Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

[Guest guest]

The argument is not that evidence based medicine is incorrect. The

argument is that allotropic medicine is financially based and

therefore, no longer representative of pure science. The same is true

in the energy field. We have the politicians yelling drill, baby

drill, while in the background and undetected by mainstream press, we

have an entire league of science dating back to Nicola Tesla and leading

up the the current " Cold Fusion " debacle saying that there are alternate

sources of energy out there that are thousands of times more powerful

going unnoticed. I would guess, given your past posts, that you side

with the mainstream on these issues also. You are in the majority, but

that does not make you correct... now let me get back to running my joe

cell powered car while you continue your ranting.

>

>

> We seem to have a highly interesting debate with two opposing camps of

> pro and anti science and medicine or at least the administrative

> systems that apply them to society. I would be really happy to see us

> talk it out in a friendly way and learn from it.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thinks that Allister is most likely allied with Quack Watch...

paul becker wrote:

>if medicine was interested in things that worked for people/animals there'd

>method's in place to fund studies by small business/inventors that couldn't

>possibly afford the current system. the current system is set up to keep

>them out. PERIOD. no matter how well they work, or how safe they are its set

>up to keep competition away from the cartel. if the scientific " method " was

>valid, the war against supplements (CODEX) wouldn't have been dreamed up,

>GMO foods wouldn't have been released into the environment let alone fed to

>people and animals, flu and gardasil vaccines have been laughed at rather

>than rammed down peoples throats. its a crook-ed game. end of story.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Agree with you on that one.

Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

>

>

> Look at what 'Big Bad Pharma' has to do to prove a drug works in a Clinical

> Trial

> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_trial). By the time they have

> finished this process,

> chance and bias have been removed, safety, how the drug works, how the drug

> is processed

> by the body, how the drug works compared to the current gold standard have

> all been

> proved over time and with force of numbers in human subjects.

>

> PLEASE TELL ME YOU'RE JOKING...

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi , Thanks for taking the time to reply.

Regarding your comments:

" if medicine was interested in things that worked for people/animals there'd

method's in place to fund studies by small business/inventors that couldn't

possibly afford the current system. "

and

" clinical studies on supplements are not paid for by the pharmi cartel. "

Studies on supplements are usually pre-clinical and paid for by governments

through academic institutions. These are usually funded in an extremely

conservative way and this is a well known issue for the progression of longevity

science. There are individuals and groups who are looking to create ways around

this who deserve our support

(http://aging-management.com/methuselah_foundation_and_mprize.php). You are

absolutely correct in your assertion that Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs)

are extremely expensive. However, the barriers to entry are not insurmountable.

Look at Professor Bruce Ames. He set up a company called Juvenon and has done

RCTs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial) in humans on

alpha lipoic acid (ALA) and acetyl carnitine (ALCAR).

He isn't the only one.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17396066?ordinalpos=2 & itool=EntrezSystem2.PEn\

trez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11960607?ordinalpos=3 & itool=EntrezSystem2.PEn\

trez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Prof Ames and others have built an impressive body of evidence to support the

use of these two supplements in mitigating age-related congnitive decline and

promoting cardiovascular health. In my opinion, ALA & ALCAR should be on every

longevity enthusiasts list of important supplements. For more information see

(http://aging-management.com/acetyl_carnitine.php) and

(http://aging-management.com/alpha_lipoic_acid.php)

" if the scientific " method " was

valid, the war against supplements (CODEX) wouldn't have been dreamed up,

GMO foods wouldn't have been released into the environment let alone fed to

people and animals, flu and gardasil vaccines have been laughed at rather

than rammed down peoples throats. "

You have suggested the scientific method is invalid and then presented me with

something of a package of issues without really explaining what you think about

any of them or why they render the scientific method invalid. If we take one,

say, Gardasil, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardasil) you seem to be implying

that some kind of travesty has occurred in the Clinical Trials process. Yet you

don't say what it is or give me any indication where you have got your

information from. I would be delighted to learn something about this from you.

Also, I read that sales in the supplements industry are forecast to climb 39%

from 2007 to 2012 to reach $8.5 billion, so my guess is that the war against

supplements is not going that well.

" PERIOD. end of story. "

This style of discussion has a rudimentary 'force of personality' approach which

can work well with highly charismatic individuals who already have been charming

enough to get their listener on side.

" now there's some good science....morons. "

Oops.

, in my last mail to you, I invited you to " ...build an argument... " and

" ...please come back with why you disagree, with some kind of evidence to

support your point of view. " In my opinion, you haven't really articulated your

views coherently or supported them with anything more convincing than 'I am

right because I say so'. You question the validity of science, which has

plenty, yet offer no validation for your views. I don't really feel you have

done your opinions justice yet. Please could you try again as I am still keen

to learn more about your point of view?

