Guest guest Posted October 8, 2006 Report Share Posted October 8, 2006 robert,i think you might have gone a bit overboard when you said the wikipedia was "the most unscientific encyclopedia ever written by mankind"...for me that dubious honor would go to the "witchipedia",the witch hammer...i do find some interesting parallels to our situation with EtG,though... The Malleus Maleficarum (The Witch Hammer), first published in 1486, is arguably one of the most infamous books ever written, due primarily to its position and regard during the Middle Ages. It served as a guidebook for Inquisitors during the Inquisition, and was designed to aid them in the identification, prosecution, and dispatching of Witches. It set forth, as well, many of the modern misconceptions and fears concerning witches and the influence of witchcraft. The questions, definitions, and accusations it set forth in regard to witches, which were reinforced by its use during the Inquisition, came to be widely regarded as irrefutable truth. Those beliefs are held even today by a majority of Christians in regard to practitioners of the modern “revived” religion of Witchcraft, or Wicca. And while the Malleus itself is largely unknown in modern times, its effects have proved long lasting. At the time of the writing of The Malleus Maleficarum, there were many voices within the Christian community (scholars and theologians) who doubted the existence of witches and largely regarded such belief as mere superstition. The authors of the Malleus addressed those voices in no uncertain terms, stating: “Whether the Belief that there are such Beings as Witches is so Essential a Part of the Catholic Faith that Obstinacy to maintain the Opposite Opinion manifestly savours of Heresy.” The immediate, and lasting, popularity of the Malleus essentially silenced those voices. It made very real the threat of one being branded a heretic, simply by virtue of one's questioning of the existence of witches and, thus, the validity of the Inquisition. It set into the general Christian consciousness, for all time, a belief in the existence of witches as a real and valid threat to the Christian world. It is a belief which is held to this day. It must be noted that during the Inquisition, few, if any, real, verifiable, witches were ever discovered or tried. Often the very accusation was enough to see one branded a witch, tried by the Inquisitors' Court, and burned alive at the stake. Estimates of the death toll during the Inquisition worldwide range from 600,000 to as high as 9,000,000 (over its 250 year long course); either is a chilling number when one realizes that nearly all of the accused were women, and consisted primarily of outcasts and other suspicious persons. Old women. Midwives. Jews. Poets. Gypsies. Anyone who did not fit within the contemporary view of pieous Christians were suspect, and easily branded "Witch". Usually to devastating effect. It must also be noted that the crime of Witchcraft was not the only crime of which one could be accused during the Inquisition. By questioning any part of Catholic belief, one could be branded a heretic. Scientists were branded heretics by virtue of repudiating certain tenets of Christian belief (most notably Galileo, whose theories on the nature of planets and gravitational fields was initially branded heretical). Writers who challenged the Church were arrested for heresy (sometimes formerly accepted writers whose works had become unpopular). Anyone who questioned the validity of any part of Catholic belief did so at their own risk. The Malleus Maleficarum played an important role in bringing such Canonical law into being, as often the charge of heresy carried along with it suspicions of witchcraft. It must be remembered that the Malleus is a work of its time. Science had only just begun to make any real advances. At that time nearly any unexplainable illness or malady would often be attributed to magic, and thus the activity of witches. It was a way for ordinary people to make sense of the world around them. The Malleus drew upon those beliefs, and, by its very existence, reinforced them and brought them into the codified belief system of the Catholic Church. In many ways, it could be said that it helped to validate the Inquisition itself. While the Malleus itself cannot be blamed for the Inquisition or the horrors inflicted upon mankind by the Inquisitors, it certainly played an important role. Thus has it been said that The Malleus Maleficarum is one of the most blood-soaked works in human history, in that its very existence reinforced and validated Catholic beliefs which led to the prosecution, torture, and murder, of tens of thousands of innocent people. The lasting effect of the Malleus upon the world can only be measured in the lives of the hundreds of thousands of men, women, and even children, who suffered, and died, at the hands of the Inquisitors during the Inquisition. At the height of its popularity, The Malleus Maleficarum was surpassed in public notoriety only by The Bible. Its effects were even felt in the New World, where the last gasp of the Inquisition was felt in the English settlements in America (most notably in Salem, Massachusetts during the Salem Witch Trials). It is beyond the scope of this article to adequately examine the role of the Malleus in world history, or its lasting effects. At the very least, The Malleus Maleficarum (The Witch Hammer) offers to us an intriguing glimpse into the Medieval mind, and perhaps gives us a taste of what it might have been like to have lived in those times. - Wicasta Lovelace Lorie Garlick <lorieg@...> wrote: I don't think Skipper has ever presented his data as scientific. I believe he gathers the information from anecdotal evidence. He is simply trying to help guide people with the information he provides--esp. since the labs won't provide ANY information about their beloved test. He uses the test in his own state PHP. He does research on the efficacy of PHPs and therefore is in contact with the other state programs. He speaks with state licensing boards and criminal justice programs about their experiences with the test. He speaks with 10-15 different people about their personal experience every day. In light of the fact that the scientific research is so shoddy and the fact that the labs will provide no new information and there is really a public outcry for such, I cannot fault Dr. Skipper. He is disseminating the information he has, which is more than anybody else in this travesty. RE: research,wikipedia,wsj & EtG.... If, as you say, there is nothing about levels in scientific journals. How can Skipper post anything scientific about