Notices
Results 1 to 77 of 77

Thread: Brain to body or body to brain communication question?

  1. #1 Brain to body or body to brain communication question? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Who or what's to say that when my body is sending and receiving subconscious signals back and forth from my brain to my body or my body to my brain that a person right next to me cannot receive or intercept the signals?

    How do we know our receptors are not sensitive enough to detect signals from other people near us?

    If you want to see science investigate and research communication between the brain and perfect immunity please sign this petition. As it is, there is no science researching cures that cannot be patented, but you can help change that.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/view...t_wo_your_help


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    Well, if anything, fish would be more likely to recieve electrical signals from other fish in any form than any terrestrial animals would because water conducts electricity better than air does. Also fish already use electroreception in a milder form than what you've suggested:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroreception


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler
    Well, if anything, fish would be more likely to recieve electrical signals from other fish in any form than any terrestrial animals would because water conducts electricity better than air does. Also fish already use electroreception in a milder form than what you've suggested:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroreception
    Does this mean we are inferior to fish? Also are you saying my brain uses electroreception to send and receive signals to and from the body?

    If we use electroreception and we know fish can receive them from other fish it sure makes things more interesting.
     

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Inferior is a value judgment, not an objective one. Also, you may perceive signals from the person beside you. How might you test for it?
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Inferior is a value judgment, not an objective one. Also, you may perceive signals from the person beside you. How might you test for it?
    Are the endless signals we humans send back and fourth detected by electroreception? If they are, can't we use the same technology we have used to judge the electroreception in fish to judge them in humans?
     

  7. #6  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Those fish which perform this action have a special organ to handle it. Humans do not (that we know of).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_organ
    http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/m...ctricorgan.htm


    As for detection, you can detect the electric field around these fish. Such a field, if it is in fact output from humans like it is from fish, is barely detectable even with sensitive equipment.

    So, detection is key. You're much more likely to find an effect from scent (like pheromones) than you are from electric fields.

    http://nelson.beckman.illinois.edu/electric_fish.html
    http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/09/29/electric_fish/
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Those fish which perform this action have a special organ to handle it. Humans do not (that we know of).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_organ
    http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/m...ctricorgan.htm


    As for detection, you can detect the electric field around these fish. Such a field, if it is in fact output from humans like it is from fish, is barely detectable even with sensitive equipment.

    So, detection is key. You're much more likely to find an effect from scent (like pheromones) than you are from electric fields.

    http://nelson.beckman.illinois.edu/electric_fish.html
    http://www.utexas.edu/news/2009/09/29/electric_fish/
    That was helpful. I'm still a little confused. I'm really not interested in what fish can do, not to make light of the comments here. I'm hoping to clarify if humans have receptors that detect their own personal signals the way electroreception works? Not talking from one person to another at the moment.

    Maybe this is another way of posing my question, our humans limited to internal wired communication or are humans capable of internal wireless communication? Does that make sense? If it doesn't let me know I will work on more clarification.

    Also I have another simple question for anyone. I don't want to start a new topic because I am sure it has been discussed in great detail here so here it is....

    "What kind of microscope is used to identify pathogenic bacteria and is there a good site that I can refer to?"
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    420
    Hi,

    '[Are] humans limited to internal wired communication or are humans capable of internal wireless communication?'

    In your analogy, if 'internal wired' communication is synonymous with neuronal signalling; then I guess that 'internal wireless' communication would be synonymous with any other kind of non-neuronal signalling. Examples of such signalling between cells of the body include:

    1. Autocrine signalling - when a ligand released by a particular cell interacts with its complementary receptor on the same cell, thereby initiating an intracellular signal. Cancer cells, for example, typically display autocrine growth factor singalling.

    2. Paracrine signalling - a cell releases a mediator which acts on neighbouring cells.

    3. Endocrine signalling - a cell in one part of the body release a hormone which travels via the bloodstream to a distant tissue site and then binds specific receptor(s) on cells in that tissue to initiate a signal in that cell. This method of 'wireless' communication is similar to 'wired' communication, insofar as both signalling types allow the transmission of information across relatively large distances in the body. 'Wired' signalling tends to be more location-specific and faster than 'wireless' signalling, however.

    The above three methods of communication rely on typically protein molecules (e.g. hormones) rather than direct cell-cell communication via the release and receipt of neurotransmitters. I like to think of it almost like 'passing the baton', but that analogy may or may not be helpful to you, I don't know.

    Hope this helps?

    Tri.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by tridimity
    Hi,

    '[Are] humans limited to internal wired communication or are humans capable of internal wireless communication?'

    In your analogy, if 'internal wired' communication is synonymous with neuronal signalling; then I guess that 'internal wireless' communication would be synonymous with any other kind of non-neuronal signalling. Examples of such signalling between cells of the body include:

    1. Autocrine signalling - when a ligand released by a particular cell interacts with its complementary receptor on the same cell, thereby initiating an intracellular signal. Cancer cells, for example, typically display autocrine growth factor singalling.

    2. Paracrine signalling - a cell releases a mediator which acts on neighbouring cells.

    3. Endocrine signalling - a cell in one part of the body release a hormone which travels via the bloodstream to a distant tissue site and then binds specific receptor(s) on cells in that tissue to initiate a signal in that cell. This method of 'wireless' communication is similar to 'wired' communication, insofar as both signalling types allow the transmission of information across relatively large distances in the body. 'Wired' signalling tends to be more location-specific and faster than 'wireless' signalling, however.

    The above three methods of communication rely on typically protein molecules (e.g. hormones) rather than direct cell-cell communication via the release and receipt of neurotransmitters. I like to think of it almost like 'passing the baton', but that analogy may or may not be helpful to you, I don't know.

    Hope this helps?

    Tri.
    Tridimity, heck no it didn't help, it mostly went right over my head and it might keep me up at nights.

    It seems like in laymen terms you are saying cell to cell communication is sort of like wireless communication but with a protein. It was interesting and I am serious about it keeping me up at nights but I am more interested in the signals outside of signals from cell to cell or from pathogen to pathogen.

    You really did help. I realize I need more clarification to my question so here it goes again.


    When it comes to the brain communicating to the feet, heart, eyes or bladder are humans limited to internal wired communication or are humans capable of internal wireless communication? Does the signal always and only go through the nervous system like a wire or can the signal be like electroreception and be wireless?

    Forgive me if that still isn't clear.

    Also I am still trying to find out what kind of microscope is used to identify pathogenic bacteria for anyone in the know.
     

  11. #10  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    The signals travel linearly as they would down a wire. The electric impulse is propagated via the nerve connections via action potentials, where each signal triggers a chemical response in the nerve cell and creates a chemical response which transfers the impulse to the next cell. It travels cell by cell, and does not jump in the way you suggest.

    Here's a good site for the basics:

    http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/introb.html


    Specific to my point above is this:

    http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/ap.html
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    The signals travel linearly as they would down a wire. The electric impulse is propagated via the nerve connections via action potentials, where each signal triggers a chemical response in the nerve cell and creates a chemical response which transfers the impulse to the next cell. It travels cell by cell, and does not jump in the way you suggest.

    Here's a good site for the basics:

    http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/introb.html


    Specific to my point above is this:

    http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/ap.html
    OK, as far as science is currently aware our signals from brain to body to create an observable physical action are electrochemical and travel linearly as they would down a wire.

    What kind of research has gone into possible signals that do do not travel linearly as they would down a wire? Surely it has been investigated otherwise how would we know that there is only wired information. Where is the research in investigating the human capacity of sending signals completely wireless? I'm not talking about esp or anything like that. I'm just want to confirm that there is adequate science that proves humans cannot transmit information the way a fish or two way radio can.

    I'm guessing there is plenty of research in the area of wireless communication in humans when it is already abundant in fish. Anyone know any sources?

    Back to my other question and I only ask because the information on the internet is pretty vague, are pathogenic bacteria identifiable on a elementary school microscope or does it take an electron microscope?
     

  13. #12  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I don't know. That's where you step up and spend some time with google scholar and in the university library.
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I don't know. That's where you step up and spend some time with google scholar and in the university library.
    I dug in pretty deep and didn't find anything. I even contacted a few people and they thought it was a crazy notion.

    I assume it isn't worthy of research therefore all we have is "as far as we know".

    Clearly science doesn't fully understand everything there is to know about how we send and receive signals or how we detect this or that. I will keep digging.

    Still would like to know what kind of microscope is used to identify pathogenic bacteria. Is there a topic already on the subject here or do I need to start a new one?
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55 N, 3 W
    Posts
    1,086
    What about pheromones?

    Pheromones are common in the animal kingdom and are used to transmit all sorts of messages between individuals. They might be used by humans too (dunno?). Simple chemical signals that are produced by one individual and received by other individuals and acted upon subconsciously. Would appear to fit your requirements pretty well?
     

  16. #15  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko
    What about pheromones?
    They still trigger an action potential and neural cascade after hitting the olfactory receptors in the nose and mouth. It's still a standard signal which is generated once it reaches the body, regardless of the stimulus itself (in this case, pheromones).
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor Zwirko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    55 N, 3 W
    Posts
    1,086
    I think that's being too restrictive, inow. We are discussing brains, so clearly some neuronal activity is a prerequisite at some point. In this case (pheromones) the entire signal pathway can't be described as "linear" nor like "down a wire". In any case, I must point out that I was guilty of only reading the original question. Now having read the thread it would seem to me that the question is still being worded wrongly because there is no phenomenon at work in humans that meets the requirements as they seem to be being described. The limits you have imposed would appear to rule out any biology at all.

    Whataday, you've got neuronal signals or a chemical signals to play with. There is nothing else - I think this can be considered "proven". Chemical signals are often not linear and can't be described as being "wired". Biology often does things differently.

    Regarding bacteria, yes you can indeed use a light microscope and staining techniques to do some crude identification of bacteria. If you wanted to do it accurately then a microscope wouldn't be the method of choice.
     

  18. #17  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    To my knowledge, the OP was asking about within the body. The pheromone is still an external stimuli, and the nature of the stimuli is irrelevant to the question. Once the stimulus is perceived, it creates an action potential. I'm willing to be shown otherwise, but at present, my point is the one supported by evidence.
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Zwirko
    I think that's being too restrictive, inow. We are discussing brains, so clearly some neuronal activity is a prerequisite at some point. In this case (pheromones) the entire signal pathway can't be described as "linear" nor like "down a wire". In any case, I must point out that I was guilty of only reading the original question. Now having read the thread it would seem to me that the question is still being worded wrongly because there is no phenomenon at work in humans that meets the requirements as they seem to be being described. The limits you have imposed would appear to rule out any biology at all.

    Whataday, you've got neuronal signals or a chemical signals to play with. There is nothing else - I think this can be considered "proven". Chemical signals are often not linear and can't be described as being "wired". Biology often does things differently.