Thanks,

Alistair

http://aging-management.com/ - Optimising Health for Longevity

Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

>

> Look at what 'Big Bad Pharma' has to do to prove a drug works in a Clinical

> Trial

> (http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Clinical_ trial). By the time they have

> finished this process,

> chance and bias have been removed, safety, how the drug works, how the drug

> is processed

> by the body, how the drug works compared to the current gold standard have

> all been

> proved over time and with force of numbers in human subjects.

>

> PLEASE TELL ME YOU'RE JOKING...

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Jim,

Thanks for your mail.

" The argument is not that evidence based medicine is incorrect. The

argument is that allotropic medicine is financially based and

therefore, no longer representative of pure science. "

There have been some comments that science and evidence based medicine are

incorrect which I have tried to address in another post. But, I think the topic

you out line above could be a better discussion.

" Thinks that Allister is most likely allied with Quack Watch... "

No. I think that Quackwatch serves a purpose in that it unashamedly lays into

the many and various snake oil salesmen that populate the internet. I consider

them 'white hat' in that they check for evidence of what is being claimed, but

their methods often come across as blatantly troll-like behaviour. In my view,

they balance out the other wierdos. Personally, I don't like them much as they

don't really win hearts and minds and therefore they don't change views. For

fun, let's say we have a look at their take on one of your favourites, MSM.

Here is their publication on this:

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/msm.html

They conclude " Thus there

is no good reason to use MSM supplements. "

However, if we look on pubmed for MSM, we find that, amongst other human

studies, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial has been

conducted:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16309928?ordinalpos=2 & itool=EntrezSystem2.PEn\

trez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

In the absence of any higher quality evidence, if you suffer from joint pain,

this seems like quite a good reason to take it to me...

All the best,

Alistair

http://aging-management.com/ - Optimising Health for Longevity

Re: Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

Thinks that Allister is most likely allied with Quack Watch...

paul becker wrote:

>if medicine was interested in things that worked for people/animals there'd

>method's in place to fund studies by small business/inventors that couldn't

>possibly afford the current system. the current system is set up to keep

>them out. PERIOD. no matter how well they work, or how safe they are its set

>up to keep competition away from the cartel. if the scientific " method " was

>valid, the war against supplements (CODEX) wouldn't have been dreamed up,

>GMO foods wouldn't have been released into the environment let alone fed to

>people and animals, flu and gardasil vaccines have been laughed at rather

>than rammed down peoples throats. its a crook-ed game. end of story.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Recently, I take a cocktail that is similar to ingredients in LEF's

Mitrochondiral energy Optimizer [ http://tinyurl.com/4mlgoz ] I don't

feel much from the LEF product; however, in the short time I've been

trying this, I experience a strong warmth reaction from my own cocktail.

I'm not sure why my reaction to the LEF produce is less than my own

version, which excludes the SOD enzyme, rhodiolia & benfotiamine. At

least my version is less expensive.

So far, based on my short term & irregular experimentation with the

ingredients, the surge in body heat comes only from a combo of

L-Carnitine, Acetyl L-Carnitine HCL, L-Carnosine, and Alpha Lipoic Acid.

alistair tweed wrote:

>

> . Look at Professor Bruce Ames. He set up a company called Juvenon and

> has done RCTs

> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial

> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial>) in humans

> on alpha lipoic acid (ALA) and acetyl carnitine (ALCAR).

> He isn't the only one.

>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17396066?ordinalpos=2 & itool=EntrezSystem2.PEn\

trez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

>

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17396066?ordinalpos=2 & itool=EntrezSystem2.PE\

ntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum>

>

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11960607?ordinalpos=3 & itool=EntrezSystem2.PEn\

trez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

>

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11960607?ordinalpos=3 & itool=EntrezSystem2.PE\

ntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum>

>

> Prof Ames and others have built an impressive body of evidence to

> support the use of these two supplements in mitigating age-related

> congnitive decline and promoting cardiovascular health. In my opinion,

> ALA & ALCAR should be on every longevity enthusiasts list of important

> supplements. For more information see

> (http://aging-management.com/acetyl_carnitine.php

> <http://aging-management.com/acetyl_carnitine.php>) and

> (http://aging-management.com/alpha_lipoic_acid.php

> <http://aging-management.com/alpha_lipoic_acid.php>)

>

>

[Guest guest]

I take LEF's product. How do the ingredients compare quantity wise in

what you are using?

Steve

Apricot85 wrote:

>

>

> Recently, I take a cocktail that is similar to ingredients in LEF's

> Mitrochondiral energy Optimizer [ http://tinyurl. com/4mlgoz

> <http://tinyurl.com/4mlgoz> ] I don't

> feel much from the LEF product; however, in the short time I've been

> trying this, I experience a strong warmth reaction from my own cocktail.

>

> I'm not sure why my reaction to the LEF produce is less than my own

> version, which excludes the SOD enzyme, rhodiolia & benfotiamine. At

> least my version is less expensive.

