Latest x news

Chest X-Ray

By www.medicinenet.com
Published On :: Fri, 22 Apr 2022 00:00:00 PDT

Title: Chest X-Ray
Category: Procedures and Tests
Created: 12/31/1997 12:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 4/22/2022 12:00:00 AM

Full Article

Cervical Cancer (Cancer of the Cervix)

By www.medicinenet.com
Published On :: Mon, 9 May 2022 00:00:00 PDT

Title: Cervical Cancer (Cancer of the Cervix)
Category: Diseases and Conditions
Created: 12/31/1997 12:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 5/9/2022 12:00:00 AM

Full Article

Rixa Kleinschmit: Fokus auf Küstenschutz und Häfen beim Landeswassergesetz

By www.ltsh.de
Published On ::

Full Article

The Bio-Chemical Matrix - The Myths of Matrix Science

By www.newmediaexplorer.org
Published On :: 2012-03-30T11:56:03+01:00

by Jon Rappoport www.nomorefakenews.com The medical system kills 225,000 people a year. (Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, "Is US health really the best in the world?") "In principle, gene therapy is a medical miracle waiting to happen ... after 17 years of trying, scientists are still struggling to make gene therapy work. Complications include rejection of DNA carriers ... [and] new genes end up where they shouldn't, or behave unpredictably." ("Gene Therapy: Is Death and Acceptable Risk?", Wired, Brandon Keim, August 30, 2007) MARCH 28, 2012 - In discussing Matrix Science, I'm reminded of Philip Dick's sensational novel, Lies, Inc. It proposes an invention that can teleport humans light-years to a planet where a better way of life exists. The author then spends the rest of the book deconstructing this utopian legend and revealing the truth and the titanic power-grab that sit behind it. Then there is HG Well's 1933 classic novel, The Shape of Things to Come, in which a world exhausted by war and economic collapse turns to a Global State as the only possible solution, after all other solutions have historically failed. This new ruling authority is based on Science. All religions are crushed. Education is designed to teach every child how to become a genius/global citizen. Eventually, the State withers away and is of course replaced by a spontaneous Utopia. Science/technology: the final all-encompassing answer. A significant aspect of Matrix propaganda revolves around myths about how human behavior can be transformed. Transformed through advances in biology and chemistry. Populations are being trained to expect these momentous changes. A major selling point: no effort is required. Just ingest this tablet. Accept this new gene. All will be done for you by experts. Technocrats will design the future so you will fit into it happily. The technocratic wing of Globalism has clout. It promises management of the planet through science, and who can argue with science? Central Planning will ensure proper benefits for all. My late friend and colleague, hypnotherapist Jack True, once told me in an interview:...

Full Article

Codex decides to adopt ractopamine standard against consumer objections

By www.newmediaexplorer.org
Published On :: 2012-07-06T23:56:41+01:00

Ractopamine is a drug given to pigs and cows in the last months of their lives to "make the meat more lean". Taiwan has been blocking imports of meat from the US over concerns that the drug's residues that stay in the meat are less than healthy. At a recent Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting, the meat producing and exporting countries, and those heavily lobbied and pressured by US diplomats prevailed in a close vote to make the agency adopt a standard for residues of ractopamine in meat. That means that the countries that resist meat from doped animals will have a harder time to justify why they don't want to subject their citizens to yet another experiment for the sake of the economy of large-scale animal-to-meat operations. Scott Tips of the National Health Federation has represented the consumer side at Codex and he reports on the meeting: After taking a vote by secret ballot this late morning, the Chairman of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Mr. Sanjay Dave, announced the results of the voting on whether or not Ractopamine (a steroid-like vet drug, the residues of which remain in the slaughtered animal to then be consumed by meat-eaters) standards were adopted. Out of 143 ballots cast, the vote was 69 for Ractopamine, 67 against Ractopamine, with 7 abstaining. If only one vote had shifted from the “for” camp to the “against” camp, then the result would have been completely different and the Ractopamine standard would not have been adopted. This voting was forced upon the Commission by the insistence of the United States, Costa Rica, and Brazil that the long stalemate over the adoption of a standard for Ractopamine MRLs (Maximum Residue Levels) could not be resolved through the Codex-preferred process of “consensus” but would, after all, have to be voted upon......

Full Article

Missing folate genes and AIDS - treat hypomethylation with nutrients, not toxic drugs!