    Regarding bacteria, yes you can indeed use a light microscope and staining techniques to do some crude identification of bacteria. If you wanted to do it accurately then a microscope wouldn't be the method of choice.
    Actually Zwirko, I was trying see if science addresses wireless communication from one person to another. It seems science doesn't address it, it appears they ignore it or hide it. Humans do have the ability to use wireless forms of communication that apparently isn't currently addressed by science.

    For example, triple blind studies are partially designed to remove person to person subconscious wireless communication. A doctor can give a pill for an ailment but he or she can relay information subconsciously that is more effective than the pill which is why sugar pills often appear to be just as effective as a drug so in a triple blind study the doctor must be removed to prevent the communication.

    Wireless subconscious communication is what makes placebo an issue in the first place.

    There is no doubt we can effectively wireless communicate. It's a shame science doesn't acknowledge it. Wireless communication is a beautiful thing and most likely the most important form of communication we have.
     

  20. #19  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    There is no doubt we can effectively wireless communicate. It's a shame science doesn't acknowledge it. Wireless communication is a beautiful thing and most likely the most important form of communication we have.
    I'm a little confused by your point. We "wirelessly" communicate all of the time, through vision, scent, hearing, even touch... There are no wires involved between the external stimulus and our own bodies. What exactly to you think is being missed?

    It's also possible that we have some sort of electromagnetic communication whereby micro-magnetic fields are generated via the chemoelectric currents carried by our nervous system, and possible that is perceived by others much like the fish mentioned earlier in the thread, but it's hardly "unacknowledged" by science... Just lacking evidence that we "communicate" in this way or have a similar electric organ for doing so.

    Would you care to elaborate, or was your primary point to bash science as a method for not agreeing with your wishes and desires?
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    There is no doubt we can effectively wireless communicate. It's a shame science doesn't acknowledge it. Wireless communication is a beautiful thing and most likely the most important form of communication we have.
    I'm a little confused by your point. We "wirelessly" communicate all of the time, through vision, scent, hearing, even touch... There are no wires involved between the external stimulus and our own bodies. What exactly to you think is being missed?

    It's also possible that we have some sort of electromagnetic communication whereby micro-magnetic fields are generated via the chemoelectric currents carried by our nervous system, and possible that is perceived by others much like the fish mentioned earlier in the thread, but it's hardly "unacknowledged" by science... Just lacking evidence that we "communicate" in this way or have a similar electric organ for doing so.

    Would you care to elaborate, or was your primary point to bash science as a method for not agreeing with your wishes and desires?
    I will try, but you must give me some wiggle room because science isn't going to back me up. Science will claim their is no evidence.

    I will use the previous example from my comment that you didn't address. Let's say a Berkeley scientist is working on a new product to help treat glaucoma. With his normal test subject that he himself gives the drug to, 99% of the patients respond with obvious noticeable improvements. However when the good scientist is removed from the testing process the product proves to be 50% effective when the test subjects know they are taking it for their glaucoma and when the scientist is removed and the test subjects are not told why they are taking the drug the pill becomes virtually ineffective all together. Naturally there would be some sugar pills thrown into the mix but that is irrelevant to the example.

    Why did the experimental drug appear to be so effective for the scientist???? Because the scientist unknowingly communicated an immune response to his or her test subjects and the communication is what stimulated the improvements not the pill or sugar pills. This is why scientist must be removed from the testing process to make sure these healing communicating signals are removed from the testing process to ensure that the actual product is treating the condition.

    Why isn't there more research into this form of communication one might ask?

    Well, you can patent and sell drugs and medicine but you cannot patent subconscious communication. There is absolutely no product or drugs that have proven to be more effective than placebo. Because placebo cannot be patented and sold it is dismissed as something science cannot explain or apparently duplicate even though the Berkeley scientist was able to duplicate it with almost complete consistency.

    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    I hope that clears up some of the confusion. I was hoping we could all be friends but this little snippet of information is usually a party stopper. I would enjoy continuing the conversation but I understand if I have gone too far.
     

  22. #21  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    I will try, but you must give me some wiggle room because science isn't going to back me up. Science will claim their is no evidence.
    And if that's an accurate claim, then what precisely is the problem with making it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    I will use the previous example from my comment that you didn't address. Let's say a Berkeley scientist is working on a new product to help treat glaucoma. With his normal test subject that he himself gives the drug to, 99% of the patients respond with obvious noticeable improvements. However when the good scientist is removed from the testing process the product proves to be 50% effective when the test subjects know they are taking it for their glaucoma and when the scientist is removed and the test subjects are not told why they are taking the drug the pill becomes virtually ineffective all together. Naturally there would be some sugar pills thrown into the mix but that is irrelevant to the example.

    Why did the experimental drug appear to be so effective for the scientist???? Because the scientist unknowingly communicated an immune response to his or her test subjects and the communication is what stimulated the improvements not the pill or sugar pills.
    First, there are ways to mitigate and remove this risk you reference.
    Second, you seem to be conflating human intuition and non-verbal behavior with "electric wifi signals."
    Third, you have failed to establish that the scientist themselves are the reason for the effect, and not some other factor. It's an assumption, not a fact, which rests at the foundation of your argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Why isn't there more research into this form of communication one might ask?

    Well, you can patent and sell drugs and medicine but you cannot patent subconscious communication. There is absolutely no product or drugs that have proven to be more effective than placebo. Because placebo cannot be patented and sold it is dismissed as something science cannot explain or apparently duplicate even though the Berkeley scientist was able to duplicate it with almost complete consistency.

    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    I hope that clears up some of the confusion.
    Yes, I do believe it does. You are more interested in conspiracy theory than science. Good to know. Thanks.

    I'll gladly entertain evidence in favor of your point, but you have simply failed to offer any. The onus is on you to support your claim.
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    I will try, but you must give me some wiggle room because science isn't going to back me up. Science will claim their is no evidence.
    And if that's an accurate claim, then what precisely is the problem with making it?


    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    I will use the previous example from my comment that you didn't address. Let's say a Berkeley scientist is working on a new product to help treat glaucoma. With his normal test subject that he himself gives the drug to, 99% of the patients respond with obvious noticeable improvements. However when the good scientist is removed from the testing process the product proves to be 50% effective when the test subjects know they are taking it for their glaucoma and when the scientist is removed and the test subjects are not told why they are taking the drug the pill becomes virtually ineffective all together. Naturally there would be some sugar pills thrown into the mix but that is irrelevant to the example.

    Why did the experimental drug appear to be so effective for the scientist???? Because the scientist unknowingly communicated an immune response to his or her test subjects and the communication is what stimulated the improvements not the pill or sugar pills.
    First, there are ways to mitigate and remove this risk you reference.
    Second, you seem to be conflating human intuition and non-verbal behavior with "electric wifi signals."
    Third, you have failed to establish that the scientist themselves are the reason for the effect, and not some other factor. It's an assumption, not a fact, which rests at the foundation of your argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Why isn't there more research into this form of communication one might ask?

    Well, you can patent and sell drugs and medicine but you cannot patent subconscious communication. There is absolutely no product or drugs that have proven to be more effective than placebo. Because placebo cannot be patented and sold it is dismissed as something science cannot explain or apparently duplicate even though the Berkeley scientist was able to duplicate it with almost complete consistency.

    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    I hope that clears up some of the confusion.
    Yes, I do believe it does. You are more interested in conspiracy theory than science. Good to know. Thanks.

    I'll gladly entertain evidence in favor of your point, but you have simply failed to offer any. The onus is on you to support your claim.
    inow, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it and you have the free agency to wear it proud but my point was made very clear and there are people here who will agree 100% with my point of view even if you do not. Whether they post their support doesn't matter, they know. What you refer to as conspiracy others refer to as business.

    I'm not interested in debating with someone against the obvious and I don't expect science to back up any thing that will do damage to their business. I don't mind backing out of the conversation and seeing if anyone else here will acknowledge the obvious. My claim needs no support from me, it's pure common sense and painfully obvious.

    Cheers.

    EDIT: By the way, you seem defensive inow, I assume this means we cannot be friends?
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Why isn't there more research into this form of communication one might ask?

    Well, you can patent and sell drugs and medicine but you cannot patent subconscious communication.
    Irrelevant if the research is being carried out by a non-profit organisation or a government agency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    There is absolutely no product or drugs that have proven to be more effective than placebo.
    What about the thousands and thousands of double-blinded, placebo-controlled drugs trials? Certainly some of those show the new drug to be no better than placebo for a given task and some come out as worse. That's the point of trials after all. But some are very definitely better than placebo. That's not really up for debate any more than the colour of the sky.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Because placebo cannot be patented and sold it is dismissed as something science cannot explain or apparently duplicate even though the Berkeley scientist was able to duplicate it with almost complete consistency.
    What are you talking about? There's a 5000 word article with 174 (mostly scientific) references on Wikipedia. There are cutting edge scientific topics with less coverage. What in the world makes you think the placebo effect is being dismissed by biologists?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    I hope that clears up some of the confusion. I was hoping we could all be friends but this little snippet of information is usually a party stopper. I would enjoy continuing the conversation but I understand if I have gone too far.
    I'm not going to stop your conversation but I am considering moving it to pseudoscience.
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Whataday, one form of information that doesn't exactly "travel down a wire" is frequency. Obviously hearing is a good example of this. But the brain also employs frequency (and timing) to organise internal operation i.e. our private thoughts.

    Insects communicate (and also predate each other!) largely through visible and audible harmonics that key directly from one brain to the next. For example the caterpillar brain cycles at a certain rate, driving it to move at a certain rate, which the wasp is keyed to notice... the wasp is thinking "prey frequency". However the caterpillar brain may have defense mechanism keyed to the visible period of wasp wingbeats. If the wasp buzzes a bit faster or slower, its prey will think nothing of it. For fun, try disturbing a nest of tent caterpillars and watch their collective movements.

    Between humans, how much unconscious "leakage" of our internal frequencies occurs I can't guess. You get some clues from music, poetry, competitive sports. You probably know that people in proximity tend to match their breathing rate. I suspect that frequency leakage constitutes much of what we call the "air" around a person. Maybe sham frequency's an element of successfully lying eye-to-eye? Well, for sure when telling jokes, everything depends on timing. I believe we sense a good deal more of this than we consciously know.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Whataday, one form of information that doesn't exactly "travel down a wire" is frequency. Obviously hearing is a good example of this. But the brain also employs frequency (and timing) to organise internal operation i.e. our private thoughts.

    Insects communicate (and also predate each other!) largely through visible and audible harmonics that key directly from one brain to the next. For example the caterpillar brain cycles at a certain rate, driving it to move at a certain rate, which the wasp is keyed to notice... the wasp is thinking "prey frequency". However the caterpillar brain may have defense mechanism keyed to the visible period of wasp wingbeats. If the wasp buzzes a bit faster or slower, its prey will think nothing of it. For fun, try disturbing a nest of tent caterpillars and watch their collective movements.