>

> So far, based on my short term & irregular experimentation with the

> ingredients, the surge in body heat comes only from a combo of

> L-Carnitine, Acetyl L-Carnitine HCL, L-Carnosine, and Alpha Lipoic Acid.

--

Steve - dudescholar4@...

Take World's Smallest Political Quiz at

http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

" If a thousand old beliefs were ruined on our march

to truth we must still march on. " --Stopford

[Guest guest]

i've got better things to do too.... like making the lame walk (watch my

videos if you don't believe)

my discussion has never satisfied ANY of the definitions of ranting. i just

checked :-)

this is a discussion group, correct?

because no other human being has been able to stimulate the body's ability

to de-differentiate cells into " embryonic-like " (STEM) cells, nor re-grow a

finger tip on an adult hand -which should have landed the man a nobel prize

- had the playing field been level (which it is not and why we are having

this discussion), and because some may not have chosen to read the entire

R.O.Becker article from my earlier post,... i'll simply defer to Becker's

on-point comment (and the fact that he never did win a Nobel though

nominated) as evidence in support of my viewpoint.

" I want lay people to understand that they cannot

automatically accept scientists' pronouncements at face

value, for too often they're self-serving and misleading. I

want our citizens, nonscientists as well as investigators,

to work to change the way research is administered. The

way it's currently funded and evaluated, we're learning

more and more about less and less, and science is becoming

our enemy instead of our friend. " O. Becker

that was 1985.

you lead, and expect us to believe that the scientific method / FDA

approvals process has gotten better and conflict of interest reduced during

the last 2 decades?

you are free to believe what you like,...but i'm afraid that you are very,

very wrong.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Jim <huuman60@...> wrote:

> The argument is not that evidence based medicine is incorrect. The

> argument is that allotropic medicine is financially based and

> therefore, no longer representative of pure science. The same is true

> in the energy field. We have the politicians yelling drill, baby

> drill, while in the background and undetected by mainstream press, we

> have an entire league of science dating back to Nicola Tesla and leading

> up the the current " Cold Fusion " debacle saying that there are alternate

> sources of energy out there that are thousands of times more powerful

> going unnoticed. I would guess, given your past posts, that you side

> with the mainstream on these issues also. You are in the majority, but

> that does not make you correct... now let me get back to running my joe

> cell powered car while you continue your ranting.

>

>

> >

> >

> > We seem to have a highly interesting debate with two opposing camps of

> > pro and anti science and medicine or at least the administrative

> > systems that apply them to society. I would be really happy to see us

> > talk it out in a friendly way and learn from it.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

" i've got better things to do too.... like making the lame walk (watch my

videos if you don't believe) "

At first I thought you were teasing me by telling me you had evidence to support

your claim and then not giving it to me. Then I noticed the link at the bottom

of your mail. It turns out you are a purveyor of high quality " biomagnetic

supplementation " for the discerning consumer and that there are testimonial

videos on your site (http://www.earthpulsetechnologies.com/) that I assume you

are referring to. I notice that on this page there is a caveat " We make NO

medical claims. " which I am struggling to reconcile with your almost biblical

claim above of being able to " make the lame walk " . Anyway, I think this

exciting new development deserves a thread of it's own so I will hold off in

this mail. Never the less, I am giddy with anticipation to watch your footage

and explore your site. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

" my discussion has never satisfied ANY of the definitions of ranting. i just

checked :-) "

Actually, I think it was Jim who was accusing me of ranting. I will let you

make your own judgement on whether I am.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rant#Rant)

" ...because no other human being has been able to stimulate the body's ability

to de-differentiate cells into " embryonic-like " (STEM) cells, nor re-grow a

finger tip on an adult hand -which should have landed the man a nobel prize... "

OK, there are some claims here, but no evidence to support them. You may recall

that I invited you to " ...build an argument... " and " ...please come back

with why you disagree, with some kind of evidence to support your point

of view. " You still haven't really supported your views with anything more

convincing than 'I am

right because Dr Becker says so'.

" i'll simply defer to Becker's on-point comment ... as evidence in support of my

viewpoint. "

Citing someone else's opinion as 'evidence' doesn't really do it for me. But it

is an interesting comment:

" I want lay people to understand that they cannot automatically accept

scientists' pronouncements at face value, for too often they're self-serving and

misleading. "

I agree with this to an extent. Often scientists are sponsored by corporations

and can be under a lot of pressure in what they pronounce. This is actually

more of a problem when they do some research that does not support the position

of the company they work for. This work may get buried and a kind of dishonesty

is created, not by what is said, but by what is not said.

" ...to change the way research is administered. The way it's currently funded

and evaluated... "

One of my earlier posts made this same point.

" ...science is becoming our enemy instead of our friend. "

To come out with a couple of decent points and then use them to conclude with

this is a logical sleight of hand that really doesn't follow at all. Science

can be used to create napalm or codeine, to kill or to cure. Science is a tool,

not a person. It is people and societies that use science in different ways

that can be friendly or not.

