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 little scientists really know.
Choose another message board
View All Messages
  Prev Message  Next Message       
Reply
 Message 62 of 65 in Discussion 
From: MSN NicknameHansSelyeWasCorrect  in response to Message 61Sent: 10/23/2008 7:25 PM
In a new report, entitled, "Chronic Inflammation Can Help Nurture Skin Cancer, Study Shows" we are told the following:

QUOTE: "...Inflammation should really help prevent a tumor," says Dr. Andrew Mellor, director of the MCG Immunotherapy Center and Georgia Research Alliance Eminent Scholar in Molecular Immunogenetics. In fact, there is strong evidence that inflammation triggers the immune response. "You want a good immune response; this is what protects you from pathogens," he says. "In this case, it's an unfortunate exploitation by malignant cells..." QUOTE.

This "expert" appears to be unaware of the large body of evidence (plenty of which is not recent) connecting "chronic inflammation" (another way of saying arachidonic acid overload) to cancer (especially when LTB4 is involved). But there's something else here that is disturbing, particularly because it is so common. When these kinds of "experts" fail, or if something doesn't fit into their preconceived notions, they ascribe human motivations or abilities to entities that are clearly not able to act in this way. How many "HIV/AIDS experts" have claimed that "HIV" is "wily," and can do all kinds of "mysterious" things to "thwart" the immune system and the "great medical minds" of our age, for example? The big "mystery," if there is one, may involve how the "experts" are able to fail over and over again, and yet are never held responsible and dismissed from their venerable positions, so that others with different ideas can get the opportunity to do different experiments and try alternative approaches.

Such individuals seem to possess a very simplistic "cause and effect" view of biological phenomena, which seems to dispose them to view complex phenomena as a typical Hollywood movie, which a simple plot involving a "hero" and a "villain" (who may be a "monster"). So, as in many such film, the "solution" is "maximum firepower," which in the case of medicine, often leads to the "cure" being more dangerous than the "disease," though the general public is generally unaware of the dangers of the "miracle drugs" and "therapies" that are so commonly used these days by our "doctors."

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081021120916.htm


Replies to This Message The number of members that recommended this message.    
     re: How little scientists really know.   MSN Nicknametaka00381  10/24/2008 2:24 AM