    Between humans, how much unconscious "leakage" of our internal frequencies occurs I can't guess. You get some clues from music, poetry, competitive sports. You probably know that people in proximity tend to match their breathing rate. I suspect that frequency leakage constitutes much of what we call the "air" around a person. Maybe sham frequency's an element of successfully lying eye-to-eye? Well, for sure when telling jokes, everything depends on timing. I believe we sense a good deal more of this than we consciously know.
    Thanks pong, its nice to know that there are people here who are not offended by what they don't fully understand or wish to call anything they cannot explain pseudoscience.

    If science was interested in "leakage" they would know that "leakage" is our most superior form of communication. Whatever a bug or a bat can do, we can do it better. We just stopped using our "leakage" for practical purposes and now the discussion of it rubs people the wrong way.

    This topic is taboo. It's not pseudoscience but it will be moved there and if I continue to make such horrible claims and suggesting I will be removed from the discussion.

    Yep pong every time a placebo effect takes place their is a communication that science isn't interested in and they label it pseudoscience and not worthy of real consideration.

    Obviously sugar pills have no healing properties so we know the sugar isn't helping. What does that leave? Well it leaves two options, either the person using the sugar pill is communicating brain to body to get a healing response or the person giving the pills relays the communication to the test subjects that instigates a healing response, either way it is the same form of communication. If this were not the case their would be no need for blind testing at all.

    So if blind studies are pseudoscience by all means move this topic. If discussing why zillions of dollars go into researching drugs and products that do not stack up to a sugar pill while completely ignoring the phenomenon behind the sugar pill by all means run me out of town on the horse I road in on.

    The reason no one investigates the communication that creates a placebo response is because the communication cannot be patented so the communication behind blind testing is laughed at, disrespected, snubbed and called pseudoscience but the funny thing is, a drug can be marketed until it passes pseudoscience standards.
     

  27. #26  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Thanks pong, its nice to know that there are people here who are not offended by what they don't fully understand
    Wait, what? Who is offended?



    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    If science was interested in "leakage" they would know that "leakage" is our most superior form of communication.
    And if you were interested in science, you would provide evidence in support of your assertions, instead simply repeating your baseless claims. Everyone here is eager to see why we should take your assertions seriously. The onus is on you to provide data and information which allows us to do that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Whatever a bug or a bat can do, we can do it better. We just stopped using our "leakage" for practical purposes and now the discussion of it rubs people the wrong way.
    What "rubs people the wrong way" is when people make claims continuously which they are either unable or unwilling to support. The topic of your claim is wholly irrelevant. The problem here is that you continue to make assertions and then lash out at people with irrelevant bullshit when they ask you to show some evidence in their favor.


    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    This topic is taboo. It's not pseudoscience but it will be moved there and if I continue to make such horrible claims and suggesting I will be removed from the discussion.
    Yes, of course. Poor you. You're being persecuted merely for trying to share a truth which science is too afraid to see. Give me a break. Quit being such a dumbshit. If you put forth some meaningful evidence, there is not a single person here who would not consider it. It may be challenged, but that's how science works.







    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Yep pong every time a placebo effect takes place their is a communication that science isn't interested in and they label it pseudoscience and not worthy of real consideration.
    Are you bad at reading comprehension, also? TheBiologista already showed just how plainly ridiculous this particular claim is only like 2 posts ago.


    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Obviously sugar pills have no healing properties so we know the sugar isn't helping. What does that leave? Well it leaves two options, either the person using the sugar pill is communicating brain to body to get a healing response or the person giving the pills relays the communication to the test subjects that instigates a healing response, either way it is the same form of communication.
    The person taking the sugar pills IS communicating between their brain and their body, but we don't need to invoke magical mystery wifi powers to explain it. I don't discount that there may be other forms of communication happening. What I'm saying is that we can explain it perfectly well using other approaches, and that you have failed completely to offer anything more than a bunch of hand-waving and claims of persecution in support of the one you are here proposing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    So if blind studies are pseudoscience by all means move this topic.
    Except, you've not cited any studies. Maybe you're off your meds? Maybe you've decided to replace your pills with sugar? I don't know, but you're connection with reality seems rather tenuous.


    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    If discussing why zillions of dollars go into researching drugs and products that do not stack up to a sugar pill while completely ignoring the phenomenon behind the sugar pill by all means run me out of town on the horse I road in on.
    Oh, for the love of Thor... Grow up and learn to read. The placebo effect has been researched in enormous detail and for decades.



    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    The reason no one investigates the communication that creates a placebo response is because the communication cannot be patented so the communication behind blind testing is laughed at, disrespected, snubbed and called pseudoscience but the funny thing is, a drug can be marketed until it passes pseudoscience standards.
    Yes, of course. That simply has to the be the ONLY reason your idea is not being taken seriously. It's easier to blame a conspiracy than it is to put forth the effort to research and support your ideas... and it's even easier to put forth a conspiracy theory than it is to reject your ideas when they are shown to be lacking.
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Anyway, as I was saying. It would be nice is science were interested in science that can improve living conditions instead of science that can be patented.

    Humans have the ability to control their immunity and the communication that controls it is not limited to internal private communication.

    If a person learns to control their immunity effectively through proper wireless communication there is nothing but lack of knowledge that will prevent them from communicating to another person's immune system.

    If science were to investigate and spend a fraction of the money used to test a new drug or product they could learn to consistently reproduce a placebo healing response.

    If it were not about the patents science could make sugar pills 100% effective or they could leave out the sugar pill and focus on the communication behind the sugar pill. But a science that cannot be patented will be dismissed as pseudoscience which begs the question, really which science is truly pseudoscience?

    I believe a science in pursuit of patents could easily be considered pseudoscience and any science that takes advantage of understanding and utilizing what already exist without need for technological patents is true science.

    How many people here would embrace medical science that cannot be patented? Can we have a show of hands? Would you support a science that hurts mainstream patented science if it were to potentially ends most suffering? This is very relevant, bias scientist make up pseudoscience. If you are not in favor of real science that cannot be patented you will simply argue and debate any existence of such a science. You will turn you nose up to such a science and scoff. You will dismiss the power of the human body and brain and forever remain a product of pseudoscience.

    Anyone?

    Cheers
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Anyway, as I was saying. It would be nice is science were interested in science that can improve living conditions instead of science that can be patented.
    You're pretty much in love with this idea that science is a slave to big business, aren't you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    How many people here would embrace medical science that cannot be patented? Can we have a show of hands?
    Me. I spent 5 years doing research that I knew I could not patent and which I doubt anyone could usefully patent. I still got paid, because I was being paid by the government, who were themselves making no direct profit from the endevour beyond the fuzzy economic benefits of sponsoring research.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Would you support a science that hurts mainstream patented science if it were to potentially ends most suffering?
    Easy answer. Yes, so long as I can pay the rent at the end of the month.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    This is very relevant, bias scientist make up pseudoscience. If you are not in favor of real science that cannot be patented you will simply argue and debate any existence of such a science. You will turn you nose up to such a science and scoff.
    Why? Non-patentable science can lead to patentable science. Discovery requires us to wander a wide variety of paths. Only an idiot would dismiss non-patentable science. The guys who built the large hadron collider aren't planning to patent mass itself. That's not to say that patentable science won't come out of their work, but it's not guaranteed and it's not the impetus behind that work. And it cost 9 billion dollars.

    Are you seriously suggesting that there's no money out there for risky, non-profitable science?
     

  30. #29 There lies the problem. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    There lies the problem. Cures that cannot be patented will not pay the bills at the end of the month. However for those suffering from disease who cannot pay their bills because they are too sick, cures that cannot be patented can help them pay their bills at the end of the month because they can be healthy enough to work again.

    And no, cures that can't be patented can't be patented later either.

    I'm not here to begrudge people a living in science. I'm here to discuss the means humans have in communicating one with another that can and does effect immunity and the fact that this natural ability cannot be patented and therefore it is ignored by mainstream science.

    I do appreciate you emphasizing how important money is when it comes to ending suffering. Even the best of intentions come with a price. Would you sign a petition to help leverage the government into investigating cures that cannot be patented? Everyone wants to make a living, no one can begrudge a person for wanting to survive but what about those too sick to survive? Would you sign a petition to prompt an investigation?

    I hope there are others like Pong and ZWirko who can add some more insight to how humans can and do have the ability to communicate without visual or verbal tools.
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    I was saying how the span of blank between signals conveys meaningful information, especially for "low-level" processes like electronic communications, neural impulses, or an insect's quick & simple recognition of other insect species. Placebo's got nothing to do with it, because that's about conscious beliefs. And I'm pretty sure immune systems interact in analogue only.

    Anecdotally, I've found that since we had a child, my wife and I never get the same sickness simultaneously, though the flu factories he attends provide a rich sample of the city's germs (cough). I dunno what's going on there, or if it's luck, but it is certainly advantageous.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I was saying how the span of blank between signals conveys meaningful information, especially for "low-level" processes like electronic communications, neural impulses, or an insect's quick & simple recognition of other insect species. Placebo's got nothing to do with it, because that's about conscious beliefs. And I'm pretty sure immune systems interact in analogue only.

    Anecdotally, I've found that since we had a child, my wife and I never get the same sickness simultaneously, though the flu factories he attends provide a rich sample of the city's germs (cough). I dunno what's going on there, or if it's luck, but it is certainly advantageous.
    Lack of scientific understanding of placebo might suggest it is about conscious belief but that doesn't make it so. A person can consciously send a wireless signal to another person where the patient/client subconsciously receives the signal and subconsciously acts upon it creating the misunderstood placebo effect without any belief involved at all.

    Really, how much money goes into investigating the powers of human immunity? If a person isn't careful they can screw up and send a communicating signal and make an ineffective product or drug appear to be effective. It's really simple, we can stimulate healing much more effective without technology than we can with technology, we are built that way.

    If a person has severe food allergies to shellfish and a person who has developed a product that works exceptionally well only when he or she administers it give the patient the product with the intent to cure the allergies the patient stands a very good chance of being cured even though the product will not pass double or triple blind studies.

    We could cop out and call it belief and not investigate further as medicine and mainstream science already does or we could investigate what actually happened and perfect the ability to communicate properly instead of improperly.

    I don't have kids but I would assume you would rather not get sick from the germs the child brings home. To me that would advantageous. You settling for one of you being sick at a time is as much a reason for complacency in regards to human immunity as anything. I'm not trying to be disrespectful and I can see your point about not both being down at the same time, but I can't help believing that you wouldn't mind not being sick at all. Clearly it is possible because there are people who have never had a cold or a flu.

    It still boils down to the fact that there is very little use for cures that cannot be patented so instead of using sugar pills or the communication behind the placebo effect we dismiss the healing in favor of developing another drug that might work better than a sugar pill or communication.

