Mind Control...Don't believe it? Then it's working

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2006 01:56:05 AM · #51

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... wherever there are homeopathy champions and vaccination foes, I'll be there!

I'm not a proponent, but isn't homeopathy pretty similar in principle to allergy desensitization shots?

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 01:56:22.

11/07/2006 02:03:55 AM · #52

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... wherever there are homeopathy champions and vaccination foes, I'll be there!

I'm not a proponent, but isn't homeopathy pretty similar in principle to allergy desensitization shots?

well, no. Allergy desensitization is a method used to induce the immune system to produce IgG (especially IgG4) instead of IgE when it encounters various harmless proteins (like cat dander or ragweed). IgE causes the familiar allergic symptoms we know and love. Increasing doses of the immunotherapy (made up of the proteins which are causing problems) are given in order to effect this change. The doses are increased gradually because of the real risk of causing an allergic reaction. There are numerous rigorous medical studies to support its effectiveness and its method of working.

Homeopathy, as I understand it. No, wait, maybe I should just go to wikipedia because I probably won't do it justice:
"Homeopathy rests on the premise of treating sick persons with extremely diluted agents that - in undiluted doses - are deemed to produce similar symptoms in a healthy individual. Its adherents and practitioners assert that the therapeutic potency of a remedy can be increased by serial dilution of the drug, combined with succussion or vigorous shaking."

The doses are never increased and in fact are often so dilute as to have no amount of the therapeutic agent left. (However, homeopathy advocates claim that the water "remembers" that the agents were there. See the water and microwave thread going on right now to touch on that). There are no rigorous studies to support its effectiveness and even homeopathics cannot postulate HOW it works.

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 02:07:28.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2006 02:14:47 AM · #53

Still sounds somewhat "similar" in principle, though not degree -- the idea that an extremely small amount of the causitive agent can stimulate the body's defenses to eventually be able to resist "real" exposure.

However, I agree that the idea that a formula so dilute that the causitive agent can't be measured (or even detected) is ... BTW, I'm pretty sure that a lot of those formulas are tinctures, using solvents other than water.

11/07/2006 02:24:08 AM · #54

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I guess where I think it's different is immunotherapy uses the actual protein you are sensitive to while homeopathy uses something else. For example (and I don't know if this is a real recipe or not), if you are having stomach upset, you are treated with a dilute amount of Ipecac. It wasn't Ipecac that was causing the problem to start with though.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2006 02:37:02 AM · #55

That makes sense -- sometimes the remedies use something else which causes the same/similar symptoms, even if that's not the actual cause of the original problem.

11/07/2006 03:57:29 AM · #56

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by amber:

Why is it you need to make personal attacks?

Well, that last reply of mine was perhaps a bit out of line. It really did seem to me you guys were all of a sudden getting into some whacked conspiracy stuff.

I'm not attacking anybody personally, but I'm sure you have already figured out that quasiscience and medical quackery get me a bit hot under the collar. Anybody has the right to post such stuff and even to believe it, but I can certainly come along and try to debunk the worst of it.

So it's not a personal attack at you Amber, I'm sure you are a nice gal, but wherever there are homeopathy champions and vaccination foes, I'll be there!

I am a nice gal;)But I'm not a simpleton. I get a little tired of the 'poor you, I need to save you from yourself' sort of mentality. I like to think I'm intelligent enough to sort the truth from the lies.

Talking of quasiscience did you take a in depth look at the site I gave a link to where scientists and experts in their field question the offical version?

11/07/2006 11:58:05 AM · #57

Originally posted by amber:

I'm not worried about you. ;) You have already made up your mind. I'm worried about others if both views are not presented.

No, link me again, there are too many links up there.

11/07/2006 12:44:11 PM · #58

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm not worried about you. ;) You have already made up your mind. I'm worried about others if both views are not presented.

