| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Immunology Forum » Officials say drug caused Nigeria polio
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
|
| Author |
Message |
| Peter Bowditch |
 Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Death |
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Peter Bowditch" <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote in message
Quote:
There's that lie about Otto Warburg again.
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 17, 2007; A01
A dangerous germ that has been spreading around the country causes more
life-threatening infections than public health authorities had thought and
is killing more people in the United States each year than the AIDS virus,
federal health officials reported yesterday.
The microbe, a strain of a once innocuous staph bacterium that has become
invulnerable to first-line antibiotics, is responsible for more than 94,000
serious infections and nearly 19,000 deaths each year, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention calculated.
Although mounting evidence shows that the infection is becoming more
common, the estimate published today in the Journal of the American Medical
Association is the first national assessment of the toll from the insidious
pathogen, officials said.
"This is a significant public health problem. We should be very worried,"
said Scott K. Fridkin, a medical epidemiologist at the CDC.
Other researchers noted that the estimate includes only the most serious
infections caused by the germ, known as methicillin-resistant S
taphylococcus au reus (MRSA).
"It's really just the tip of the iceberg," said Elizabeth A. Bancroft, a
medical epidemiologist at the Los Angeles County Department of Public
Health who wrote an editorial in JAMA accompanying the new studies. "It is
astounding."
MRSA is a strain of the ubiquitous bacterium that usually causes staph
infections that are easily treated with common, or first-line, antibiotics
in the penicillin family, such as methicillin and amoxicillin. Resistant
strains of the organism, however, have been increasingly turning up in
hospitals and in small outbreaks outside of heath-care settings, such as
among athletes, prison inmates and children.
On Monday, Ashton Bonds, 17, of Lynch Station, Va., succumbed to MRSA,
prompting officials to shut down 21 Bedford County schools today for
cleaning to prevent further infections. The infection had spread to Bonds's
kidneys, liver, lungs and the muscle around his heart.
The MRSA estimate is being published with a report that a strain of another
bacterium, which causes ear infections in children, has become impervious
to every approved antibiotic for youngsters.
"Taken together, what these two papers show is that we're increasingly
facing antibiotic-resistant forms of these very common organisms," Bancroft
said.
The reports underscore the need to develop new antibiotics and curb the
unnecessary use of those already available, experts said. They should also
alert doctors to be on the lookout for antibiotic-resistant infections so
patients can be treated with the few remaining effective drugs before they
develop serious complications, experts said.
MRSA, which is spread by casual contact, rapidly turns minor abscesses and
other skin infections into serious health problems, including painful,
disfiguring "necrotizing" abscesses that eat away tissue. The infections
can often still be treated by lancing and draining sores and quickly
administering other antibiotics, such as bactrim. But in some cases the
microbe gets into the lungs, causing unusually serious pneumonia, or
spreads into bone, vital organs and the bloodstream, triggering
life-threatening complications. Those patients must be hospitalized and
given intensive care, including intravenous antibiotics such as vancomycin.
In the new study, Fridkin and his colleagues analyzed data collected in
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New York,
Oregon and Tennessee, identifying 5,287 cases of invasive MRSA infection
and 988 deaths in 2005. The researchers calculated that MRSA was striking
31.8 out of every 100,000 Americans, which translates to 94,360 cases and
18,650 deaths nationwide. In comparison, complications from the AIDS virus
killed about 12,500 Americans in 2005.
"This indicates these life-threatening MRSA infections are much more common
than we had thought," Fridkin said.
In fact, the estimate makes MRSA much more common than flesh-eating strep
infections, bacterial pneumonia and meningitis combined, Bancroft noted.
"These are some of the most dreaded invasive bacterial diseases out there,"
she said. "This is clearly a very big deal."
The infection is most common among African Americans and the elderly, but
also commonly strikes very young children.
"We see these cases all the time," said Robert S. Daum, a pediatric
infectious-disease specialist at the University of Chicago. "In the last
five weeks, I've taken care of five children who were sick enough to be
hospitalized and require intensive care."
Studies have shown that hospitals could do more to improve standard hygiene
to reduce the spread of the infection. Individuals can reduce their risk
through common-sense measures, such as frequent hand-washing.