    It's a dilemma.
     

  33. #32  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    No, it's not. You're engaging in wish thinking and ignoring the valid explanations already available to us.
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    No, it's not. You're engaging in wish thinking and ignoring the valid explanations already available to us.
    What you refer to as a "valid explanation" is your opinion. I may appear to be engaging in "wish thinking" but again that is your opinion.

    I am actually ignoring an invalid explanation and engaging in genuine science that can't be sold or patented therefore incorruptible science.

    "True leaders are inspiring because they are inspired, caught up in higher purpose, devoid of personal ambition and incorruptible."

    If the "valid explanations" you choose to believe in had merit, tangible solid proof instead of weak complacent theories I would give them a seconds thought but I see nothing valid in them.

    If they were valid, there would be no shortage of cures. I'll ask you to inow, would you sign a petition asking science to investigate cures that cannot be patented?
     

  35. #34  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    How about you show why your idea should be taken seriously using peer-reviewed research?

    I have zero problem with alternative ideas. I do have a problem with people who expect me to take them seriously when they provide no reason for me to do so, and further with people who rely on unsupported claims of conspiracy and persecution as some replacement for doing the leg work to do research and show that their assertions have merit.

    You could equally be asserting that the farts of purple unicorns cause erections in leprechauns. I'd entertain that possibility if you would simply show it to be valid using legitimate and reasonable sources which rationally support it.
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    I will ask you again inow, will you sign a petition to demand "peer-reviewed research" into cures that cannot be patented?

    Or are you going to rely on the fact that science consistently ignores cures that cannot be patented by dismiss cures on the basis of the absence of any "peer-reviewed research".

    As long as science ignores cures that cannot be patented there will be no "peer-reviewed research".

    WILL YOU SIGN A PETITION ASKING SCIENCE AND MEDICINE TO INVESTIGATE CURES THAT CANNOT BE PATENTED OR ARE YOU AGAINST SUCH CURES?
     

  37. #36 Re: There lies the problem. 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    There lies the problem. Cures that cannot be patented will not pay the bills at the end of the month.
    You didn't read my post at all did you? You just picked out key words and stuck to your pre-formed opinion. I got paid. My bills got paid. There was no patent, nor was there any expectation of one.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    However for those suffering from disease who cannot pay their bills because they are too sick, cures that cannot be patented can help them pay their bills at the end of the month because they can be healthy enough to work again.
    That goes without saying. I think you're focusing on this argument as a way of avoiding defending the topic you started.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    And no, cures that can't be patented can't be patented later either.
    Well that's not true, but it's also not what I claimed anyway. I said non-patentable research can lead on to patentable research. Completely different point that you seem to have missed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    I'm not here to begrudge people a living in science. I'm here to discuss the means humans have in communicating one with another that can and does effect immunity and the fact that this natural ability cannot be patented and therefore it is ignored by mainstream science.
    If you were here to discuss that, you'd be presenting the evidence for the idea rather than writing ill-informed proclamations against how you think science is conducted. That viewpoint seems to be based on a pretty shallow knowledge of the reality of modern scientific research.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    I do appreciate you emphasizing how important money is when it comes to ending suffering. Even the best of intentions come with a price. Would you sign a petition to help leverage the government into investigating cures that cannot be patented?
    No, it's a sentiment that is simultaneously too specific and too vague. Too specific because many cures are not researched because the potential recipients are too poor or too few in numbers to make the venture profitable, not because the cures can't be patented. It would be trivial to patent a decent malaria treatment, but the profit margin would be small or non-existent. That's not a patent issue.

    I would sign any number of petitions to fund non-profit (patentable or otherwise) medical research, if I thought it would help. I'd also sign petitions to refocus research funding onto specific non-profitable fields, if I agreed with those fields.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Everyone wants to make a living, no one can begrudge a person for wanting to survive but what about those too sick to survive? Would you sign a petition to prompt an investigation?
    No, because we already know this. You're talking about it like it's news.
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    I read enough of your comments to know you are not willing to change your stance. Notice I didn't say "change your opinion" or "change your theory" I used change your stance because that is what you have taken and you clearly plan on sticking to it which is why I don't want to waste a lot of time with someone who doesn't care about what science could do if they were interested in science instead of patents.

    I will ask you and inow again......

    Will you two sign a petition that is designed to leverage science, medicine and the government into openly and publicly investigating and researching cures that cannot be patented and as such have nothing to do with medicine? A SIMPLE YES OR NO will suffice.

    Let's ask it again, would you approve of cures that cannot be patented and that eliminate all the need for medicine and patents? A SIMPLE YEW OR NO will suffice.

    If you can't answer with a plain old YES I am afraid I don't really have much use for you two's biased stances or opinions.

    YES or NO?

    Then we can get back to the topic at hand once we know that some of you are more for pure science than you are for patent pending science.
     

  39. #38  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    I read enough of your comments to know you are not willing to change your stance.
    Right- that's basically an admission that you're not really interested in listening to the other side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Notice I didn't say "change your opinion" or "change your theory" I used change your stance because that is what you have taken and you clearly plan on sticking to it which is why I don't want to waste a lot of time with someone who doesn't care about what science could do if they were interested in science instead of patents.
    Try reading my posts a bit more closely and you might realise that my stance is very much in favour of science for science's sake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    I will ask you and inow again......

    Will you two sign a petition that is designed to leverage science, medicine and the government into openly and publicly investigating and researching cures that cannot be patented and as such have nothing to do with medicine? A SIMPLE YES OR NO will suffice.
    No. They're already doing it. I would sign a petition to increase public spending on science though

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Let's ask it again, would you approve of cures that cannot be patented and that eliminate all the need for medicine and patents? A SIMPLE YEW OR NO will suffice.
    If they're better than the cures we have, then yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    If you can't answer with a plain old YES I am afraid I don't really have much use for you two's biased stances or opinions.

    YES or NO?
    If you just can't stand to hear "No, because..." then you have no place on a science forum or any other forum that values rational discussion. "A simple yes or no?" The world is not simple, the world's problems are not simple and the answers are not simple.

    I'm not simple either, so I'm afraid you won't get many monosyllabic answers from me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Then we can get back to the topic at hand once we know that some of you are more for pure science than you are for patent pending science.
    I've already tried to show you where my interests lie and I see no need to justify myself to you further. Nobody else should either. You'll have to take us as we are. Or not. I don't mind either way.

    Got to put on the mod hat now and say that if this thread is just going to be all about us trying to convince you that we're not biased, then I'm just going to lock it. Your choice.
     

  40. #39 My farewell speech. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Right- that's basically an admission that you're not really interested in listening to the other side.

    Try reading my posts a bit more closely and you might realise that my stance is very much in favour of science for science's sake.

    No. They're already doing it. I would sign a petition to increase public spending on science though

    If they're better than the cures we have, then yes.

    If you just can't stand to hear "No, because..." then you have no place on a science forum or any other forum that values rational discussion. "A simple yes or no?" The world is not simple, the world's problems are not simple and the answers are not simple.

    I'm not simple either, so I'm afraid you won't get many monosyllabic answers from me.

    I've already tried to show you where my interests lie and I see no need to justify myself to you further. Nobody else should either. You'll have to take us as we are. Or not. I don't mind either way.

    Got to put on the mod hat now and say that if this thread is just going to be all about us trying to convince you that we're not biased, then I'm just going to lock it. Your choice.
    Your good. You figured out on your own that I am not interested in the other side. Why would I be, the other side is well documented and I have complete access to it as does everyone else and I know exactly what your side can and cannot do so why would I be interested in a side that is extremely inferior and limited when it comes to cures, even extremely limited when it comes to relief. You aren't sharing anything new, you are just sharing what we already know. Because you cannot bring anything new and you feel really small about, you now feel a need to exercise your moderating powers with threats I have no doubt you will back up and show me how big and tough you are.

    I have read enough of your post to know you are only for science that makes you sound like you know what you are talking about. I see nothing from you that suggest you would sacrifice your pride and investigate a science that contradicts patent seeking science.

    No you are not simple, no opponent of mainstream science is because complication is the ruse you and science use to blind and brainwash the public.

    You have tried to show where your interests lie but you danced around so much in complicating responses to ensure that you cannot get pinned to a real answer to what your interest are. You can't come out and say, "YES, I am all for cures that cannot be patented by medicine and science."

    Here is your chance to show people you don't put money and patents before cures. Sign this petition for the sake of forcing science, medicine and the government to investigate and research cures that cannot be patented and have nothing to do with medicine.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/view...t_wo_your_help

    Or................do not sign the petition and make a flimsy excuse why you wont sign it and then lock this thread so people can't discuss just exactly why you and inow refuse to sign it?

    Obviously if you think it is false and the cures mentioned in the petition are a hoax they you really have a duty to force science to prove it is a hoax. No the only reason people do not sign it is because they are scared to or because they do not want to see cures that can't be patented. For those of you who are scared to list your information you can sign it without your information being public. Funny how fear propaganda has completely shut Americans off from protesting and taking a REAL stance. "Oh no, someone my see my real name and the state or city I am in and come and get me." Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, greed, greed, greed, greed and corruption keeps Americans very ill informed.

    Mainstream science cannot put up with the petition so I bid you all farewell. It was fun why it lasted. If you want to discuss cures that cannot be patented you will have to do it on a forum that does not censor the action.

    Cheers
     

  41. #40 Re: My farewell speech. 
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Your "farewell speech"? Are you leaving?

    You know, I sense you're probably an intelligent enough guy, but your assessment and indeed your judgement of me is as shallow and as unjust as is your judgement of the scientific community. I'm not here to feel clever, or tough. I just like to talk about science, which is what I tried to do when you started off about placebos. But you can barely bring yourself to refute the most basic arguments made against you. Instead you respond with a rhetoric that I suspect is well-worn ground for you now.

    It's pretty clear to me now that you came here with an agenda, one which you've had for some time. You want to convince, and we'd like to be convinced, but you're not interested in giving back. That means you're unlikely to convince many people here. Not because of our own biases or inflexibility, but rather because you're displaying both traits in spades along with some rather stunning shortcomings in basic knowledge, and that is difficult to respect.

    Okay so, the mod part. I get to be all 'tough' as you say- you know how I live for clicking icons. Since this is a biology forum and we haven't actually talked about biology since page 2, I would invite you to continue this discussion on a more appropriate subforum (or forums). For the activist element, I would suggest a move to the General forum. The rest should probably go in pseudoscience. I can move this thread or even split it up, if you like. But it really shouldn't be here. Feedback?
     

  42. #41 Re: My farewell speech. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Your "farewell speech"? Are you leaving?