" you lead, and expect us to believe that the scientific method / FDA

approvals process has gotten better and conflict of interest reduced during

the last 2 decades? "

I'm here to learn, not lead. I feel I am learning a lot at the moment, so thank

you. :-)

I don't think the scientific method itself has really evolved that much in the

last 2 decades. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method) and

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method). I would be

interested in others opinions on that.

I think we have learnt to apply the scientifc method better with evidence based

medicine (EBM). I think EBM still has a long way to go before it starts to

deliver on longevity medicine. I think we are on the right path and it is in

all of our interests to stick with it and do all we can to support that process.

Regarding conflict of interest within the FDA approvals process. The Clinical

Trial (CT) process has been designed to remove chance and bias from the

equation. This process is still evolving as I indicated in an earlier mail.

The end result is that by the time the drug companies get to re-introduce bias

with sales and marketting techniques, the product they are selling has been

rigourously tested, characterised and safety, how the drug is processed in the

body (pharmacokinetics), how the drug works in the body (pharmacodynamics) are

all demonstrated. That doesn't mean that it won't be misrepresented,

misprescribed or misused or free from side effects in all individuals.

Also, I don't think that the drug companies have it all their own way. If there

are concerns about the vagaries the US medical system, just take a look at the

US legal system.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._Mc%27s_Restaurants). Drug

companies need protection from the Liebecks of this world. To do that, they

need to have products that are proven beyond doubt to work properly. In most

cases, the CT process gives this. But, like everything else, it isn't perfect.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vioxx#Withdrawal)

Whilst people have expressed reservations with this process, no one on

this forum has come up with a convincing suggestion as an alternative. Any

offers?

Best Regards,

Alistair

http://aging-management.com/ - Optimising Health for Longevity

Re: Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

i've got better things to do too.... like making the lame walk (watch my

videos if you don't believe)

my discussion has never satisfied ANY of the definitions of ranting. i just

checked :-)

this is a discussion group, correct?

because no other human being has been able to stimulate the body's ability

to de-differentiate cells into " embryonic-like " (STEM) cells, nor re-grow a

finger tip on an adult hand -which should have landed the man a nobel prize

- had the playing field been level (which it is not and why we are having

this discussion), and because some may not have chosen to read the entire

R.O.Becker article from my earlier post,... i'll simply defer to Becker's

on-point comment (and the fact that he never did win a Nobel though

nominated) as evidence in support of my viewpoint.

" I want lay people to understand that they cannot

automatically accept scientists' pronouncements at face

value, for too often they're self-serving and misleading. I

want our citizens, nonscientists as well as investigators,

to work to change the way research is administered. The

way it's currently funded and evaluated, we're learning

more and more about less and less, and science is becoming

our enemy instead of our friend. " O. Becker

that was 1985.

you lead, and expect us to believe that the scientific method / FDA

approvals process has gotten better and conflict of interest reduced during

the last 2 decades?

you are free to believe what you like,...but i'm afraid that you are very,

very wrong.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Jim <huuman60@...> wrote:

> The argument is not that evidence based medicine is incorrect. The

> argument is that allotropic medicine is financially based and

> therefore, no longer representative of pure science. The same is true

> in the energy field. We have the politicians yelling drill, baby

> drill, while in the background and undetected by mainstream press, we

> have an entire league of science dating back to Nicola Tesla and leading

> up the the current " Cold Fusion " debacle saying that there are alternate

> sources of energy out there that are thousands of times more powerful

> going unnoticed. I would guess, given your past posts, that you side

> with the mainstream on these issues also. You are in the majority, but

> that does not make you correct... now let me get back to running my joe

> cell powered car while you continue your ranting.

>

>

> >

> >

> > We seem to have a highly interesting debate with two opposing camps of

> > pro and anti science and medicine or at least the administrative

> > systems that apply them to society. I would be really happy to see us

> > talk it out in a friendly way and learn from it.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Alister, please see below in CAPS... this will be my last post to this

group on the subject. either check the facts yourself; or forget them at

your own peril.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:12 AM, alistair tweed

<tumble23_2000@...>wrote:

> Hi ,

>

> Thanks for taking the time to reply. THANK YOU.

>

> " i've got better things to do too.... like making the lame walk (watch my

> videos if you don't believe) "

>

> At first I thought you were teasing me by telling me you had evidence to

> support your claim and then not giving it to me. Then I noticed the link at

> the bottom of your mail. It turns out you are a purveyor of high quality

> " biomagnetic supplementation " for the discerning consumer and that there are

> testimonial videos on your site (http://www.earthpulsetechnologies.com/)

>

LINK TO THE VIDEOS RELATING TO THE LAME WALKING ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL; THEY

ARE CASE STUDIES

http://www.earthpulse.net/video-blk.htm

SEE VIDEOS OF PARKINSON'S SUFFERERS PARTICULARLY THE FIRST PORTION OF VIDEO

IN LOWER LEFT OF THE TOP MOST SECTION.