In the second paper, Michael E. Pichichero and Janet R. Casey of the
University of Rochester in New York documented the emergence of an
antibiotic-resistant strain of another bacterium known as Streptococcus
pneumoniae, which causes common ear infections. Although all 11 children
identified in the Rochester area with the microbe so far were successfully
treated, five required an antibiotic approved only for adults, and one
child was left with permanent hearing loss.
The researchers attributed the emergence of the strain to a combination of
the overuse of antibiotics and the introduction of a vaccine that protects
against the infection.
"The use of the vaccine created an ecological vacuum, and that combined
with excessive use of antibiotics to create this new superbug," Pichichero
said.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Death |
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bryan Heit |
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
drceephd@insightbb.com wrote:
Quote: On Oct 16, 10:08 am, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:42 am, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote
Rosenow proved and published in 1914 that they could convert Staph
germs
into Strep and vice-versa. That does destroy monomorphism, doesn't
it?
If the experiment was valid, which it is not. Today we know that such a
change would involved mass recoding of the bacteria's DNA, something
which is simply not possible based on everything that we know about
evolution, DNA processing, DNA replication, and gene formation.
More likely then not he either:
a) Mistook changes in colony morphology as an inter-species change.
b) Had a streptococcus infect his culture plates
c) Made a mistake
Considering no one has ever replicated that result, you can be pretty
sure its incorrect. Reproducibility is a cornerstone of science.
If medicine is scientific, why was the work not checked by replication
to verify it?
Every time we culture Staph or Strep we are testing his experiment. If
he were right we should see these spontaneous conversions all the time.
That is false logic. You would assume contamination and start over.
Never having had that particular problem, we can clearly state this
wasn't the case.
Quote: Secondly, you must alter the medium properly as Rosenow did to elicit
the change.
Right.
Quote: We do not - I grow staph aureus on a weekly basis, in the neighborhood
of 10^12 (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000) cells per day. Despite doing this for
nearly a decade, I've never once seen any sort of interconversion to
other forms of bacteria.
And yet you have not replicated Rosenow's work. Why not?
Because he was wrong, and you cannot replicate something which is wrong.
Quote: You have a
lab. You have
access to his paper in 1914. Repeat it. Then explain to us where he
went wrong.
Why waste my time? DNA sequencing alone demonstrates he was 100% wrong.
Why waste the time showing it yet again?
Quote:
If the work has not been challenged, it stands as being valid.
Hardly. Thousands of experiments have been conducted which show it is
wrong. Every time we culture bacteria, and the culture remains pure, we
show that it is wrong. The genetic sequencing of the staph and strep
genomes show that it is wrong.
Can't agree. Bacteria can and do change form and function according
to the stress of their
environment.
True, but they do not change species. So while bacteria do change their
phenotype, express new genes, etc, their underlying DNA code remains the
same. In order to get pleomorphy, as you describe it, would require
re-writing of the DNA code. This simply is not seen, nor does any
mechanism exist by which it could occur.
Quote: Even cancer cells can be converted to normal healthy
cells in the lab provided
you do the experiment correctly.
Through the artificial addition of tumor-suppressing genes. Not exactly
a "natural" phenomena.
Quote: Warburg got a nobel for that tidbit
No, he didn't. Warburgs prize was for discovering the
oxidation/reduction metabolism which underlies our metabolism.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1931/warburg-bio.html
Warburg did have a hypothesis as to the cause of cancer - that they were
metabolizing glucose, not pyruvate, and that was the route cause of
cancer. Based on what was known at the time - that tumors did
metabolize more intensely than did normal cells - this was a logical
conclusion. We now know his hypothesis was wrong, and what Warburg had
observed was a response of cancer cells to anoxic conditions - a
response normal cells can also undergo.
Quote: of information.
Unless you'd have us believe that these bacteria magically re-write
their entire genome when they convert from one form to another, and that
the only convert when no one is looking.
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Projects/S_aureus/http://www.genome.ou.edu/strep.htmlhttp://www.sanger.ac.uk/Projects/S_pyogenes/
Typical of modern day psuedo-scientists like you, if data comes up
which does not meet your pre-concieved notion of what the results
should be
This is your trick. Remeber - you've claimed multiple times that all
biological science is invalid. Except, of course, for a handful of
studies which agree with your predispositions.
We don't believe in pleomorphic bacteria for the simple reason that we
don't see them. A huge part of science is repeatability - if someone
else cannot confirm what I see, then my observations are meaningless.