    You know, I sense you're probably an intelligent enough guy, but your assessment and indeed your judgement of me is as shallow and as unjust as is your judgement of the scientific community. I'm not here to feel clever, or tough. I just like to talk about science, which is what I tried to do when you started off about placebos. But you can barely bring yourself to refute the most basic arguments made against you. Instead you respond with a rhetoric that I suspect is well-worn ground for you now.

    It's pretty clear to me now that you came here with an agenda, one which you've had for some time. You want to convince, and we'd like to be convinced, but you're not interested in giving back. That means you're unlikely to convince many people here. Not because of our own biases or inflexibility, but rather because you're displaying both traits in spades along with some rather stunning shortcomings in basic knowledge, and that is difficult to respect.

    Okay so, the mod part. I get to be all 'tough' as you say- you know how I live for clicking icons. Since this is a biology forum and we haven't actually talked about biology since page 2, I would invite you to continue this discussion on a more appropriate subforum (or forums). For the activist element, I would suggest a move to the General forum. The rest should probably go in pseudoscience. I can move this thread or even split it up, if you like. But it really shouldn't be here. Feedback?
    There is no science to support or validate one single cure that can't be patented. Therefore nothing I can say or claim will suite you as long as you cannot google what I say and verify it with your existing science.

    If I am wrong, prove me wrong with your powers of intellect and ability to discuss reasonably. Show me existing science of cures that cannot be patented. Or just sign the petition so I can get on with business and force science to put health and healing before patents.

    As long as science ignores cures that cannot be patented you can put this forum anywhere you like. Naturally you believe it to be a conspiracy so move it there and tell the world that there are no cures that can't be patented because the body simply hasn't the immunity for such woo woo. LOL Imagine an immune system that offered IMMUNITY??????? Oh, wait a minute, that is biology, best no go there. Nope, mainstream science has spoken and their is no such thing as IMMUNITY without a medical drug. A person can't cures something if medicine says it can't be cured.

    If anyone here is sincerely interested in science for the sake of science and the betterment of mankind they will sign the petition. If they don't they are scared or corrupt, which one?
     

  43. #42  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    I fail to appreciate the point of this petition. Are we to command scientists take unpatentable research into things like fluoride toothpaste and eating plenty of green vegetables, more seriously?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    I fail to appreciate the point of this petition. Are we to command scientists take unpatentable research into things like fluoride toothpaste and eating plenty of green vegetables, more seriously?
    What does fluoride toothpaste and eating green vegetables have to do with cures that cannot be patented?

    Maybe you should read the petition. It is talking about cures that cannot be patented not toothpaste or diets. If you claim to have read it how did you fail to see that?

    The science behind the cures has never been researched by anyone but myself so maybe you might refrain from passing judgment.

    Let me help by paraphrasing for you. The patent is about getting medicine, science, government and media to investigate CURES that can't be patented, a science of cures that is ignored by medicine, science, government and media. Cures you are simply unaware of or purposely against.

    Now, if you want see the science behind the CURES that can't be patented I suggest you sign the petition, if you are threatened by the petition, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you can tell me how it could be written where it doesn't threaten you or confuse you or whatever it is that prevents you from signing it.

    Yeah, why don't you guys just say why you won't sign it.

    I know you can't do that. You support your science, not the science behind cures that can't be patented. Prove me wrong.
     

  45. #44  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Basically, I am not even going to click the link because you are an obtuse, agenda driven prat who is railing against people about whom you know nothing, and whose motives you understand even less, using invective and personal barbs.

    Seriously. I get the impression that you are about 14, and that your head is planted firmly inside your anus. Prove me wrong.
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Yeah, why don't you guys just say why you won't sign it.
    Maybe because you won't accept an answer that isn't a yes or a no?

    I gave you various options on how we could continue discussing the topics you've raised here, but you've given me no feedback. So I am going to move the thread to pseudoscience, which I think is a more appropriate home for it given that you're not interested in addressing anyone's rebuttals.
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Yeah, why don't you guys just say why you won't sign it.
    Maybe because you won't accept an answer that isn't a yes or a no?

    I gave you various options on how we could continue discussing the topics you've raised here, but you've given me no feedback. So I am going to move the thread to pseudoscience, which I think is a more appropriate home for it given that you're not interested in addressing anyone's rebuttals.
    Have yet to see any rebuttal.

    If the group is not aware of any cures that cannot be patented that are available today then I'm afraid I must assume they do not exist in today's science or today's science isn't interested in cures that can't be patented.

    If someone knows of cures being used today that are not patentable we have something to discuss.

    If someone knows of research being done or that has been done in regards to cures that can't be patented then we have something to discuss.

    If there is nothing in the field of science in regards to cures that can't be patented then it leaves only one option and that is to force science to research cures that cannot be patented and in regards to this, there is nothing to discuss, only action that needs to be taken. I think I can assume there will be no interest in the needed action here so that leaves the discussion kind of biased and or sabotaged.

    Unless someone knows of research into cures that can't be patented, I've gotten what I came here for. So far there is no evidence to dispute the petition. Science hasn't looked into or considered cures that cannot be patented or at least there's no such documentation of it.

    If I have any more questions I will be sure to come here first.

    Cheers.
     

  48. #47  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I can't believe this thread went this long. Whataday, you have no idea how science works. You have no idea what the placebo effect is, and NO research or evidence to back up your claims. If your own research is worth anything at all, then submitting it to a peer review system will at least give you some feedback. The chance that you personally have done any tests that could remotely be construed as scientific is very slim indeed. You are living in a fantasy world, sorry to say.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    It's strange the way you're acting as if this broad notion- that the commercialisation of science discourages certain avenues of research- is in some way novel or controversial. That's just silly. I mean, it's been something like 30 years since the Orphan Drug Act for example. I can't help but wonder if the reason why you're focusing so heavily on this patentable cures thing is because you can't fathom any other reason why scientists would be sceptical of your ideas on immunity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Yeah, why don't you guys just say why you won't sign it.
    Maybe because you won't accept an answer that isn't a yes or a no?

    I gave you various options on how we could continue discussing the topics you've raised here, but you've given me no feedback. So I am going to move the thread to pseudoscience, which I think is a more appropriate home for it given that you're not interested in addressing anyone's rebuttals.
    Have yet to see a rebuttal. All I see are people afraid of the truth and afraid to sign a petition. Pride or corruption, which one is it?
    Why would anyone be afraid to sign your petition? We disagree with it, which is something else entirely. I think most people working in biology would agree with the broad idea behind what you're saying (it's a particularly fashionable topic amongst immunologists who work with tropical diseases for example), but the specifics you've worked into your argument don't make much sense. That's the sticking point.
     

  50. #49  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    What does fluoride toothpaste and eating green vegetables have to do with cures that cannot be patented?
    Okay, bad examples. Rather try the cures for hypothermia or cardiac arrest.

    But I guess your definition of a "CURE" is tailored to a particular self-interest, suggested here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    The science behind the cures has never been researched by anyone but myself so maybe you might refrain from passing judgment.
    You're petitioning blind support for your own pet project.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    What does fluoride toothpaste and eating green vegetables have to do with cures that cannot be patented?
    Okay, bad examples. Rather try the cures for hypothermia or cardiac arrest.

    But I guess your definition of a "CURE" is tailored to a particular self-interest, suggested here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    The science behind the cures has never been researched by anyone but myself so maybe you might refrain from passing judgment.
    You're petitioning blind support for your own pet project.
    Clearly the discussion is long over and now it's a debate.

    It's a debate because the rest of you are making cures that can't be patented something ugly referring them to my own pet project and as such unworthy of any attention and you are now debating the "definition of cures".

    I know there is a lot of wiggle room for you to debate because you base your debate on a patentable but failing medicine and science, a medicine and science based almost completely on opinion and theories otherwise knowing as winging it. Let's try this and see what happens to the test subjects type of failure.

    So when I say I am speaking of cures for Lyme Disease you can say, "what is Lyme Disease and how does someone know if they have it?" I would have to concede your point because a diagnoses from a doctor is nothing more than opinion. Same goes with herpes, HCV, HIV, Graves Disease, asthma, allergies, migraine headaches, infertility, impotence, cancer, diabetes, glaucoma, acid reflux, psoriasis, lupus, arthritis, high blood pressure, infertility, gout, and pretty much anything one might seek medical treatment for that medicine cannot cure.

    Some might think a cure for such ailments would be the elimination of the pathogens causing the illness along with the correction of any other malfunctions or abnormalities associated with them which is what I lean to but you may wish to debate that as well and I'm sure you can find a way.

    Scientist such as yourselves show your disdain for anyone with an idea that could be amazing and far superior to your current beliefs and understanding of mainstream patentable science. Therefore everything inside you cringes at the thought of a layperson such as myself being able to consistently offer cures as cures is described above for all the diseases medicine fails to cure.

    You say because it is my own tinkering, no matter if it is a perfect and consistent cure for any of the above mentioned ailments, it is not worth science and medicine getting involved because it comes from an unorthodox source outside of mainstream science. This allows you to discredit cures that can't be patented because the source isn't standard so you can tell yourself you are not against cures that can't be patented.

    All and all, when it comes right down to it, you are against cures that can't be patented and you don't want science and medicine to invest one minute of research on such perfect and consistent cures.

    Here is the major difference between scientist and myself. Most scientist are selfish, prideful, often greedy and often corrupt. If there are any righteous scientist here they WILL NOT BE OFFENDED because they know just as well as I know. They know science has sold out to the highest bidder.

    So my "self interest" is an interest that COMPLETELY changes the world, funny how someone's pet project can have that much power.

    I never expected anyone from here to sign it. I'm just furthering my research on how corrupt science really is.

    The petition is out and it will slowly gain momentum and all of you will be dabbling in other types of science than medical science because medical science will soon be obsolete.

    I gave you all your chance to get on board to be part of something real, but you chose to defend your pride and to debate.
    Cheers!
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    I can't deny it, I have no research to back up my claims, wow if I did I wouldn't ask you to sign the petition I would have the research already, duhhhh. I have my own personal research but we all know it doesn't mean anything to you guys and here is where I really upset you guys again.

    I have no research to back up my claims and there will never ever ever be research to back up my claims UNLESS the petition is signed.

    Until the petition is sufficiently signed forcing research into my claims you people SO OBVIOUSLY AGAINST the claims themselves will always be able to tell yourselves that I have no idea what I am talking about and that I have no idea about placebo, immunity or health and healing.

    As long as you guys refuse to force research into my claims you have an easy cop out.

    If the petition gets 30,000 signatures there will be more than enough research to prove there are cures for diseases medicine cannot cure, cures that cannot be patented and this is why you people will not sign the petition.

    That's right, I don't have any research or evidence other than personal research and if people don't sign the petition there will never be any research or evidence, just the way you people like it. Prove me wrong and sign the petition or ban me.
     

  53. #52 I wish to apologize to anyone who isn't threatened by cures. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    I'm sorry this topic isn't more civil. Clearly I the people commenting here have their hackles up and nothing I can say or do is going to change it.

    It could have gone differently. Medicine says there isn't a cure for herpes. Funny, if anyone claims there is a cure outside of Duke or University of Florida they get attacked which means the only cure acceptable today is from approved science programs. We have pigeon holed science to patentable science, squeezed out all independent science and now only a select few are allowed to be recognized for their work in making progress in health and healing.

    It's a sad world we live in. This discussion could be a beautiful uplifting topic if it were not for pride, greed and corruption. I know some of the people are not intentionally greedy, corrupt or overly prideful, they just do not know any better. They firmly believe what they have been told and sold and they are not willing to admit they have been played.

    If there is anyone reading this topic who isn't threatened, I wish it could be more civil.
     

  54. #53  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    How about you start by taking a deep breath, organizing your thoughts, and avoiding posting three different messages consecutively within 23 minutes?
     

  55. #54  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    squeezed out all independent science and now only a select few are allowed to be recognized for their work in making progress in health and healing.
    Seriously now, WHAT SCIENCE? Think about it from our perspective for a moment. You come on this forum and make bold claims without offering ANY corroboration for them other than your personal interpretations. Would you care to share what constituted your personal research and why you have come to the conclusion you have? The reason we say you don't know what science is, is because you have not demonstrated that you have any idea what it is. How do you know people can communicate with each other essentially telepathically? Unless you have done real scientific research on the subject, you have no business believing it in the first place and should not expect anything less than the treatment you have received. Contrary to what you think, we would all be positively delighted if you could demonstrate such an unprecedented phenomenon. You have come on this forum and are making claims that go against every bit of legitimate science that we know of without offering any reason for your belief and then expect us to simply take your word for it? Get real. There is NO issue with patented medications here. Science does not automatically equal medicine. Tell us how it works and how you know that.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    squeezed out all independent science and now only a select few are allowed to be recognized for their work in making progress in health and healing.
    Seriously now, WHAT SCIENCE? Think about it from our perspective for a moment. You come on this forum and make bold claims without offering ANY corroboration for them other than your personal interpretations. Would you care to share what constituted your personal research and why you have come to the conclusion you have? The reason we say you don't know what science is, is because you have not demonstrated that you have any idea what it is. How do you know people can communicate with each other essentially telepathically? Unless you have done real scientific research on the subject, you have no business believing it in the first place and should not expect anything less than the treatment you have received. Contrary to what you think, we would all be positively delighted if you could demonstrate such an unprecedented phenomenon. You have come on this forum and are making claims that go against every bit of legitimate science that we know of without offering any reason for your belief and then expect us to simply take your word for it? Get real. There is NO issue with patented medications here. Science does not automatically equal medicine. Tell us how it works and how you know that.
    Seriously, think about it, I came to this forum to get a little bit of information. I confirmed that there is no research in "wireless" human communication or research into cures that can't be patented. I think that is put to rest by all, and then I asked if anyone would support research into cures that can't be patented so that there could be "corroboration" and it opened up a can of worms. What do you want from me if you are against me getting scientific "corroboration" by refusing to sign the petition? More debate?

    How did "interpretation" become relevant or an issue? "Interpretation", there is nothing in regards to the cures I speak of open to interpretation, either I am telling the truth or I'm telling a lie. But you will never know unless the petition is a success. More debate.

    Did you say I came here wanting you to take my word for it? If that were the case I wouldn't need the petition would I? More debate.

    I know cures exist that can't be patented because my test subjects are cured, upwards to 4000 test subjects cured. These test subjects get ridiculed more than I do, banned as much as I get banned. Why is that so, you might ask, well it is because I have no "corroboration" from science so when they or I say there is a cure or they say they were cured they get the same thing you all give me here and they aren't as passionate about the cause, you might say they are more like you but enjoying the cure nonetheless.

    It's funny how complicated your science has become. Your science is more like modern law, full of technicalities to derail the unsuspecting consumers. Some people believe in "show me" and it works very well. Since science isn't interested in cures that can't be patented it leaves "show me" witch works very well. Now an honest person would consider "show me" as in actually physically "show me". You see I can "tell you" all day long but it doesn't change a thing or prove a thing. Now if I were to "show you" a cure firsthand, that would be the ONLY proof YOU would ever know. It doesn't matter what your science says, it doesn't matter what Fox says, it doesn't matter what CNN says because it's all someones opinion of the facts or "interpretation" and interpretations and opinions do not cure a thing. Facts cure diseases that medicine cannot cure.

    If you want the facts, sign the petition or make a trip to see me or see me when I am in your area and consider the cures you receive as a perk for your participation in seeking the truth.

    That's all I am going to say about "corroboration" and proof. I'm trying to build that and I have tried for 16 years and until this petition I had no chance. Now when someone attacks my claims without any actual disputes I can toss the petition at them and when they refuse to sign it, it shows they have no intentions of disputing or validating the claims and that their intentions are only to protect their interest in a failing medicine limited to patents.

    So please don't accuse me of being uncooperative. If I go into any more details here I will be banned and I might have some future questions I might want to ask so I would rather not be banned.

    Now if you want to see "corroboration" sign the petition. "Interpretation" has no place in consistent cures that can't be patented. As soon as you mix "interpretation" with cures you get medicine, typically woo woo alternative medicine which is just as ineffective and corrupt as western conventional medicine. Cures are not medicine. They are science, but not medicine. Cures do not need any technology.

    If you say you are open to cures that can't be patented or sold as medicine, "show me". Stop debating the issue and telling yourself it isn't possible and start with an open mind. Start by thinking about when you get a cut and how you heal. If that doesn't open the discussion nothing will. If you cannot admit that you can cure diseases a drug can't cure, you can't have a discussion about cures that can't be patented.

    I would love nothing more than to have an intellectual and mature discussion here or anywhere and the only way that happens and is when someone is interested in cures that can't be patented. When people want cures they discuss and weigh the issues and make an informed decision, they don't debate. I haven't seen any sign of interest in cures that can't be patented here.
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    http://health.change.org/petitions/v...t_wo_your_help

    Please sign this petition. I know many of you disagree when it is suggested that medicine and science ignores any cures that can't be patented, but that is not an excuse for not signing the petition.

    There is no worthy excuse for not signing it.

    There are 116 signatures and it will take much more than that to make unpatentable cures an interest to those profiting off of consumer suffering.

    Sign it and bring in a new era of science and understanding. Help me get actual scientific corroboration, the only thing used to discredit claims of cures that can't be patented. As long as science and medicine refuse to corroborate what they cannot sell, these cures will not be available to the public.

    If anyone has any ideas of how to get scientific corroboration, please by all means share it.
     

  58. #57  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    There is no worthy excuse for not signing it.
    I don't need an excuse. I simply don't feel like it, and see you as here to do little more than spam your link, which only adds further to my existing feeling of distaste with you.
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Well some people do not see science as tapped out. Some people may believe there is more to immunity, healing and science than modern science is aware. I can easily see how that would threaten you and make you inclined to ban this as spam even though it nothing more than calling science into action.

    However, you what you need to do to keep the information censored.
     

  60. #59  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Much like I asked you before who was offended, I must ask again now... Who is threatened?
     

  61. #60  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Well some people do not see science as tapped out. Some people may believe there is more to immunity, healing and science than modern science is aware.
    Yes, I should hope so... they're called immunologists and I'm one of them. What in the hell are we supposed to research if there's not more to it than we are already aware of? Who exactly gets a research grant to investigate the already known?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    I can easily see how that would threaten you and make you inclined to ban this as spam even though it nothing more than calling science into action.
    I do feel threatened by fundamental ignorance of the science, but not by ideas or claims that I don't agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    However, you what you need to do to keep the information censored.
    By discussing the issue openly and totally failing to lock the thread or delete your links? Am I the worlds crappest censor or am I just not interested in silencing you?

    I think you really need to believe that we're threatened by what you have to say. I think you really need to believe that nobody is researching ideas like yours for purely financial reasons. I think you need to believe both of these things because otherwise that means that you're simply not very convincing and/or scientists have non-egotistical and non-financial reasons to dismiss your ideas.

    It would take some bravery to entertain those possibilities. You're choosing the easy way.
     

  62. #61 Re: Brain to body or body to brain communication question? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Let's take this step by step, from the beginiing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Who or what's to say that when my body is sending and receiving subconscious signals back and forth from my brain to my body or my body to my brain that a person right next to me cannot receive or intercept the signals?
    I say. I say this does not happen. I say this with confidence because no research reveals that it happens. Precious little anecdotal evidence says that is happens and any that does appears because we permit testimony from the insanse, the delusional and those prone to pathological lies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    How do we know our receptors are not sensitive enough to detect signals from other people near us?
    Because we know, in considerable detail down to the molecular level, how our sensors and nervous system work and we know there is no mechamism by which what you postulate can occur.


    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    If you want to see science investigate and research communication between the brain and perfect immunity please sign this petition.
    The sentence does not even make any sense in English. Do you really expect me to sign a petition written by an illiterate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    As it is, there is no science researching cures that cannot be patented, but you can help change that.
    Wrong. So there seems to be know need for your petition. And while we are at it, what do you have against individuals and companies benefiting from the effort and expense they put into discovering cures. Do you have a job? Do you get paid for it? Hypocritical bastard!

    I'll wait for your response to this treatment of your OP before demolishing the rest of your delusional nonsense. You self righteous bastards make me want to puke.
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Well some people do not see science as tapped out. Some people may believe there is more to immunity, healing and science than modern science is aware.
    Yes, I should hope so... they're called immunologists and I'm one of them. What in the hell are we supposed to research if there's not more to it than we are already aware of? Who exactly gets a research grant to investigate the already known?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    I can easily see how that would threaten you and make you inclined to ban this as spam even though it nothing more than calling science into action.
    I do feel threatened by fundamental ignorance of the science, but not by ideas or claims that I don't agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    However, you what you need to do to keep the information censored.
    By discussing the issue openly and totally failing to lock the thread or delete your links? Am I the worlds crappest censor or am I just not interested in silencing you?

    I think you really need to believe that we're threatened by what you have to say. I think you really need to believe that nobody is researching ideas like yours for purely financial reasons. I think you need to believe both of these things because otherwise that means that you're simply not very convincing and/or scientists have non-egotistical and non-financial reasons to dismiss your ideas.

    It would take some bravery to entertain those possibilities. You're choosing the easy way.
    TheBiologista,

    There are a half a dozen of you dicking around on this topic and for what reason? You obviously can't let it go, ignore it or discuss it so what is it you want from it. I've asked a DOZEN times, what do you want. I tell you I am here to get scientific corroboration, investigation and validation. If any one of you creeps where truly good or honest your thinking caps would be on, but not one of you is thinking, you are ONLY attacking.

    If I try to explain step one of the truth, you all will resort to attacking step one BECAUSE you were taught to attack it. Therefore, there is no reason for me to do any more explanation on the grounds that you will not ONLY attack the whole process but on that grounds that if you fail in your attacks YOU WILL BAN ME. I've seen you do it.

    Come on you crooked, corrupt creeps. If I say there are cures out there that science isn't letting on to and are easily and consistently duplicated, any real wholesome genuinely good person would be humbled and open to discussion and quite frankly TheBiologista you are not it, and here you are in charge, probably being a good indication that you are the cream of the crop and there are not any humble wholesome folks here, EXCEPT for those who are meek enough that they do not post, and that is the only reason I bother with you.

    I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE COMMENT BY ONE PERSON ON THIS TOPIC THAT WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT CURES. You all just want to make the notion of cures that can't be patented as silly or ignorant so you all don't look silly and ignorant.

    PRIDE.. It's an F'd up world because you were raised that way and when you took on learning the sciences you became unteachable.

    Now because every comment here by the peanut gallery proves no one is interested in cures because I have thousands of claims that could be easily disputed if they were false yet not one of you self proclaimed geniuses has made an attempt or even read any work from me, and that tells me you are not interested in cures or you are too prideful to consider that a layperson like myself may have answer you couldn't even dream of so I don't care if you ban me again. You have to do what you have to do and I know censorship is your first line of defense against the truth.
     

  64. #63  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Whataday,
    I would be delighted to know of cures for a variety of ailments. Why? Because I suffer from several and one will likely terminate my life sooner than I would wish. Why? Because relatives and dear friends died from illnesses in the past. Why? Because people I do not know, yet who doubtless relish life as much as I are dying every minute and every hour of every day. So do not come here with your arrogance and declare I am not interested in a cure.

    So why am I not interested in your claims that cures are being suppressed? Because there is no evidence for it. Because in making your claims you make other statements that are demonstrably nonsense. Do you seriously wish me to follow a false prophet? You are mistaken in your beliefs Whataday, if your beliefs have any relationship to the nonsense you have posted so far.

    You ask what do we want. I want you to step back and recognise you are falling prey to the classic woo-woo conspiracy theory beliefs. You are acting like a whacko. I want you to stop that. I want you to engage your brain, stop with the paranoia and get a frigging education. That's what I want.

    Why am I attacking you? Because your nonsense, no matter how well intentioned, may mislead some others. They do not deserve to be misled by stupidity and it behoves me to point out the absence of any sound thinking in your claims.

    Edit: you do realise that your True Cures could be patented? You may not choose to patent it, but it is a patentable process. So your objections are really objections to curing by medicines, rather than by method.
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Whataday,
    I would be delighted to know of cures for a variety of ailments. Why? Because I suffer from several and one will likely terminate my life sooner than I would wish. Why? Because relatives and dear friends died from illnesses in the past. Why? Because people I do not know, yet who doubtless relish life as much as I are dying every minute and every hour of every day. So do not come here with your arrogance and declare I am not interested in a cure.

    So why am I not interested in your claims that cures are being suppressed? Because there is no evidence for it. Because in making your claims you make other statements that are demonstrably nonsense. Do you seriously wish me to follow a false prophet? You are mistaken in your beliefs Whataday, if your beliefs have any relationship to the nonsense you have posted so far.

    You ask what do we want. I want you to step back and recognise you are falling prey to the classic woo-woo conspiracy theory beliefs. You are acting like a wacko. I want you to stop that. I want you to engage your brain, stop with the paranoia and get a frigging education. That's what I want.

    Why am I attacking you? Because your nonsense, no matter how well intentioned, may mislead some others. They do not deserve to be misled by stupidity and it behoves me to point out the absence of any sound thinking in your claims.

    Edit: you do realise that your True Cures could be patented? You may not choose to patent it, but it is a patentable process. So your objections are really objections to curing by medicines, rather than by method.
    You don't sound like someone looking for a cure or interested in a cure. I've seen thousands of people who are looking for cures and interested in cures and they would never use the words "arrogance, nonsense, false prophet, false prophet, get a frigging education and wacko."

    Alex, I'm going to take "false profit" for the win because it is Sunday and therefore very fitting.

    I know you don't believe in God or Christ because you do not believe in the human immune system and you show such disdain for the word of Gog as found in the bible, but it is Sunday and though I do not have a lot of faith in the bible or God I do love the scriptures that suggest medicine is a bad fruit and as such a false prophet so to speak.

    15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. 16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

    A person has to take a long hard look at medicine before they can find anything remotely resembling good fruit. A cure would be good fruit, a drug will almost always find its way into a class action lawsuit could be questionable.

    I'm not done yet. I know scientist do not believe in God or Christ and here is the reason why and the proof that even so called "Christians" do not believe in Christ or God either.

    Get a load of this scripture.

    19Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: 20But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: 21For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

    22The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

    24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

    25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment? 26Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they? 27Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature? 28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: 29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith? 31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

    34Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.

    Whether you believe in God or not, this scripture is a fact. We have everything we need to survive and be healthy. Anyone suggesting we need something that isn't already available such as a cure for a disease is a false profit of the world. Anyone attacking cures that come from inside us naturally WITHOUT ANY PRODUCTS, MEDICINE, TECHNOLOGY, WOO WOO or even prayer are of the world and are bad fruit.

    15Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. 17And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

    If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world will hateth you.

    This is sound reason as to why you and everyone else here hates me.

    You just accused me of falling for a conspiracy you corrupt wicked girl. I wreck every conspiracy theory. I wreck alternative medicine. I wreck western medicine. I wreck you, well as long as your diseases do not wreck you first.

    I don't fall for anything. I provide cures to anyone interested in cures and that is how I know when a person is interested in cures, because they are cured!

    So your mammon, your bad fruit trees, your lies, your corruption, your pride and your lazy false accusations are lost on me.

    I can help anyone wanting a cure to be cured and that isn't a conspiracy it is a fact and the fact that you wont sign the petition PROVES you are a liar and as such against cures that cannot be patented.

    I would like everyone to refer to my comment earlier. There has not been ONE person here to show ANY interested in cures that cannot be patented, there is nothing but greed and pride.

    All of you are nasty nasty nasty. You better hope for your souls sake that the bible isn't true. I have no opinion on its authenticity, but I do love the common sense of the scriptures posted here.

    Sign the petition or live with your diseases until they kill you because the world isn't going to cure you.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/view...t_wo_your_help
     

  66. #65  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    You completely ignored my rebuttal of your comment on there being "more to immunity, healing and science than modern science is aware".

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    If I try to explain step one of the truth, you all will resort to attacking step one BECAUSE you were taught to attack it. Therefore, there is no reason for me to do any more explanation on the grounds that you will not ONLY attack the whole process but on that grounds that if you fail in your attacks YOU WILL BAN ME. I've seen you do it.
    To who? What user names have I moved to be banned on the basis of the arguments they're making?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Come on you crooked, corrupt creeps. If I say there are cures out there that science isn't letting on to and are easily and consistently duplicated, any real wholesome genuinely good person would be humbled and open to discussion and quite frankly TheBiologista you are not it, and here you are in charge, probably being a good indication that you are the cream of the crop and there are not any humble wholesome folks here, EXCEPT for those who are meek enough that they do not post, and that is the only reason I bother with you.
    If there is evidence of real and replicable cures for some ailment or other, please just link us to the evidence. I would be more than happy to discuss it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    I HAVE NOT SEEN ONE COMMENT BY ONE PERSON ON THIS TOPIC THAT WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT CURES. You all just want to make the notion of cures that can't be patented as silly or ignorant so you all don't look silly and ignorant.
    Nobody here has a problem with the notion that non-patentable cures exist. Of course they do. Take folic acid for example- a totally natural and non-patentable molecule that prevents birth defects when given to pregnant women. Mainstream doctors recommend it as standard for all pregnancies. Pharmaceuticals companies manufacture it and even make a profit from it despite the lack of patents. And it is well-established, by mainstream scientific research, to simply work. Nobody in the scientific community is trying to bury that or censor that, just because the stuff can't be patented. The research didn't get squashed or denied funding just because it can't be patented. Nobody is trying to make advocates of folic acid look silly or ignorant. They can't, because the evidence backs them up.

    There is nothing about the process of patenting or patentability that should have any affect on efficacy/effectiveness. So there is no reason for members of the scientific community to take up the position you claim they're taking- it would be silly of them to claim that something that can't be patented can't work as a cure.

    Another point- alluded to by Ophiolite- scientists are as likely to suffer from disease as anyone else (some would even suggest that scientists, being more often cerebral and rather unfit types, are more likely to suffer disease, but I don't have any evidence on that). So why would we want to ignore cures on the basis that they can't be patented? Especially when its possible to make money off non patentable cures anyway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    PRIDE.. It's an F'd up world because you were raised that way and when you took on learning the sciences you became unteachable
    If this were prevalent in the scientific community then how do we make progress? We clearly do somehow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Now because every comment here by the peanut gallery proves no one is interested in cures because I have thousands of claims that could be easily disputed if they were false yet not one of you self proclaimed geniuses has made an attempt or even read any work from me, and that tells me you are not interested in cures or you are too prideful to consider that a layperson like myself may have answer you couldn't even dream of so I don't care if you ban me again. You have to do what you have to do and I know censorship is your first line of defense against the truth.
    If that were true, shouldn't you be already banned? Odd.

    Okay, so earlier in this thread you made the claim that no patentable cure has ever been shown to work better than a placebo. So I reckon it's time someone started talking about evidence, since you seem so reluctant. In 2000, a group called the Cochrane collaboration performed a review of 60 clinical trials (totalling over 6500 people) testing a drug called beclomethasone against placebo in the treatment of chronic asthma.

    This is particularly interesting to me as I have suffered from asthma since the age of 2 years. You can bet I have no bias against finding cures for that ailment.

    The Cochrane scientists found that beclomethasone treatment increased the forced expiratory volume (the amount of air we can force from our lungs in one second- a measure of lung capacity), increased the morning peak flow rate (another measure of lung function), reduced the rate at which patients were using their relief inhalers (we always carry an inhaler in case we get wheezy or short of breath) and reduced the rate of asthma exacerbation.

    The full text of the paper is free to read here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/coc...38/pdf_fs.html

    So, do you still say that we've never shown drugs to work better than placebos? Can you explain to me what parts of the above research paper are incorrect and why?
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    If there is evidence of real and replicable cures for some ailment or other, please just link us to the evidence. I would be more than happy to discuss it.
    That doesn't fly. You wont sign the petition to force an investigation any more than the corrupt medical industry will explore cures that can't be patented so your demand for "your" standard of evidence is chicken shit and cowardly and inconsiderate.

    With such a cowardly statement upfront by you, it leaves all your input moot and pointless.

    So keep trying to censor the facts by burying my comments until you can muster up the gumption to ban me again.