See that's where we differ, MY mind is OPEN. I read, I digest, I ask myself a series of questions, I weigh up both sides..THEN I make a decision but it's not set in stone. If other information comes to light that suggests alternative answers I consider it and then alter my opinion. I do not reject ideas a priori because they conflict with my core set of beliefs...it's a little like the Japanese idea of Kaizen, without which the human race would have been doomed long ago.

Also, I think other people are very capable of finding information for themselves and making up their own minds without the need to present both sides as if they are babies...a bit like Fox News;)

No, link me again, there are too many links up there.

Dr Achoo's wish is my command

There you go;)

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 12:46:20.

11/07/2006 12:50:06 PM · #59

Originally posted by amber:

Also, I think other people are very capable of finding information for themselves and making up their own minds without the need to present both sides as if they are babies...a bit like Fox News;)

Unfortunately many people are capable of being duped and misled because they want relief from their problems. As an allergist I run into this all the time and the alternative medicine world makes my job harder because I need to spend a significant amount of time helping them to "unlearn" the crap they have been taught. Things like allergy to sugar, or food allergy causing autism or ADHD. People want a fast, easy solution. Hey wouldn't it be great if I could just take corn out of my child's diet and she would turn into an angel?

11/07/2006 12:52:33 PM · #60

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by amber:
Also, I think other people are very capable of finding information for themselves and making up their own minds without the need to present both sides as if they are babies...a bit like Fox News;)

Unfortunately many people are capable of being duped and misled because they want relief from their problems. As an allergist I run into this all the time and the alternative medicine world makes my job harder because I need to spend a significant amount of time helping them to "unlearn" the crap they have been taught. Things like allergy to sugar, or food allergy causing autism or ADHD. People want a fast, easy solution. Hey wouldn't it be great if I could just take corn out of my child's diet and she would turn into an angel?

You don't have much faith or confidence in people do you?

11/07/2006 12:57:29 PM · #61

Originally posted by amber:

You don't have much faith or confidence in people do you?

I've met too many people.

11/07/2006 01:01:45 PM · #62

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by amber:
You don't have much faith or confidence in people do you?

I've met too many people.

Sad.

Enjoyable as it's been I have got to go to bed {it's exactly 1 in the morning)

I'd love to hear what you think of that link;)

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 13:02:16.

11/07/2006 01:35:25 PM · #63

Originally posted by amber:

I'd love to hear what you think of that link;)

11/07/2006 01:37:50 PM · #64

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

[quote=amber]I'd love to hear what you think of that link;)

it's mildly interesting. I have a good friend who loves a good conspiracy. I read the part about the collapse of WTC7. The problem with conspiracy theories is they magnify facts that support their theory and simply ignore facts that do not.

All my reading led to this article in Wikipedia. It doesn't bother on supporting or refuting such theories, but does list a number of them.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

I have to say it doesn't appear that you have too good a view on humanity either. You seem to support the idea that the medical community overlooks serious side effects in their zeal to immunize kids and that big pharmacy is only interested in the almighty dollar. That doesn't sound like a lot of "faith and confidence" to me. I think you have as little "faith and confidence" as I do, we just differ on whom we trust.

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 13:38:07.

11/07/2006 02:10:58 PM · #65

I'm safe from mind control, I have my head wrapped in aluminum foil!

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/07/2006 02:23:09 PM · #66

And anyone that reads any of those 911 conspiracy links should probably read some of the links Here as well and make their own decision on who they think is telling the truth.

rox_rox

Canon EOS-20D

11/07/2006 04:54:13 PM · #67

Originally posted by MQuinn:

Originally posted by greatandsmall:

Originally posted by MQuinn:
[quote=greatandsmall] Conflicts of interest on COX-2 Panel

Seems that site that is posted on has some conflicts of interests. //www.cspiscam.com/index.cfm

Good call on the questionable link. I should have checked where I thought I heard it (NPR) in the first place.

NPR coverage of the story.