By www.newmediaexplorer.org
Published On :: 2012-10-04T12:02:41+01:00

This is another installment of research into the biochemistry of HIV and Aids by Cal Crilly, an Australian who finds himself fascinated with the intricacies of biology. Crilly analyzes the seemingly unconnected studies that show the biochemical changes that accompany the presence of numerous retroviruses - one of them called HIV - in humans. The mechanism that makes retroviruses appear is hypomethylation, and it is the same mechanism that accompanies pregnancy and inflammation. Those retroviruses are produced in the course of normal biological activity and they are not infectious. There are many different types (ever heard of HIV 'mutating'?). As an aside, we declare pregnant mothers to be "HIV positive" as pregnancy causes the presence of retroviruses in the course of normal biological activity, and those harmless endogenous retroviruses react with what's generally called an "HIV" test. Certain basic nutrients - Selenium, Folate, B12, B6, Choline are the most important - counteract hypomethylation of the cells and thereby calm the production of human endogenous retroviruses. The toxic Aids drug AZT causes hypermethylation but it is so destructive of normal cell processes that most patients die. The 'life prolonging' effect of HAART, the drug cocktail that is prescribed to Aids patients today is due to a sharp decrease in the dosage of deadly AZT in the cocktail. Cal demonstrates those facts and more with reference to studies you can find as well, if you're interested in the details. Meanwhile we continue to treat immune compromised people with drugs that further compromise the immune system and - in many cases - kill the patient. When is medicine going to start treating those people by insisting on better eating and supplementation supplying the correct nutrients? How long will it take until the toxic drugs are phased out in favor of real prevention?...

Full Article

Retroviral particles in human immune defenses - is AIDS orthodoxy dead wrong?

By www.newmediaexplorer.org
Published On :: 2013-08-11T20:34:53+01:00

We have previously published articles by the Australian AIDS-and-biology researcher Cal Crilly, and here is yet another installment. Cal is someone who digs into scientific studies. He does biological detective work and finds gems that hide in plain view, things we don't normally understand and that even the experts do not see as they are not trained to put discordant facts together and question basic assumptions. What this new article tells us is that retroviruses - the same kind that are thought to cause immune deficiency or AIDS - are useful and necessary for our immune system to function correctly. That of course tends to leave the hypothesis of a viral causation of AIDS in grave trouble. I say 'hypothesis' because no one has proven, or even come close to a coherent explanation for, the mechanism of AIDS causation by HIV. How does a retrovirus that is by nature a benign particle, cause devastation of the immune system? Here we have several scientific studies published in the world's finest journals, which attest to the fact that retroviruses are part and parcel of the human organism, that they are needed to provide certain defensive capabilities against invaders, and that they are not pathogenic. So we might ask ourselves why HIV tests (thought to indicate the presence of a retrovirus) are still performed, and why doctors are still recommending the use of toxic anti-retroviral drugs to kill what, rather than a foreign invader, appears to be part of normal human metabolic processes. Cal Crilly lays it out for you, citing and linking the sources......

Full Article

And Prospero broke his soap box

By www.sellingwaves.com
Published On :: 2005-01-26T16:26:50-05:00

I may have bored everyone to death about this topic, but I have my last exam tomorrow, so here is my final thought about what distinguishes science. Most of the descriptions of science that I know of don’t really explain how science progresses without falling into a quaint mythology about approaching some metaphysical truth. Kuhn doesn’t, Popper doesn’t, Pierre Duhem doesn’t, and I myself have neglected to account for it to some extent.

I think the key is that science, at least experimental science, is essentially concerned with predicting the future. Every hypothesis, in essence, is a prediction about the future. What distinguishes science from other forms of prediction is the emphasis on verification, the insistence on framing predictions in such a way that when they are tested they can be decisively answered positively or negatively. In other, the goal is not to not be wrong but to achieve a definitive positive answer. Even a definite negative answer is preferable to none at all.

Some philosophers, like Duhem, claim that individual hypotheses can neither be verified nor falsified, because a whole body of theories and assumptions lies behind, and is implicated in, every hypothesis, and thus one can never be sure just what has been validated or failed. While that’s true, it is also nonetheless true that when the result of an experiment does not match a hypothetical prediction the hypothesis has been proven invalid as it stands. In other words, no matter what went wrong, the body of theories and assumptions that led to the hypothesis do not work as they now stand. Thus, things will have to be changed until they produce accurate predictions. Conversely, if a hypotheis is corroborated with a positive answer, the theories behind it stand validated until a hypothesis receives a negative answer.