levels? Would his numbers be nothing more than a guess? Is that not part of the argument people on this site have been making (labs have only been guessing about what levels to use)? So people turn to the web and look a Wikipedia (even if only to get “up to speed” about the subject) and they read his words about EtG that are unfounded or at least undoccumented or referenced in scientific journals. And I think you are wrong. People (unfortunately) do take the information on the site as being scientific and “proof.” When people, who know the name Skipper read something by him, they assume (rightly or wrongly) that his information is backed by research. If his levels are backed by research, lets see it. Show me where it is posted and then I will say OK to those Wikipedia-reported levels or what he writes in letters or puts up on his webpage. I certainly hope he does have the research, but has perhaps not published it yet (or it is in press or preparation) as that would help with the arguments presented by both sides of the coin. From: Ethylglucuronide [mailto:Ethylglucuronide ] On Behalf Of robin murraySent: Saturday, October 07, 2006 6:32 AMEthylglucuronide Subject: RE: research,wikipedia,wsj & EtG.... ok robert moering i will match you research post for post on this site...you go first... i challenge you to post one study of any kind to show the scientific basis of any EtG so called "cut off" for consumption of etoh...we will look forward to your early deed to match your words below... wikipedia is like a lot of things on the net including this site...a hodge podge of info on a subject...no one ever pretends iit is research data..it is a good site for the latest info and as you said many scientists post and revise there...it is like a dictionary to bring people up to speed on a subject...on the EtG information there the most frequent poster updating revisions is gregskipper who upgraded in late september the "cutoffs" to 1000ng/ml...he is the most frequent upgrader on the site if you will look at the data...are you saying the poster gregskipper would be unscientific? from your posting it seems you are an expert in contempt prior to investigation...turn your negativity into positivity and post up something scientific and useful to support any positive point you would like to make on this site..regards,r "Moering, " <rmoeringhealth (DOT) usf.edu> wrote: I find it interesting that so many on this site continue to suggest and support the idea of “scientific research” and yet so many continue to quote and provide links to Wikipedia. This is the most unscientific “encyclopedia” (if you can even come close to calling it that) ever written by mankind given the notion that anyone can change any article at any time. In fact, I have even gone onto the Wikipedia pages and changed erroneous information posted there. Some of you continue to quote the WSJ as “proof” (my words) that everything known about EtG is false or “bad.” In case you have forgotten or did not know, the WSJ is NOT a scientific journal and holds about as much weight as Wikipedia. If you are going to quote research, quote correctly, and quote from real scientific journals. Just trying to keep you focused on looking at real research not pseudo junk and worthless words. From: Ethylglucuronide [mailto:Ethylglucuronide ] On Behalf Of robin murraySent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:36 AMEthylglucuronide Subject: Re: drugs with short half lives & EtG.... hi,007,it is very difficult to do precisely and to understand...wikipedia has some stuff that is difficult to figure out but the basic idea is if the half life of a drug like seroquel is 7 hours 1/2 of the drug will be gone from the system within 7 and the rest goes away gradually with time...my positives were on ssris within the half life of the drug...then i tested 24h out from the half life point no further positives. might be a small point but might help someone..regards,r Elimination half-life From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The elimination half-life of a drug (or any xenobiotic agent) refers to the timecourse necessary for the quantity of the xenobiotic agent in the body (or plasma concentration) to be reduced to half of its original level through various elimination processes. Half-life is an important pharmacokinetic parameter and is usually denoted by the abbreviation t1/2. Contents [hide] 1 Half-life in first-order elimination 2 Half-life in zero-order elimination 3 See also 4 References lilibit007aol wrote: at this point my case is over the judge refuses to recognize the gov warning or anything else ..she's known for being that way..I find it curious to see meds i.e. pills with ethanol or what ever how many more meds have that..I am not testing anymore ..but for probate I go 3 times a week at the hospital lab for etoh all negative..I will present everything there ..im not a chemist so I am having a hard time understanding the seraquel issue..I couldn't open the site ..But I am eager to learn so I can help others....any suggestions thanks for the help. ********************************************************************************************The USF Health Mail Protection System has scanned this email and found that it violates the USF Health Mail Guidelines for one of the following reasons: (1) It contains a virus, (2) It is an attempt to relay mail, or (3) It contains other hostile content. The specific reason is shown in the details listed below. Please note that if a virus was found and could not be removed, it was deleted. For further information or if you have any questions, please contact the USF Health IT Help Desk at (813) 974-6288.********************************************************************************************\HTML Active Content: Found invalid IMG Tag, Found Web-beacon, Object Removed: 1 'img' ********************************************************************************************The USF Health Mail Protection System has scanned this email and found that it violates the USF Health Mail Guidelines for one of the following reasons: (1) It contains a virus, (2) It is an attempt to relay mail, or (3) It contains other hostile content. The specific reason is shown in the details listed below. Please note that if a virus was found and could not be removed, it was deleted. For further information or if you have any questions, please contact the USF Health IT Help Desk at (813) 974-6288.********************************************************************************************\HTML Active Content: Found invalid IMG Tag, Found Web-beacon, Object Removed: 1 'img' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.