And with only two exceptions, in over a century of bacterial culture and
study, no evidence for pleomorphism has been found.
False. Rosenow proved it as did Bechamp earlier.
No, they did not. You dishonestly snipped the DNA sequencing (again),
but its pretty obvious to someone who even glances at the gene maps that
Strep and Staph are completely different at the genetic level, and
therefore are not pleomorphic versions of the same organism.
Quote: you deny the results by claiming that a man of eminent
qualifications, head of the Mayo Clinic, would make a mistake and then
publish it. Your a,b,c line of logic is crap in true scientific terms.
Repeat the work. Are you qualified enough to repeat his work or not?
Enough of the guesswork.
You mean like how I repeat his work every time I culture Staph, and
analyze the cultures for purity.
Show me where anybody has repeated the work of Bechamp and/or
Rosenow. If you cannot, their work must be accepted as valid.
No one has replicated their work, making it dubiious.
No one has replicated their work, making it dubious? What a
scientific load of crap.
If they were
correct then even by accident, polymorphy should have been observed by
now. However, resent studies such as the genetic sequencing of the
Staph and Strep genomes clearly demonstrate that they are completely
separate organisms. Which completely disproves the polymorphic hypothesis.
Doesn't prove anything except that you are very confused about what
really goes on
in the real world. Bacteria change form and function to suit their
environment.
But they do not re-write their genetic code.
Quote: Baceria also
become antibiotic resistant,
Through gene transfer form resistant species, or through evolution of
another biochemical pathway. These process have been observed in
nature, and are well understood, and completely refute polymorphy.
Quote: a poweful stress in their environment.
Perhaps your genomes demonstrate
how they do the impossible, impossible by your understanding anyway.
Actually, their genomes reveal to us exactly how they preform these
tasks. And our observations of how these processes work completely
refute polymorphy.
bryan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:34 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Oct 17, 2:04 pm, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
Quote: drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:08 am, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:42 am, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote
Rosenow proved and published in 1914 that they could convert Staph
germs
into Strep and vice-versa. That does destroy monomorphism, doesn't
it?
If the experiment was valid, which it is not. Today we know that such a
change would involved mass recoding of the bacteria's DNA, something
which is simply not possible based on everything that we know about
evolution, DNA processing, DNA replication, and gene formation.
More likely then not he either:
a) Mistook changes in colony morphology as an inter-species change.
b) Had a streptococcus infect his culture plates
c) Made a mistake
Considering no one has ever replicated that result, you can be pretty
sure its incorrect. Reproducibility is a cornerstone of science.
If medicine is scientific, why was the work not checked by replication
to verify it?
Every time we culture Staph or Strep we are testing his experiment. If
he were right we should see these spontaneous conversions all the time.
That is false logic. You would assume contamination and start over.
Never having had that particular problem, we can clearly state this
wasn't the case.
Secondly, you must alter the medium properly as Rosenow did to elicit
the change.
Right.
We do not - I grow staph aureus on a weekly basis, in the neighborhood
of 10^12 (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000) cells per day. Despite doing this for
nearly a decade, I've never once seen any sort of interconversion to
other forms of bacteria.
Out of curiousity, why in the heck would you culture staph on a weekly
basis? Is there a commercial use for staph?
Quote:
And yet you have not replicated Rosenow's work. Why not?
Because he was wrong, and you cannot replicate something which is wrong.
Totally bogus. A scientist would replicate the work to verify or deny
it. If it is not repeatable, then it may
well be bogus, our your ability is lacking, whichever.
Quote:
You have a
lab. You have
access to his paper in 1914. Repeat it. Then explain to us where he
went wrong.
Why waste my time? DNA sequencing alone demonstrates he was 100% wrong.
Why waste the time showing it yet again?
You must waste your time if you wish to claim to be a scientist.
Attempting to repeat the work
is the least that any reputable scientist would do.
Quote:
If the work has not been challenged, it stands as being valid.
Hardly. Thousands of experiments have been conducted which show it is
wrong.
Cite some of these thousands of experiments. I expect to see words
such as "in refutation of" or some
such words to indicate that the researchers have repeated and are
refuting Rosenow's work.
BTW, I checked Pubmed for Rosenow. He wrote over 300 scientific
papers, yet I got 0 hits. Any
idea why?