Of course, some might not consider NPR a viable source either; but I'm too tired to search harder:)

NPR is fine, but look at the facts at the end... from the Lancet..Look at the Controversial Articles

Thanks for the link.

I'm not quite sure how it affects the overall story though. Did the FDA employee get the same number from Lancet or vice-versa? Did they both get the number from another source? Or was it a double positive? That statistic is the least important part, as far I'm concerned. I'm most interested in the statements of the experts and the activities of Weinblatt.

I guess the question is, where would you weigh in if you had lost a loved one to one of these drugs?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/07/2006 07:12:33 PM · #68

Originally posted by LoudDog:

I'm safe from mind control, I have my head wrapped in aluminum foil!

Won't work -- check out the recent research by some folks at MIT (I posted a link previously, but I'm at work and can't look for it now). It suggests that the foil hats will amplify any signals if they have any effect at all ... : (

11/07/2006 09:08:36 PM · #69

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
I'm safe from mind control, I have my head wrapped in aluminum foil!

Won't work -- check out the recent research by some folks at MIT (I posted a link previously, but I'm at work and can't look for it now). It suggests that the foil hats will amplify any signals if they have any effect at all ... : (

The MIT guys don't know squat!

11/07/2006 09:44:50 PM · #70

[

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[quote=amber]I\'d love to hear what you think of that link;)

it's mildly interesting. I have a good friend who loves a good conspiracy. I read the part about the collapse of WTC7. The problem with conspiracy theories is they magnify facts that support their theory and simply ignore facts that do not.

All my reading led to this article in Wikipedia. It doesn\'t bother on supporting or refuting such theories, but does list a number of them.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories

I have to say it doesn\'t appear that you have too good a view on humanity either. You seem to support the idea that the medical community overlooks serious side effects in their zeal to immunize kids and that big pharmacy is only interested in the almighty dollar. That doesn\'t sound like a lot of \"faith and confidence\" to me. I think you have as little \"faith and confidence\" as I do, we just differ on whom we trust.

Mildly interesting? Must take a lot to get you interested then.

I have total faith in humanity. I have a problem with what happens to people when they pursue power and money over all else. These people are in the minority but have an adverse effect on the majority.

People who blindly accept the words of people in power without thinking for themselves do not deserve to live in a democracy. Our duties as citizens should not begin and end at the ballot box.

I think a recent poll stated that 60% of people in the USA believe that the government are not telling the truth about 911 or played some part in it...The scientists in that link KNOW the facts don't add up and are doing something about it...see I'm right to have faith in people.

Had you read around the subject as much as I have you would have no choice but to consider that perhaps you have been misled by the government, because that's where the evidence leads a non-biased thinking person. But to admit that would mean that this authority you put so much trust in has duped YOU...just like your poor patients have been duped...that's a hard thing to swallow. We all like to believe WE can't have the wool pulled over our eyes, that we are too smart.

Building 7...Which was NOT hit by a plane or any substantial debris, collapsed into it's own footprint just like WTC 1&2.

Building 7... one of only three steel buildings ever to collapse because of fire in history, the other 2 being WTC 1&2

Building 7... of which owner Larry Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

Building 7...where ...Large numbers of case files for ongoing investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) were reportedly destroyed in the collapse. The Los Angeles Times reported that "substantial files were destroyed" for 3000 to 4000 of the SEC's cases. The EEOC reported that documents for 45 active cases were destroyed. Before the attack, SEC investigations of corporate fraud by companies such as Enron and Worldcom were the subject of many news reports -- reports that virtually vanished in the wake of the attack.

Building 7's lease - holder....