ONE OF THE OTHER PARKINSON'S VIDEOS SHOW'S A MAN THAT COULDN'T SUPPORT HIS

OWN BODY WEIGHT EITHER.

SINCE THIS IS A LONGEVITY DISCUSSION GROUP YOU MIGHT WATCH THE DOG VIDEO AS

IT IS MORE ON POINT WITH LONGEVITY THAN THIS THREAD. IF READERS DON'T

RECOGNIZE THE SIMPLE TRUTH IN MY HYPOTHESIS ON SHORT-CIRCUITING THE AGING

PROCESS, THEN GO WASTE YOUR MONEY ON RESERVATOL. I SAY WASTE BECAUSE YOU

WON'T GET NEARLY THE EFFECT YOU'LL GET WITH MY DEVICE.

MY LONGEVITY - ANTIAGING HYPOTHESIS IS IN THAT VIDEO AND IN THE TOP OF THE

FIRST COLUMN OF COPY AT THE WEBSITE. HTTP://WWW.EARTHPULSETECHNOLOGIES.COM

> that I assume you are referring to. I notice that on this page there is a

> caveat " We make NO medical claims. " which I am struggling to reconcile with

> your almost biblical claim above of being able to " make the lame walk " .

>

I DON'T CLAIM ANYTHING AT ALL BUT THAT THE USER HAS 90 DAYS TO SEE

SATISFACTORY PHYSICAL AND/OR MENTAL PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT AND BETTER

SLEEP. IS THAT A MEDICAL CLAIM???

Anyway, I think this exciting new development deserves a thread of it's own

> so I will hold off in this mail. Never the less, I am giddy with

> anticipation to watch your footage and explore your site. Thank you for

> bringing it to my attention.

>

I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR QUESTIONS SHOULD A THREAD EMERGE. ITS BEEN WEEKS AND

NOT A PEEK. THIS GROUP IS A WASTE OF TIME.

SEE http://www.superhumanradio.com/core/ep2.htm TO LISTEN TO ATHLETES

DISCUSS THEIR AMAZING CHANGES.

I READ PEARSON AND SHAW'S LIFE EXTENSION WHEN IT FIRST CAME OUT AND FOLLOW

UP " COMPANION " I BELIEVE IT WAS CALLED, WHEN IT CAME OUT. AS WELL AS THE

SMART-DRUGS SERIES. I SPENT WELL OVER TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ON LONGEVITY

SMART-DRUG SUPPLEMENTS OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS. MY DEVICE BLOWS WAY ANYTHING

I'VE EVER COME ACROSS AND WORKS FOR 90 % OF THE PEOPLE WHO TRY IT. THE OTHER

10% RETURN IT FOR REFUND.

THE LINK FOR BECKER PATENT AND FINGER REGENERATION WAS IN THE FIRST EMAIL.

HERE IT IS AGAIN. THE PHOTOS CAN NOT BE VIEWED AT THE PATENT WEBSITE. SEE

FOR YOURSELF BY TRYING TO VIEW THE PATENT IMAGES THERE. YOU WON'T. TO SEE

THEM GO HERE:

http://www.earthpulsetechnologies.com/Becker.htm

PATENT IMAGES BECAME UNAVAILABLE AT USPTO SOMEWHERE AROUND 2001.

FORTUNATELY I DOWNLOADED THE PHOTO'S PRIOR TO THE CHANGE. I BELIEVE THE

CHANGE WAS DELIBERATELY MADE TO HIDE THE BALL AND TO HELP FOSTER THE STEM

CELL INDUSTRY. YOU DON'T NEED IN VITRO STEM CELLS IF YOU CAN CREATE THEM

IN-VIVO W/ SILVER AND ELECTRIC CURRENT.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT WITH THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD BUT WITH HOW THAT METHOD IS

> ADMINISTERED AND INTERPRETED BY THE FOOD AND DRUG CZARS IN THE MATTER OF

> COMPETING WITH BIG PHARMA; AS WELL AS THE MEANS BY WHICH THEY SET THE BAR SO

> HIGH (READ AS EXPENSIVE) THAT IT LEAVES HUGE BREAKTHROUGHS BY SMALL

> COMPANIES OUT IN THE COLD AND UNDEVELOPED (AND LARGELY UNAVAILABLE).

>

> MY FATHER DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT SANDYK AND/ OR ANNINOS

> FOR HIS PARKINSON'S/ALZHEIMER'S BECAUSE THE DR.S NEVER GOT ANY PRESS

> COVERAGE AND WE NEVER HEARD ABOUT IT. I'D BEEN READING PEMF/ELECTRIC STIM

> STUDIES FOR 5 YEARS AND NEVER UNCOVERED THE SANDYK / ANNINOS RESEARCH UNTIL

> HE WAS ALREADY DEAD 6 MONTHS. THEIR RESEARCH IS FOR REAL BUT SWEPT UNDER THE

> CARPET. ANYONE WITH PARKINSON'S OR EPILEPSY, MAYBE ALZHEIMER'S SHOULD SEEK

> THEM FIRST.

>

> TALK ABOUT EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE'S FAILURE. CHRIST IF THOSE TWO DR.S

> HAVEN'T PRODUCED ENOUGH EVIDENCE FOR A FIRST LINE DEFENSE AGAINST A

> DIAGNOSIS OF PARKINSON'S AND EPILEPSY, THEN ALLOPATHIC MEDICINE'S " DO NO

> HARM " IS A COMPLETE SHAM AND UTTER FAILURE...AND SO IS EBM. IF DRUGS WERE

> THE ONLY WAY TO GO, I'D RATHER BE DEAD THAN LINGER WITH PARKINSON'S FOR

> TWENTY YEARS ON DRUGS THAT HAVE LESS AND LESS EFFECT AND HORRIBLE SIDE

> EFFECTS.

>

>

> " my discussion has never satisfied ANY of the definitions of ranting. i

> just checked :-) "

>

> Actually, I think it was Jim who was accusing me of ranting. I will let you

> make your own judgement on whether I am. (

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rant#Rant)

>

You may recall that I invited you to " ...build an argument... " and

> " ...please come back

>

>

> with why you disagree, with some kind of evidence to support your point

> of view. " You still haven't really supported your views with anything more

> convincing than 'I am

> right because Dr Becker says so'.

>

>

> AGAIN, TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT HE WAS ABLE TO ACHIEVE AT THE LINK ABOVE AND

> COME UP WITH A CREDIBLE HYPOTHESIS AS TO WHY HIS RESEARCH WAS SWEPT UNDER

> THE CARPET, AND WHY HE FAILED TO WIN A NOBEL PRIZE IN MEDICINE. WHY WASN'T

> THE FINGER ON THE COVER OF TIME OR NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE? HIS WARNING ABOUT THE

> DANGERS OF EMF FROM POWER-LINES AND WIRELESS CAUSED HIM TO LOSE ALL HIS

> FUNDING BACK IN THE 1980'S AND WOKE HIM UP TO HOW SCIENCE HAD BEEN

> HIJACKED BY PRIVATE INTEREST. EVERYTHING HE WARNED ABOUT EMF IS COMING TO

> PASS AND IS BEING PROVEN; AND IS STILL SYSTEMATICALLY AND CATEGORICALLY

> DENIED BY GOVERNMENT SCIENTISTS.

> " i'll simply defer to Becker's on-point comment ... as evidence in support

> of my viewpoint. "

> Citing someone else's opinion as 'evidence' doesn't really do it for me.

> But it is an interesting comment:

>

> " I want lay people to understand that they cannot automatically accept

> scientists' pronouncements at face value, for too often they're self-serving

> and misleading. "

>

> I agree with this to an extent. Often scientists are sponsored by

> corporations and can be under a lot of pressure in what they pronounce.

>

> .

>

> A LOT OF PRESSURE?... I'D SAY AT TIMES ITS MORE LIKE PUTTING A GUN TO

> THEIR HEAD.

>

> This is actually more of a problem when they do some research that does

> not support the position of the company they work for. This work may get

> buried and a kind of dishonesty is created, not by what is said, but by what

> is not said.

>

>

> EXACTLY. THAT IS MY POINT. THE LAST ENTITY THAT SHOULD PROVE SAFETY IS THE

> COMPANY WHO IS TRYING TO MARKET THE DRUG.

>

> IF A SMALL MANUFACTURER SKEWED RESULTS THEY'D BE PUT BEHIND BARS.

> EVIDENTLY, IF YOU'RE FROM MERK, YOU CAN KILL PEOPLE BY HEART ATTACK, HIDE

> DATA THAT SHOWS YOU KNEW IT COULD CAUSE HEART ATTACK IN CARDIOVASCULAR

> COMPROMISED PATIENTS, AND ITS NOT MANSLAUGHTER OR EVEN NEGLIGENCE.

> " ...to change the way research is administered. The way it's currently

> funded and evaluated... "

>

> One of my earlier posts made this same point.

>

>

> THANK YOU.

> " ...science is becoming our enemy instead of our friend. "

>

> To come out with a couple of decent points and then use them to conclude

> with this is a logical sleight of hand that really doesn't follow at all.

> Science can be used to create napalm or codeine, to kill or to cure. Science

> is a tool, not a person. It is people and societies that use science in

> different ways that can be friendly or not.