Every time we culture bacteria, and the culture remains pure, we
Quote: show that it is wrong. The genetic sequencing of the staph and strep
genomes show that it is wrong.
No it does not. Check Rosenow's work.
Quote:
Can't agree. Bacteria can and do change form and function according
to the stress of their
environment.
True, but they do not change species. So while bacteria do change their
phenotype, express new genes, etc, their underlying DNA code remains the
same. In order to get pleomorphy, as you describe it, would require
re-writing of the DNA code. This simply is not seen, nor does any
mechanism exist by which it could occur.
What you mean is any mechanism which fits your concept of bacteria and
viruses.
Quote:
Even cancer cells can be converted to normal healthy
cells in the lab provided
you do the experiment correctly.
Through the artificial addition of tumor-suppressing genes. Not exactly
a "natural" phenomena.
Sorry, the addition of tumor-suppressing genes is not needed.
Human cells, when stressed, can convert to cancer cells and conduct
life processes by anaerobic metabolism. Those same cancer cells, when
allowed to convert, will convert to normal non-cancerous
cells. This is what Warburg showed and is the basis for nearly all
alt med success with cancer.
Quote:
Warburg got a nobel for that tidbit
No, he didn't. Warburgs prize was for discovering the
oxidation/reduction metabolism which underlies our metabolism.
What is the WARBURG OXYGEN apparatus, and what is it used for?
I have a quote by Warbugh at a conference of Nobel prize winners
concerning cancer.
I will see if I can find it.
He basically states that no other disease has been so well studied,
and the cause and
prevention well known, yet millions more must die before the truth
will be allowed to be known.
Quote:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1931/warburg-bi...
Warburg did have a hypothesis as to the cause of cancer - that they were
metabolizing glucose, not pyruvate, and that was the route cause of
cancer. Based on what was known at the time - that tumors did
metabolize more intensely than did normal cells - this was a logical
conclusion. We now know his hypothesis was wrong, and what Warburg had
observed was a response of cancer cells to anoxic conditions - a
response normal cells can also undergo.
Your knowledge is totally bogus and lacking here.
Quote:
of information.
Unless you'd have us believe that these bacteria magically re-write
their entire genome when they convert from one form to another, and that
the only convert when no one is looking.
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Projects/S_aureus/http://www.genome.ou.edu/st...
Typical of modern day psuedo-scientists like you, if data comes up
which does not meet your pre-concieved notion of what the results
should be
This is your trick. Remeber - you've claimed multiple times that all
biological science is invalid. Except, of course, for a handful of
studies which agree with your predispositions.
We don't believe in pleomorphic bacteria for the simple reason that we
don't see them. A huge part of science is repeatability - if someone
else cannot confirm what I see, then my observations are meaningless.
And with only two exceptions, in over a century of bacterial culture and
study, no evidence for pleomorphism has been found.
False. Rosenow proved it as did Bechamp earlier.
No, they did not. You dishonestly snipped the DNA sequencing (again),
but its pretty obvious to someone who even glances at the gene maps that
Strep and Staph are completely different at the genetic level, and
therefore are not pleomorphic versions of the same organism.
I repeat, Rosenow and Bechamp proved that bacteria were pleomorphic.
Quote:
you deny the results by claiming that a man of eminent
qualifications, head of the Mayo Clinic, would make a mistake and then
publish it. Your a,b,c line of logic is crap in true scientific terms.
Repeat the work. Are you qualified enough to repeat his work or not?
Enough of the guesswork.
You mean like how I repeat his work every time I culture Staph, and
analyze the cultures for purity.
You are not repeating anything but arrogance. Repeat Rosenows work.
I doubt you have
the skill and ability to repeat Bechamp's research.
Quote:
Show me where anybody has repeated the work of Bechamp and/or
Rosenow. If you cannot, their work must be accepted as valid.
No one has replicated their work, making it dubiious.
No one has replicated their work, making it dubious? What a
scientific load of crap.
If they were
correct then even by accident, polymorphy should have been observed by
now. However, resent studies such as the genetic sequencing of the
Staph and Strep genomes clearly demonstrate that they are completely
separate organisms. Which completely disproves the polymorphic hypothesis.
Doesn't prove anything except that you are very confused about what
really goes on
in the real world. Bacteria change form and function to suit their
environment.
But they do not re-write their genetic code.
