
    Really. Take a look at my 6000+ posts. I frequently quote the work of others. If you can find a single instance where I have not acknowledged this I'll donate $1000 to your favourite charity. All regualr contributors to the forum would be expected to do the same - and excluding some of the nutters that is what they do. Any responsible person would do the same. (If you are eighteen or younger I withdraw all of my remarks. It is reasonable that you might not yet have learned this important fact about honesty.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I googled a term, found an article that I found would address a point been made on here. People do it all the time. I hardly claim it as my own research when its a matter of fact. I'm sure you'd find most the stuff in school books for christs sake..
    IT is irrelevant where you would find the stuff. If you were expressing the ideas in your own words, that's fine. Copying and pasting without attribution is not. If you don't understand this you have some serious ethical issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    Don’t worry your sweet little knickers about, wont be doing it again.
    I'm pleased to hear it. I would be even more pleased if I thought you knew why it was wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    As I said dont take it so seriously... not like its a state examination or I'm publishing a book. I really havent the energy to continue discussing it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    949
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    I really havent the energy to continue discussing it.
    What a shame. I'm heartbroken!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    As I said dont take it so seriously... not like its a state examination or I'm publishing a book. I really havent the energy to continue discussing it.
    You still don't frigging get it. You were dishonest. If you think being dishonest is not a serious issue that's fine - it's your conscience.

    You seem to be saying it's alright to be dishonest in small ways. If that's how you think I now know - and every forum member who has followed this exchange knows - that everything you say is completely unreliable. We can never tell when you may be lying, copying material from questionable sites, doctoring it to suit your argument, or any other dishonest actions that "aren't serious, because it's not like you are writing a book, or sitting a state examination."

    Welcome to my Ignore list.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Commander Cosmos
    As I said dont take it so seriously... not like its a state examination or I'm publishing a book. I really havent the energy to continue discussing it.
    It's a strange thing to go onto a science forum populated mostly by scientists or those training to be scientists, make a scientific claim, and then react with surprise when they "take it so seriously". A forum for train spotters or bird watchers would surely be populated predominantly by the most ardent fanatics of those topics. Science is a much more serious topic than either of these.

    I suspect if we'd ignored or ridiculed you, you have complained that we weren't taking you seriously. I think what really has annoyed you is neither that we took you seriously or didn't, but rather that we didn't simply accept your idea immediately. We didn't entertain it or applaud your thinking without question.

    Honestly, if we had done so this would be one lousy excuse for a science forum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    I'm not ignoring the point you have to make, but really and truly all I intended to do by posting information was to draw someone’s attention to it rather than posting a link.. I have no care for forum credit or reputation, only the content been discussed.

    My only concern on this website is to possibly learn something new or likewise help someone else. I'm more drawn to the material put before me than the actual author and his creditability. I got a brain perfectly capable of deciding for myself whether it is plausible or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    It's okay. It's an important lesson to learn, but it's up to you to absorb it and carry it with you.

    It's fine to copy/paste parts of other websites. There are limits, but there is also fair use. While copyright issues are sometimes a factor, the bigger issue at play here is integrity.

    You can copy/paste. That's not at issue. Just make sure it's clear when words are from elsewhere (like putting them into a quote box) and that you credit the source by supplying a link. It's just a really good habit to be in.


    Now, since sharks DO get cancer and my conscious thought could NOT prevent me from becoming a Type 1 diabetic, is there really anything more to discuss in this thread?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It's okay. It's an important lesson to learn, but it's up to you to absorb it and carry it with you.

    It's fine to copy/paste parts of other websites. There are limits, but there is also fair use. While copyright issues are sometimes a factor, the bigger issue at play here is integrity.

    You can copy/paste. That's not at issue. Just make sure it's clear when words are from elsewhere (like putting them into a quote box) and that you credit the source by supplying a link. It's just a really good habit to be in.


    Now, since sharks DO get cancer and my conscious thought could NOT prevent me from becoming a Type 1 diabetic, is there really anything more to discuss in this thread?
    Wellit could be said Sharks are less prone to getting cancer.. so it would be worthwhile for researchers to better understand their immune system.

    As regards your CONCLUSION of not been able to divert conscious effort towards your bodies development of illness (in whatever form), I do not know, neither do you. In all fairness it is not something that can be completely ruled out as if it defies the laws of physics or is mathematically impossible.

    Not enough proof to prove it, neither enough proof to disprove. I remain open minded to the possibility and I suggest for you all to remain likewise.

    May I recomend a doco for you all tto watch, perhaps the best I have seen. Future by design by Jacque Fresco. the man is a fricking genious. He will put into terms and vision as to what the mind can achieve if allowed to prosper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •