MSN Home  |  My MSN  |  Hotmail
Sign in to Windows Live ID Web Search:   
go to MSNGroups 
Free Forum Hosting
 
Important Announcement Important Announcement
The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
The Scientific Debate Forum.Contains "mature" content, but not necessarily adult.[email protected] 
  
What's New
  
  Disclaimer: Read this page first.  
  Links  
  Messages  
  General  
  Nutrition  
  "Mission Statement."  
  Why the "germ theory" is not science.  
  The Underlying Cause of "Disease."  
  The Scientific Method.  
  How dangerous are bacteria and viruses?  
  The Contributions of Hans Selye and others.  
  How direct effects are often ignored, and indirect markers used  
  Understanding "disease" at the molecular level.  
  Understanding disease at the molecular level, part II.  
  What the "common cold" can teach us about illness.  
  The AA connection to today's common "diseases."  
  How easy the key experiments would be to do.  
  The best practical diet and the explanation for it.  
  Fish oil quotes you might want to read  
  Where the "immune system" fits into this view of "disease."  
  How many 'scientific studies' violate the scientific method  
  Why you have to be careful with antioxidants.  
  Why Cancers today are more aggressive than those of the past.  
  The Latest Evidence.  
  Some studies worthy of note.  
  HSWC "in action."  
  How language can impede science.  
  How language impedes science, part II.  
  More on why "germs" don't cause "disease."  
  How a latent virus actually causes "disease."  
  A new report that "says it all."  
  The science "show" must go on?  
  Odds and ends  
  Some thoughts on a book by Robert Gallo.  
  Saturated fatty acids are the solution, not the problem.  
  It's stress, not "germs" that causes disease.  
  Epidemiology: Facts versus "factoids."  
  It's stress, not germs, part II.  
  The latest on "inflammation."  
  Why many nutritional claims make no sense  
  The use of hypotheticals in science.  
  What "viral infections" really do to the body.  
  What determines longevity?  
  An example of an anti-"saturated fat" study that is flawed.  
  A Rough Guide to a Gentle Diet.  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV."  
  A unified "AIDS" hypothsis without "HIV." Part II.  
  Okay, so when is this diet going to kill me?  
  Scientific Debate Forum Pictures  
  The EFA Claim Was Refuted Long Ago  
    
  
  
  Tools  
 
General : How history can be affected by scientific misunderstanding
Choose another message board
 
     
Reply
 Message 1 of 1 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  (Original Message)Sent: 3/30/2008 6:00 AM
I was watching TV show on The History Channel called "Written in Bone: A Save Our History Special," and at least one claimed made appears to be unlikely. A corpse was found at the site of the original Jamestown fort. It was a teenage boy (about 15 years old) who had lived most of his life in England - he came to North America in the early 1600s. There was a arrow in his knee, and it was determined to be of native American origin. However, the "experts" investigating did not think this kind of insult was enough to kill the boy (who they said may have been the first colonist to have been killed in clashes with natives) . They noticed dental abscesses, and declared that he must have been in terrible pain from the inflammation. Though they did not explain exactly how this could occur, they claimed that the arrow to the knee must have been some sort of proverbial last straw. They did not put forth any alternative explanation, for example, that the tip of the arrow may have been coated with some sort of highly poisonous substance or a substance that might kill days later (such as fecal matter).

My own experience contradicts this claim. In late 2004, part of a filling fell out of one of my teeth. I remember that at that time, another tooth was bothering me. When I bit down on something small and hard (like the stem remnant of a raisin), pain occurred in this other tooth. This continued until late 2007, when I felt pain but also some sort of structural change, so I went back to the dentist. She did an X-ray and determined that there was extensive decay. Nothing could be done until the "infection" was cleared, and so she prescribed antibiotics, which worked fine. The only symptoms I felt, aside from the pain when biting down on a hard object in a specific area of that tooth, was a mild pain if I opened my mouth wide, which I only did on rare occasions if something was stuck in a tooth and I needed to try and dislodge it. There was no discernible inflammation. What had happened was that in late 2007, when I felt a structural change, part of the existing filling, which had been undermined by the decay/bacteria, had collapsed inward into the tooth. Apparently, that area of the tooth was "dead," and so there was no pain involved. Thus, I know that there was extensive decay/"infection" for at least three years, and yet nothing like what the Jamestown "experts" thought had to happen in fact happened.

Why? Because this is an aspect of the "arachidonic acid overload" situation, in which "inflammation" can be so problematic and dangerous. The "James Fort Boy," as they called him, did not have arachidonic acid in his cells, as I did not in late 2004. Moreover, I also had a wisdom tooth extracted several months ago, and though the dentists talked of pain and inflammation, I took 4 aspirin in total and there were no symptoms of note. A relative who is a bit younger also had a wisdom tooth extracted (a couple of weeks earlier) and he did have the kind of symptoms the dentist warned me of, and as you might have guessed by now, he eats a "typical American diet" and must have arachidonic acid in his cells (he also has persistent "colds" and "infections," whereas I have not had any in several years now, though I used to get at least two colds a year). As a historian, I find these episodes especially interesting, because so many people think that history that is more than a few decades old is "set in stone," whereas it is often the case that the cement being used is not only still wet, but it is being cast in a faulty way.


First  Previous  No Replies  Next  Last