Baceria also
become antibiotic resistant,
Through gene transfer form resistant species, or through evolution of
another biochemical pathway.
What is the hell is "evolution of another biochemical pathway?"
These process have been observed in
Quote: nature, and are well understood, and completely refute polymorphy.
Disagree, pleomorphism is denied, yet well understood and commonly
seen.
Quote:
a poweful stress in their environment.
Perhaps your genomes demonstrate
how they do the impossible, impossible by your understanding anyway.
Actually, their genomes reveal to us exactly how they preform these
tasks. And our observations of how these processes work completely
refute polymorphy.
bryan- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
DrCee
Not a member of the medical monopoly
Not a member of the church of modern medicine. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Bryan Heit |
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
drceephd@insightbb.com wrote:
Quote: On Oct 17, 2:04 pm, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 16, 10:08 am, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:42 am, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote
Rosenow proved and published in 1914 that they could convert Staph
germs
into Strep and vice-versa. That does destroy monomorphism, doesn't
it?
If the experiment was valid, which it is not. Today we know that such a
change would involved mass recoding of the bacteria's DNA, something
which is simply not possible based on everything that we know about
evolution, DNA processing, DNA replication, and gene formation.
More likely then not he either:
a) Mistook changes in colony morphology as an inter-species change.
b) Had a streptococcus infect his culture plates
c) Made a mistake
Considering no one has ever replicated that result, you can be pretty
sure its incorrect. Reproducibility is a cornerstone of science.
If medicine is scientific, why was the work not checked by replication
to verify it?
Every time we culture Staph or Strep we are testing his experiment. If
he were right we should see these spontaneous conversions all the time.
That is false logic. You would assume contamination and start over.
Never having had that particular problem, we can clearly state this
wasn't the case.
Secondly, you must alter the medium properly as Rosenow did to elicit
the change.
Right.
We do not - I grow staph aureus on a weekly basis, in the neighborhood
of 10^12 (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000) cells per day. Despite doing this for
nearly a decade, I've never once seen any sort of interconversion to
other forms of bacteria.
Out of curiousity, why in the heck would you culture staph on a weekly
basis? Is there a commercial use for staph?
I'm involved in academic research, so no commercial sales are involved.
I study immunity, and we use staph as an experimental model. The
reason we use staph, and not some other infectious agent, is that staph
is well characterized pathogen, and a common problem.
And since I do experiments 4-5 times a week, I culture staph at least 1
time per week for those experiments.
Quote: And yet you have not replicated Rosenow's work. Why not?
Because he was wrong, and you cannot replicate something which is wrong.
Totally bogus. A scientist would replicate the work to verify or deny
it.
Since he published his work no one has replicated it. Genetic
sequencing demonstrates quite clearly that he is wrong. Therefore, he
is wrong and there is no longer any point in perusing his hypothesis.
Under your logic we should continually try to reproduce erranous results
millions of times over, just to make sure that they are actually wrong.
This is not the way in which science in conducted. Rather, if we
think something is wrong we look for additional evidence to support that
conclusion. Genetic sequencing, for example, which clearly demonstrates
that staph and strep are unique and separate organisms, and not a single
pleomorphic organism as you propose.
Based on that evidence there is no longer any point in trying to
replicate the experiments that lead to the pelomorphy model, as that
possibility is directly disproven through other techniques.
Quote: If it is not repeatable, then it may
well be bogus, our your ability is lacking, whichever.
You have a
lab. You have
access to his paper in 1914. Repeat it. Then explain to us where he
went wrong.
Why waste my time? DNA sequencing alone demonstrates he was 100% wrong.
Why waste the time showing it yet again?
You must waste your time if you wish to claim to be a scientist.
No, I must not. Rather, I must critically analyze the data and make
logical conlcusions based on those data. And the data are:
1) One report of pleomorphy
2) Tens of thousands of reports not showing pleomorphy
3) Thousands of studies pointing towards multiple species (i.e.
serology, morphology, biochemistry, etc).
4) Genetic sequencing which clearly demonstrates that pleomophy does not
occur, and rather that the species of bacteria are distinct and unique.
Based on those data it would be distinctly unscientific to continue
investigating pleomorphy, as the evidence against it is so great.
Quote: Attempting to repeat the work
is the least that any reputable scientist would do.