In other words, experimentation does not serve to lead by induction to new theories, but rather theories serve to make possible specific predictions about the future which can be verified decisively. This at least is the goal. The goal is not a description which is true or corresponds to the truth, or at least that is not the immediate goal. When the facts or events are given, anyone can interpret them, and the fact that these events are known can mask the relative merits of the theory which interprets them. The idea that theories are validated by their correspondence to experimental results is tautological: the first condition of any theory is that it accounts for the experimental results that gave rise to it. But the only way to determine whether it is simply a theory to fit the facts or whether it is truly generalizable is to test it against unknown facts via prediction. Of course, predictions are almost always only approximately true, so the specific point of acceptability is not provided for by the general concept, but, at least in theory, decisive verification of predictions provides a simple, clear, and immensely useful criterion by which to evaluate theories. In my opinion, this explains much of the evolutionary capacity of science (I mean evolution in the more contemporary sense of diversification and selection rather than the old idea of teleological perfectibility).

If experimental prediction is the mark of science, this leaves the question of whether purely descriptive disciplines like zoology and areas like quantum theory where predictions are inherently statistical and ambiguous are scientific. Zoology and the like I think are, because hypothetical prediction inherently implies classification. In other words, by saying “under these conditions, such an event will happen,” one classifies, in other words sets parameters. The goal of zoology seems to be not simply to describe members of a group but to describe all the characteristics which define the group, set the parameters of the group, which is the first step towards making predictions about the group. So it is an element of science, but incomplete. As for quantum, I avow my profound ignorance of it, so let my opinion be taken in that light. As far as I understand, the stastical laws in that realm allow predictions in aggregate, so I am inclined to view it as still within the domain of science, at least in spirit, but of course the lack of decisiveness of statistical predictions gravely weakens the predictive power of science in this area, and I have already suggested that the rise of relativity and quantum in my view are intimately tied to the waning of the scientific age. Finally, it should be noted that while making correct predictions is the goal of science, that should be qualified by saying that the predictions are intended to answer general questions concerning the nature of things and establish specific knowledge. Optics or engineering, for example, are not science, although they once were, because all the major questions have been answered, and they no longer concern gaining further knowledge of the future and the universe, but rather in applying that knowledge to constructing specific objects.

So the goal and value of science is in predicting, and thus establishing knowledge of, the future, and the scientific method is the means of arriving at correct predictions. This is not to discard my earlier contention about the ideological basis of science, because the efficacy of prediction is based on the relative value of induction, and successful induction relies on the essential regularity and stability of the universe. In other words, in order to draw a general theory from a specific experimental result and vice versa, the universe must be considered as basically the same everywhere and at every time, which in turn implies that it be material, matter being defined as that which cannot change itself and is therefore static. It seems to me that if in quantum theory, for example, phenomena become genuinely dependent on the observeer in ways that are neither generalizable nor predicatable, it cannot continue to remain truly a science. It would seem to me that the branches of physics which are entirely theoretical are for practical purposes basically metaphysics.

This model depends on a linear notion of time. It might seem the opposite, that if the physical laws are eternal and universal time is actually opposed to this insofar as it represents dynamism, change. But in reality the sameness of the universe upon which science is predicated is not a a sameness at any particular moment, but rather a sameness of behavior. In other words, a view of the universe from a materialist perspective at any given moment shows that everything in the univese is different in the sense of being distinct. However, the idea is that under the same conditions all matter (or whatever you call the fundamental substances) will act in the same way. Without the steady march of time, this unity of behavior disappears, and there are simply a million disparate entities. Thus, space (and time) as properties of the universe are essential to science.

As for what the value of science is, I’m afraid I can’t generalize about that. From reading my recent posts one can most likely guess at my views, but I will simply say that one’s view of the efficacy of science in making the universe understandable will probably depend on entirely on whether one a) believes that linear time is a real property of the universe and b) if so, whether true induction is possible.

p.s. I should note that Henri Poincaré anticipates me in seeing the epistemological value of science as consisting mainly of its ability to make predictions rather than its descriptive correspondence to reality. However, he also thinks that theories are conventions and definitions of concepts, not true descriptions of physical phenomena based necessarily on experimental results. He thinks the conjunction of these two make theories relatively independent of their experimental bases, which he regards as a good thing because it creates a body of stable principles in which we can trust. I think that that is neither true nor a good value. The emphasis is on predicting correctly, not creating stable beliefs (if you want unchanging beliefs, what not join the Church?), and if generating true predictions is the goal, theories should be more rather than less sensitive to their experimental roots.

p.p.s. Since my exam was about scientific laws and causality, I should add that while scientific activity depends on a belief in time, not all scientific theories do: the law of conservation of energy, for example, I believe is essentially atemporal.

Full Article