Silverstein Properties is headed by Larry Silverstein, a large contributor to Democrat and Republican office-holders. Silverstein Properties became the primary owner of the WTC Twin Towers less than two months before 9/11/01 (Westfield Malls was Silverstein Properties' minority-partner). Buying from the New York Port Authority, Silverstein Properties invested only $15 million toward a total purchase-price of $3.2 billion for a 99-year lease on holdings worth an estimated $8 billion. The low-rise office buildings WTC 4, 5, and 6, and 400,000 square feet of retail space were included with the Twin Towers in this deal. Silverstein Properties immediately took out extensive insurance policies on its new holdings.

One clause in Silverstein Properties' insurance policies for the new WTC holdings soon proved instrumental. Quoting the British Financial Times of September 14, 2001, the American Reporter wrote that â�� the lease has an all-important escape clause: If the buildings are struck by â��an act of terrorismâ��, the new owners' obligations under the lease are void. As a result, the new owners are not required to make any payments under their lease, but they will be able to collect on the loss of the buildings that collapsed or were otherwise destroyed and damaged in the attacks. â�� Silverstein Properties is still contesting the amount of pay-out due for destruction of the Twin Towersâ��$3.55 billion for one â��occurrenceâ�� or $7.1 billion for two â��occurrencesâ��. The â��terrorismâ�� clause in his lease has given Larry Silverstein leverage in negotiating his new deal for the site.

WTC7's developer and lease-holder, Silverstein Properties, and WTC7's mortgage-holders, the Blackstone Group, Banc of America Securities, and General Motors Acceptance Corporation, received a Court-awarded amount of $861 million dollars from Industrial Risk Insurers in February 2002. We know that about $386 million had been invested in WTC7 before its destruction. The Court-award meant that Silverstein Properties and the mortgage-holders would share in about $475 million of profit.

Money, money, money.....

Message edited by author 2006-11-07 21:45:29.

11/07/2006 10:10:53 PM · #71

Per Popular Mechanic

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

11/07/2006 10:20:42 PM · #72

More

NIST directly answers the conspiracy theorists questions.

11/07/2006 10:32:58 PM · #73

Originally posted by amber:

I have total faith in humanity. I have a problem with what happens to people when they pursue power and money over all else. These people are in the minority but have an adverse effect on the majority.

It doesn't make sense to use the word "total" and then qualify it.

I also have total faith in humanity, except the uneducated ones and those who are very verbal about things they aren't qualified to understand. (That wasn't pointed at you.)

11/07/2006 10:38:56 PM · #74

God bless Popular Mechanics. Did you know Michael Chertoff's (head of Homeland Security) cousin did the major research for that piece?

The FEMA report about the collapse of the buidings admits that they could not figure out why Building 7 collapsed. The FEMA report is proof that there are still unsolved mysteries. Therefore, Popular Mechanics is foolish to claim that the issue has been resolved.

Popular Mechanics:" Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner."

If 25% of the depth of the building was scooped out WHY couldn't FEMA figure out why it collapsed? Why are there no images of this? Why would the building collapse in to its own footprint instead of off to one side where the collapse occured - or did this 25% stretch completely evenly across the building defying the odds?

Where are the photos that prove 25% of Building 7 was scooped out? The photos published in reports, and those available on me Internet do not show anything other than trivial damage, such as some broken windows.

Tom Franklin, a professional photographer for a New Jersey newspaper, traveled quickly to the World Trade Center to get photographs. According to his own report, he was standing in front of Building 7 at about 4 p.m.. He took lots of photos, but where are his photos of Building 7? Why would he ignore a skyscraper with 25% of its first 10 floors scooped out?

Where is evidence that there was an intense fire in Building 7? The photos taken in the afternoon do not show intense fires. Just because a few investigators believe something, that does not make it true. They need evidence to support their beliefs.

How can a fire burn for seven hours without spreading to other offices or other floors? Perhaps some diesel fuel was dripping from a supply pipe. Since the fire was small, and since the building had a steel frame with concrete floors, the fire could not travel to other offices. So how could such an insignificant fire bring down an entire skyscraper?

Why did the owner tell the fireman to 'pull it'?