Thanx for proving you have no clue as to how science works. Only the
most idiotic scientists would try to repeat that work. Today we have a
much better understanding of biology, better technology, and complete
genomes. Anyone who would waste their time using such primitive
technology, trying to prove a theory which doesn't even stand upto the
most limited scrutiny (given our current state of knowledge) would be a
total idiot.
May as well be trying to prove phrenology, as it has about as much
scientific support, as well as evidence against it, as does polymorphism.
Quote: If the work has not been challenged, it stands as being valid.
Hardly. Thousands of experiments have been conducted which show it is
wrong.
Cite some of these thousands of experiments. I expect to see words
such as "in refutation of" or some
such words to indicate that the researchers have repeated and are
refuting Rosenow's work.
Any experiment in which bacteria are cultured, and pleomorphism is not
seen, as evidence against rosenow. But the best is the genetic
sequencing experiments I linked to before, as they completely refute his
hypothesis.
I doubt you'll find any modern papers which directly cite him, as his
hypothesis is just one of hundreds of dead hypothesis science has
created, investigated and destroyed over the past 100 years.
Quote: BTW, I checked Pubmed for Rosenow. He wrote over 300 scientific
papers, yet I got 0 hits. Any
idea why?
I can think of a few:
1) His publications were not in scientific journals
2) His publications were in now defunct journals who didn't pass on
their catalogs when they collapsed
3) His publications were in non bio-medical journals.
Quote: Every time we culture bacteria, and the culture remains pure, we
show that it is wrong. The genetic sequencing of the staph and strep
genomes show that it is wrong.
No it does not. Check Rosenow's work.
Can't agree. Bacteria can and do change form and function according
to the stress of their
environment.
True, but they do not change species. So while bacteria do change their
phenotype, express new genes, etc, their underlying DNA code remains the
same. In order to get pleomorphy, as you describe it, would require
re-writing of the DNA code. This simply is not seen, nor does any
mechanism exist by which it could occur.
What you mean is any mechanism which fits your concept of bacteria and
viruses.
No. What I mean is any mechanism discovered by science. If you think
there is one, perhaps you could explain what that mechanism is, and we
can check the veracity of your claim.
Let me guess, DNA isn't the genetic material - that's about the only
hypothesis you could put forth that would allow for pleomorphism, given
todays evidence.
Quote: Even cancer cells can be converted to normal healthy
cells in the lab provided
you do the experiment correctly.
Through the artificial addition of tumor-suppressing genes. Not exactly
a "natural" phenomena.
Sorry, the addition of tumor-suppressing genes is not needed.
Human cells, when stressed, can convert to cancer cells and conduct
life processes by anaerobic metabolism.
Non-cancerous cells preform anerobic metabolism all the time. Your
muscles, for example, during exercise.
Quote: Those same cancer cells, when
allowed to convert, will convert to normal non-cancerous
cells. This is what Warburg showed and is the basis for nearly all
alt med success with cancer.
No, he did not show that, as is clearly established in the link I
provided.
Quote: Warburg got a nobel for that tidbit
No, he didn't. Warburgs prize was for discovering the
oxidation/reduction metabolism which underlies our metabolism.
What is the WARBURG OXYGEN apparatus, and what is it used for?
Its a fairly simple gas-consumption monitor, which monitors the
consumption of gases through watching volume changes in glass capillaries.
Today, its not used for anything, as it lacks the ability to
discriminate between different gases, only total gas volume changes. In
the past it was used for a variety of things, from monitoring
metabolism, to photosynthesis, to gas absorption.
Warburg didn't win the nobel prize for inventing a gas meter, he won it
for uncovering the ways in which our bodies utilize NAD and NADP for
metabolizing.
Quote: I have a quote by Warbugh at a conference of Nobel prize winners
concerning cancer.
I will see if I can find it.
He basically states that no other disease has been so well studied,
and the cause and
prevention well known, yet millions more must die before the truth
will be allowed to be known.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1931/warburg-bi...
Warburg did have a hypothesis as to the cause of cancer - that they were
metabolizing glucose, not pyruvate, and that was the route cause of
cancer. Based on what was known at the time - that tumors did
metabolize more intensely than did normal cells - this was a logical
conclusion. We now know his hypothesis was wrong, and what Warburg had
observed was a response of cancer cells to anoxic conditions - a
response normal cells can also undergo.