>

\

> I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING BUT IF YOU MADE THAT POINT, I DON'T THINK YOU

> FULLY UNDERSTAND MINE OR THE ORIGINAL POST THAT STARTED THIS THREAD. IT WAS

> STARTED BY CALLING THE FEDS / FDA / DRUG COMPANIES " TERRORISTS " FOR THE WAY

> THEY " ADMINISTER " THE BUSINESS OF MEDICINE. YOU MAY GO HERE TO READ A PIECE

> ABOUT THEIR NAZI TACTICS HERE http://www.naturalnews.com/024567.html

>

>

>

> " you lead, and expect us to believe that the scientific method / FDA

> approvals process has gotten better and conflict of interest reduced during

> the last 2 decades? "

>

> '

> I'm here to learn, not lead. I feel I am learning a lot at the moment, so

> thank you. :-)

>

>

>

>

>

> I don't think the scientific method itself has really evolved that much in

> the last 2 decades. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method) and (

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method). I would be

> interested in others opinions on that.

>

>

>

>

> I think we have learnt to apply the scientifc method better with evidence

> based medicine (EBM). I think EBM still has a long way to go before it

> starts to deliver on longevity medicine. I think we are on the right path

> and it is in all of our interests to stick with it and do all we can to

> support that process. YOU CAN BEGIN BY TAKING A LOOK AT THE 14 YEAR OLD DOG

> ON THE VIDEO PAGE. SHE LEARNED TO DIVE IN THE POOL BY HERSELF THIS YEAR. I'D

> SAY GROWING YOUNGER IS NO LONGER JUST A CUTE SAYING.

>

>

> Regarding conflict of interest within the FDA approvals process. The

> Clinical Trial (CT) process has been designed to remove chance and bias from

> the equation.

>

>

>

DESIGNED DECADES AGO FOR THAT PURPOSE YES. BUT INTERPRETED MODERNLY WITH

> COMPLETELY DIFFERENT GOALS AND ADMINISTERED BY NAZI TACTICS. ALLOWING WIDE

> LATITUDE AND NO ACCOUNTABILITY TO BIG PHARMA PUTTING PEOPLE ON SEVERAL TYPES

> OF DRUGS FOR LIFE AND BIG WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATIONS THAT

> FACILITATE HOLDING A MICROWAVE DEVICE TO THE BRAIN OR ERRECTING MICROWAVE

> MASTS NEXT TO SCHOOLS OR IN THE MIDST OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

>

> This process is still evolving as I indicated in an earlier mail. The end

> result is that by the time the drug companies get to re-introduce bias with

> sales and marketting techniques, the product they are selling has been

> rigourously tested, characterised and safety, how the drug is processed in

> the body (pharmacokinetics), how the drug works in the body

> (pharmacodynamics) are all demonstrated. That doesn't mean that it won't be

> misrepresented, misprescribed or misused or free from side effects in all

> individuals.

>

> IF YOU MEANT " MADE TO APPEAR " AS SAFE I AGREE. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT WHAT

> YOU MEANT AND I QUESTION WHY YOU RIGOROUSLY DEFEND A SYSTEM THAT IS NOT

> WORKING.

>

> YOU ARE IN INVESTMENT BANKING; AS A BANKER, DID YOU ACCURATELY PERCEIVE

> DERIVATIVES AS DANGEROUS WHEN YOU FIRST LEARNED OF THEM?

>

> AS FAR AS I KNOW DEPRENYL IS OF THE MOST POTENT OF THE PHARMACOLOGICAL

> SUBSTANCES FOR LONGEVITY AND LOOK WHAT THEY DID TO THE INVENTOR OF THE

> CITRATE FORM. HE'S STILL IN JAIL BECAUSE OF WHAT?...EXACTLY? SUPPOSEDLY

> PATENT INFRINGEMENT FIRST, THEN FAILURE TO STOP MARKETING HIS INVENTION

> AFTER THREATENED...BASICALLY THEY JAILED HIM AND THREW AWAY THE KEY. THAT

> WAS NEARLY 8 YEARS AGO. THE PUNISHMENT DOESN'T FIT THE CRIME AND IS ALL PART

> OF THIS PROBLEM.

>

>

>

> Also, I don't think that the drug companies have it all their own way. I

> DISAGREE. THEY GET IT NEARLY EXACTLY THE WAY THEY WANT IT. If there are

> concerns about the vagaries the US medical system, just take a look at the

> US legal system. (

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._Mc%27s_Restaurants). I'M AN

> ATTORNEY LICENSED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. WHEN I LEARNED THE LEGAL

> SYSTEM WAS BOGUS (ABOUT THE TIME I RECOGNIZED PHARMACOLOGICAL MEDICINE WAS

> BOGUS), I CHANGED THE COURSE OF MY LIFE AND BEGAN THIS JOURNEY. AT 50 Y.O.