    If anyone wants to see real and replicable cures and evidence of such cures for any ailment please just click the link and tell the medical industry you approve of cures that can't be patented otherwise learn to live with your ignorance and YOUR DISEASES.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/view...t_wo_your_help

    I would like to point out a comment by inow early in the topic where inow suggested I do my homework and do some research. The same goes for anyone here who wants to see cures that can't be patented. TheBiologista coward isn't going to help you anymore than science or medicine. As long as these cowards refuse to demand the truth you are going to be stuck with science fiction and needless suffering.
     

  68. #67  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Hey look... You've ignored all counter points, failed to put forth any evidence of your own, and spammed your link again. You're nothing if not consistent.
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    The fact remains you refuse to sign the petition, the only thing that can force science and medicine to create evidence and corroboration.

    And I still have seen no counter points. When a person shows their complete disdain for cures that cannot be patented AND refuse to stand up for what is right by demanding science and medicine to investigate ANY possible cures, there are fully incapable of making a counter point. It's like being a racist, once you make up your mind that a race isn't respectable nothing can change it. It's like being a republican, once you make up your mind that your party is all right and the other party is all wrong nothing can change your minds.

    I haven't seen a scientific comment on this entire thread, I've only seen racist scientist against cures that cannot be patented. Counter points, that's a hoot. LOL You guys are so pathetic and ignorant I find myself wondering if all of science is as limited in wisdom as you guys.

    I can list a hundred facts here that you all know are true, facts that will substantiate my claims, but you creeps will completely ignore them as you have throughout this entire thread and any other thread I have been involved with. Not one of you is big enough to concede any facts I share because you creeps know it seal my cause.

    So don't talk to me about evidence and counter points if you aren't human and righteous enough to sign and honest straight forward petition.

    If any one of you had a lick of sense you would be promoting cures that cannot be patented too. But you simply don't have what it takes. If your beloved corrupt medical industry doesn't tell you to say or believe it your impotent. Not an original thought to the bunch of you.

    It's getting a little old beating this dead horse but it sure is good being right and smearing it into your creepy little faces.

    http://www.change.org/petitions/view...t_wo_your_help

    If if you were not against cures that can't be patented, not a one of you is intellectual enough to understand cures or the human immune system and it's role in curing diseases. You simply do not have what it takes.
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    On a more positive note, I do want to thank those of you who are signing the petition. Thanks number 120.

    I'm not naive enough to believe that everyone here reading this topic is missing the point or more accurately avoiding the point and the facts.

    It has been this way from the beginning, the only thing different here is the creeps attacking cures that cannot be patented have been here for sometime and feel they have enough of a reputation to at least not make up nasty lies.

    I'm sure those of you who have read and signed the petition feel human again. I'm sure you were surprised at the simplicity of the petition and how it can only be a threat or offensive to people against cures that cannot be patented.

    I sure many of you are very skeptical of my claims and well you should be. They are bold claims contradicting mainstream medicine and science every in every way. It does my heart good to know some of you are above the corruption of science and medicine. You are the people who keep me going.

    I have no idea how many signatures it will take to get science and medicine investigate YOUR ABILITY TO CURE YOURSELF, or if there is such a number but the petition will never be in vain. Awareness is awareness and if science and medicine continue to ignore cures that cannot be patented after thousands of signatures it will be SOLID proof medicine and science have no use for cures they cannot patent and sell.

    Cheers to all you righteous scientist and diseases to all you corrupt creeps.
     

  71. #70  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Right... so you complain that you've seen "no rebuttals" of your arguments, I actually take the time to research a couple of decent rebuttals and you simply ignore them and post your petition again. Why should anyone here bother with you if you won't at least do them the courtesy of making a decent counter-argument?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    With such a cowardly statement upfront by you, it leaves all your input moot and pointless.
    You want $1 million to investigate your claims. How is it cowardly to ask you for some evidence that your ideas are worth that kind of outlay?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    If there is evidence of real and replicable cures for some ailment or other, please just link us to the evidence. I would be more than happy to discuss it.
    That doesn't fly. You wont sign the petition to force an investigation any more than the corrupt medical industry will explore cures that can't be patented so your demand for "your" standard of evidence is chicken shit and cowardly and inconsiderate.
    Your petition doesn't say something I can endorse. It claims that science and medicine will not use a cure than cannot be patented (Or more exactly it asks "Will science and medicine use a cure that can't be patented?" and then says "not without your help"). In my previous post, I gave you just one example of a widely used, non-patented (and non-patentable) drug that is used by medics every single day.

    So if I sign your petition, and it gets sent to someone works in science policy making, they're not going to understand what you're asking of them. You might as well petition the US government to abolish slavery. If you send it to JREF, as you claim you will, they're also not going to understand why you're asking for this.

    I have in the past supported movements that promote research and development into non-profitable drugs. An example would be the CDPC in Ireland, who work to further research into diseases of poverty in the developing world. So I certainly have the interest and the will to get involved in something like this (ie has the same broad sentiment). It's just that your petition doesn't ask for anything we haven't already done, and seems to come with some fairly self-serving caveats. After all, it's not the likes of folic acid you want funds diverted to, is it? It's your ideas that you want support for. True cures. You want JREF to give you $1 million for your idea, yet profit-driven science is somehow broken and corrupt? Weird.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    Cheers to all you righteous scientist and diseases to all you corrupt creeps.
    Wishing sickness on people who have the audacity to disagree with you is real classy. If JREF turn you down, is that going to be your reaction to them too? And you portray yourself as some sort of renegade "scientist"?

    Anyway, I already have a chronic illness. If you've got a cure I'd love to hear about it. Provide raw data, if possible.
     

  72. #71  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    So keep trying to censor the facts by burying my comments until you can muster up the gumption to ban me again.
    Ah, well this makes a bit more sense of your earlier comments. The user I so unfairly banned previously was you. Whataday aka whatthebleepdoiknow. Not actually banned, but suspended... and just so you know, I can't actually ban users, or suspend them. Mods don't have that right, only admins do.

    So... moderator hat on.

    I don't recall the reasons for your banning in September, but if you continue to refer to our users as racists, cowards and so forth and you'll be suspended again. Except this time we'll have to block your IP, which hasn't changed since last time you were with us. If you're civil, you can say more or less anything you like, for as long as you like. You have my word on that. Fair enough?
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    TheBiologist, how is you put your foot in your mouth at the start of every comment? Are you really that bad?

    The One Million dollar challenge by the James Randi Educational Foundation is a challenge they offer NON-STOP no interruptions and offered to EVERY LIVING PERSON.

    http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html

    JREF offers a challenge when science and medicine will not. My contact to JREF had nothing to do with winning the money, with the possible exception that winning one million dollars might get some publicity but still unlikely. It is highly doubtful James will take the challenge knowing he would lose. Also I suspect James will protect the medical industry and find a way to wiggle out of any challenge which is why I am working on the wording so everyone can know that James Randi is also against cures that cannot be patented.

    There is no other challenge or any other way to get an investigation without the petition so don't try to paint me as a coward. That is your domain, you own it.
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    So keep trying to censor the facts by burying my comments until you can muster up the gumption to ban me again.
    Ah, well this makes a bit more sense of your earlier comments. The user I so unfairly banned previously was you. Whataday aka whatthebleepdoiknow. Not actually banned, but suspended... and just so you know, I can't actually ban users, or suspend them. Mods don't have that right, only admins do.

    So... moderator hat on.

    I don't recall the reasons for your banning in September, but if you continue to refer to our users as racists, cowards and so forth and you'll be suspended again. Except this time we'll have to block your IP, which hasn't changed since last time you were with us. If you're civil, you can say more or less anything you like, for as long as you like. You have my word on that. Fair enough?
    You truly are a burnout if you couldn't put two and two together until now. And they let you moderate? Just goes to show in all my comments and threads you have never payed on moments attention to what I have shared yet you spend hours with your foot in your mouth talking down something you know nothing about. You are a small and scared and you do censor and you are against cures that cannot be patented.

    You little brain dead weasel. Ban me so you can crawl back into your hole.
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    I got an idea, if you can hold off your censorship powers, why don't you critic the petition and tell me how to draw it up to get science and medicine involved with cures that cannot be patented.

    Go ahead and tell us how you would do it. Tell me what it needs to say for a guy like you to sign it. Or ban me.
     

  76. #75  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,300
    I'm waiting for this guy yo get banned...he seems to desire it...
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    41
    LOL. "I tell you what!" (In my best brain dead burnout redneck science voice!)

    Any one of you who thinks they can do it better, shut up or put up!

    How would you word a petition to get science and medicine to acknowledge cures that cannot be patented?

    How would force people to look into something that completely contradicts everything they have been taught about health and healing?

    Let's look at how foolish society is with this break down.

    For some pathetic irrational reason, people like gottspieler, TheBiologista and inow have come to COMPLETELY believe that HEALTH and HEALING can ONLY be controlled by CHEMICALS/DRUG when their personal immune system does more healing for them every single day than medical drugs have done in lifetime.

    Tell me why YOU can't use your immune system to cure disease medicine cannot cure. Tell me why YOU SO ADAMANTLY deny that the immune system can cure any disease. There is not a doctor in the whole wide world that will tell a person they cannot cure AIDS or herpes through their own immune system. They may say it is unlikely but they will not say it isn't possible.

    So gottspieler, keep it up. Tell me what you would do differently or be a coward and demand censorship and banning.

    Tell everyone here that human immunity isn't a worthy discussion for this forum.
     

  78. #77  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    You truly are a burnout if you couldn't put two and two together until now. And they let you moderate? Just goes to show in all my comments and threads you have never payed on moments attention to what I have shared yet you spend hours with your foot in your mouth talking down something you know nothing about.
    I don't make a habit of IP tracing users, and when it comes to subject matter you're not at all as original as you think. So I gave you the benefit of the doubt and didn't bother to investigate further until you admitted being banned before. On most forums, circumventing a ban is enough grounds to be banned again. I decided instead to offer you an olive branch. Play nice and you can continue to post. That was clearly more than you deserved, which is disappointing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whataday
    You little brain dead weasel. Ban me so you can crawl back into your hole.
    As you wish. I will recommend a ban and IP block to the admins.

    It's unlikely anyone who can actually fund you, inform policy or generally action your wishes will bother listening to someone who can't stand even the slightest questioning. It's even less likely that they would get past listening and move to give you funding or act on your ideas. What's especially sad is your absolutism. Anyone who does not sign your petition is fully against you.

    Well, I wasn't actually. I think there are serious flaws in modern medical research, many of them rooted in the patent system and profitability. These are flaws that have cost lives and spread great misery, possibly more than even you realise. You might actually have won me over, but that certainly won't happen now.

    Who knows, maybe if enough people sign your petition, some sort of good will come of it. The links will remain here. So good luck with your efforts Mr. Flowers.
     

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
  •