Your knowledge is totally bogus and lacking here.
LOL, coming from someone who's shown a consistent ignorance of even
basic biological processes.
Quote: of information.
Unless you'd have us believe that these bacteria magically re-write
their entire genome when they convert from one form to another, and that
the only convert when no one is looking.
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Projects/S_aureus/http://www.genome.ou.edu/st...
Typical of modern day psuedo-scientists like you, if data comes up
which does not meet your pre-concieved notion of what the results
should be
This is your trick. Remeber - you've claimed multiple times that all
biological science is invalid. Except, of course, for a handful of
studies which agree with your predispositions.
We don't believe in pleomorphic bacteria for the simple reason that we
don't see them. A huge part of science is repeatability - if someone
else cannot confirm what I see, then my observations are meaningless.
And with only two exceptions, in over a century of bacterial culture and
study, no evidence for pleomorphism has been found.
False. Rosenow proved it as did Bechamp earlier.
No, they did not. You dishonestly snipped the DNA sequencing (again),
but its pretty obvious to someone who even glances at the gene maps that
Strep and Staph are completely different at the genetic level, and
therefore are not pleomorphic versions of the same organism.
I repeat, Rosenow and Bechamp proved that bacteria were pleomorphic.
And they were wrong, get over it. They're hardly the first, or last,
scientists to be wrong about something. Hell, science is the art of
being wrong enough times to figure out what is actually right.
They were wrong. If they were still alive today they'd more then likely
admit they were wrong. No one looks down at them for being wrong.
However, you look like a real fool for promoting a scientific hypothesis
long discarded on the dung-heap of science.
Quote: you deny the results by claiming that a man of eminent
qualifications, head of the Mayo Clinic, would make a mistake and then
publish it. Your a,b,c line of logic is crap in true scientific terms.
Repeat the work. Are you qualified enough to repeat his work or not?
Enough of the guesswork.
You mean like how I repeat his work every time I culture Staph, and
analyze the cultures for purity.
You are not repeating anything but arrogance. Repeat Rosenows work.
I doubt you have
the skill and ability to repeat Bechamp's research.
More likely then not I'd be unable to repeat his work as the primitive
instruments he used are no longer available, or used. Which in and of
itself says a lot about his work.
Quote: Show me where anybody has repeated the work of Bechamp and/or
Rosenow. If you cannot, their work must be accepted as valid.
No one has replicated their work, making it dubiious.
No one has replicated their work, making it dubious? What a
scientific load of crap.
If they were
correct then even by accident, polymorphy should have been observed by
now. However, resent studies such as the genetic sequencing of the
Staph and Strep genomes clearly demonstrate that they are completely
separate organisms. Which completely disproves the polymorphic hypothesis.
Doesn't prove anything except that you are very confused about what
really goes on
in the real world. Bacteria change form and function to suit their
environment.
But they do not re-write their genetic code.
Baceria also
become antibiotic resistant,
Through gene transfer form resistant species, or through evolution of
another biochemical pathway.
What is the hell is "evolution of another biochemical pathway?"
One biochemical pathway (i.e. the lactamase pathway) is mutated and
selected such that it now can react against another chemical (i.e.
antibiotics). I shouldn't have to explain this to you - it's
high-school level science.
beta-lactamase mutations led to penicillin resistance.
Quote: These process have been observed in
nature, and are well understood, and completely refute polymorphy.
Disagree, pleomorphism is denied, yet well understood and commonly
seen.
Its never seen, and I challange you to provide a link to evidence which
shows otherwise.
Not that I expect a link - every other time I've asked for you to back
up your claims, you've snipped that part of my post, and like a coward,
pretended that part of the post didn't exist.
Bryan |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Carole |
| Posted: Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<drceephd@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:1192565674.010415.292270@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
Quote: On Oct 16, 10:08 am, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:42 am, Bryan Heit <bjh...@NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:
drcee...@insightbb.com wrote
Rosenow proved and published in 1914 that they could convert Staph
germs
into Strep and vice-versa. That does destroy monomorphism, doesn't
it?
If the experiment was valid, which it is not. Today we know that
such a
change would involved mass recoding of the bacteria's DNA, something
which is simply not possible based on everything that we know about
evolution, DNA processing, DNA replication, and gene formation.
More likely then not he either:
a) Mistook changes in colony morphology as an inter-species change.
b) Had a streptococcus infect his culture plates
c) Made a mistake
Considering no one has ever replicated that result, you can be pretty
sure its incorrect. Reproducibility is a cornerstone of science.
If medicine is scientific, why was the work not checked by replication
to verify it?
Every time we culture Staph or Strep we are testing his experiment. If
he were right we should see these spontaneous conversions all the time.
That is false logic. You would assume contamination and start over.
Secondly, you must alter the medium properly as Rosenow did to elicit
the change.
We do not - I grow staph aureus on a weekly basis, in the neighborhood
of 10^12 (i.e. 1,000,000,000,000) cells per day. Despite doing this for
nearly a decade, I've never once seen any sort of interconversion to
other forms of bacteria.
And yet you have not replicated Rosenow's work. Why not? You have a
lab. You have
access to his paper in 1914. Repeat it. Then explain to us where he
went wrong.
If the work has not been challenged, it stands as being valid.
Hardly. Thousands of experiments have been conducted which show it is
wrong. Every time we culture bacteria, and the culture remains pure, we
show that it is wrong. The genetic sequencing of the staph and strep
genomes show that it is wrong.
Can't agree. Bacteria can and do change form and function according
to the stress of their
environment. Even cancer cells can be converted to normal healthy
cells in the lab provided
you do the experiment correctly. Warburg got a nobel for that tidbit
of information.
Unless you'd have us believe that these bacteria magically re-write
their entire genome when they convert from one form to another, and that
the only convert when no one is looking.
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/Projects/S_aureus/http://www.genome.ou.edu/strep.htm
lhttp://www.sanger.ac.uk/Projects/S_pyogenes/
Quote:
Typical of modern day psuedo-scientists like you, if data comes up
which does not meet your pre-concieved notion of what the results
should be
This is your trick. Remeber - you've claimed multiple times that all
biological science is invalid. Except, of course, for a handful of
studies which agree with your predispositions.
We don't believe in pleomorphic bacteria for the simple reason that we
don't see them. A huge part of science is repeatability - if someone
else cannot confirm what I see, then my observations are meaningless.
And with only two exceptions, in over a century of bacterial culture and
study, no evidence for pleomorphism has been found.
False. Rosenow proved it as did Bechamp earlier.
you deny the results by claiming that a man of eminent
qualifications, head of the Mayo Clinic, would make a mistake and then
publish it. Your a,b,c line of logic is crap in true scientific terms.
Repeat the work. Are you qualified enough to repeat his work or not?
Enough of the guesswork.
You mean like how I repeat his work every time I culture Staph, and
analyze the cultures for purity.
Show me where anybody has repeated the work of Bechamp and/or
Rosenow. If you cannot, their work must be accepted as valid.
No one has replicated their work, making it dubiious.
No one has replicated their work, making it dubious? What a
scientific load of crap.
If they were
correct then even by accident, polymorphy should have been observed by
now. However, resent studies such as the genetic sequencing of the
Staph and Strep genomes clearly demonstrate that they are completely
separate organisms. Which completely disproves the polymorphic
hypothesis.
Doesn't prove anything except that you are very confused about what
really goes on
in the real world. Bacteria change form and function to suit their
environment. Baceria also
become antibiotic resistant, a poweful stress in their environment.
Perhaps your genomes demonstrate
how they do the impossible, impossible by your understanding anyway.
BTW, Rosenow made these comments:
He commented on the bacterial-genetic interface: the true cutting
edge.
He commented on the instability of bacterial types: dissociation and
mutation
He later commented on the contemporary dissociation/reversion and
mutation of bacteria.
Shakmon has a book wherein he presents many of Rosenow's insights and
has a review of
the fundamental and irrefutable concept of microbial variation, and
how this phenomena and the associated
works of Rosenow may resolve the modern confusion over the cause of a
wide range of diseases.
Any more comments on Rosenow. In addition, Rosenow knew of and worked
with Royal Raymond Rife. Isn't that a hoot?
DrCee
Not a member of the church of modern medicine
Not a member of the allopathic medical monopoly
Nice to have you back in the newsgroup again, DrC.
People need to know the real story about how real medicine has been
corrupted over the years.
Carole
www.cellsalts.net
www.conspiracee.com |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 3 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 23, 2008 4:43 am
|
|