> AFTER SLEEPING IN THE FIELD OF MY DEVICE NIGHTLY FOR ABOUT 8 YEARS, I'M FAR

> MORE FIT THAN I WAS 25 YEARS AGO AND I TRAIN AT LEASET 75% LESS. ACCUMULATED

> SPORTS INJURIES ARE NEARLY 100% RESOLVED. MY SHOULDER WAS DISLOCATED 22

> TIMES IN 17 YEARS. IT IS RESOLVED WITH 98% OF ORIGINAL ROTATION AS COMPARED

> TO THE " GOOD " SHOULDER.

>

> Drug companies need protection from the Liebecks of this world...

>

> .

>

> YOU DON'T DO THAT BY GRANTING DRUG COMPANIES IMMUNITY WHERE ITS OBVIOUS

> THEY SKEWED THEIR RESULTS AND FAILED TO ADEQUATELY REPORT ADVERSE EVENTS.

>

> To do that, they need to have products that are proven beyond doubt to work

> properly. In most cases, the CT process gives this. But, like everything

> else, it isn't perfect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vioxx#Withdrawal)

>

> I'D SAY FAR-FROM PERFECT IS MORE ACCURATE DESCRIPTION. BUT THE WORSE

> PROBLEM IS THE TREND. THE TREND IS WORSE NOT BETTER. AND NOT TESTING

> SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH OTHER DRUGS THAT ARE COMMONLY PRESCRIBED IS ANOTHER

> UNADDRESSED PROBLEM.

>

> Whilst people have expressed reservations with this process, no one on

> this forum has come up with a convincing suggestion as an alternative. Any

> offers? IF THE GOVERNMENT CAN PRINT MONEY AT WILL, AND I THINK THEY'VE

> PROVEN RECENTLY THAT THEY CAN, OR THINK THEY CAN; OR THINK THEY CAN PROVIDE

> A 700 BILLION BAIL-OUT OF THEIR BOYZ CLUB BANKERS' MISGUIDED / FRAUDULENT

> ACTIVITIES (UNDER THE GUISE OF FIXING BAD MORTGAGE DEBT), THEN THEY CAN PAY

> TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS PROCESS IS BASED ON FACTS AND TRUE DATA. AND INSURE

> THAT FRAUD IS DEALT WITH IN " REAL " TERMS, NOT WRIST SLAPS. THE PROBLEM IS

> THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THEY SIMPLY ARE TRYING

> TO CULL THE POPULATION. BUT THAT'S AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT DISCUSSION.

>

> .

>

> PHARMACOLOGICAL BASED MEDICINE IS THE SAME AS FINANCIAL DERIVATIVES. THEY

> SOUND SOOOOOO GOOD, BUT NEITHER CURES ANYTHING. BOTH ARE PROBABLY DEADLY

> LONG-TERM.

>

> TAKE IRRADIATED / GMO FOODS (BOTH FDA APPROVED BY THE WAY) GIVE THEM 5

> YEARS ON THE SHELVES AND PEOPLE WILL BE DROPPING LIKE FLIES.

>

> YOUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT WORK. THE FDA AT WORK. END OF STORY. END OF THE

> DISCUSSION FROM MY END. REALLY I HAVE BIGGER RESPONSIBILITY THAN TO SPEND

> MORE TIME BEATING THIS TO DEATH.

>

>

> KIND REGARDS, PAUL

> Best Regards,

>

> Alistair

>

> http://aging-management.com/ - Optimising Health for Longevity

>

> Re: Re: SCIENTIFIC TERRORISM [pharmaceuticals]

>

> i've got better things to do too.... like making the lame walk (watch my

> videos if you don't believe)

> my discussion has never satisfied ANY of the definitions of ranting. i just

> checked :-)

>

> this is a discussion group, correct?

>

> because no other human being has been able to stimulate the body's ability

> to de-differentiate cells into " embryonic-like " (STEM) cells, nor re-grow a

> finger tip on an adult hand -which should have landed the man a nobel prize

> - had the playing field been level (which it is not and why we are having

> this discussion), and because some may not have chosen to read the entire

> R.O.Becker article from my earlier post,... i'll simply defer to Becker's

> on-point comment (and the fact that he never did win a Nobel though

> nominated) as evidence in support of my viewpoint.

>

> " I want lay people to understand that they cannot

>

> automatically accept scientists' pronouncements at face

>

> value, for too often they're self-serving and misleading. I

>

> want our citizens, nonscientists as well as investigators,

>

> to work to change the way research is administered. The

>

> way it's currently funded and evaluated, we're learning

>

> more and more about less and less, and science is becoming

>

> our enemy instead of our friend. " O. Becker

>

> that was 1985.

>

> you lead, and expect us to believe that the scientific method / FDA

> approvals process has gotten better and conflict of interest reduced during

> the last 2 decades?

>

> you are free to believe what you like,...but i'm afraid that you are very,

> very wrong.

>

> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Jim

<huuman60@...<huuman60%40comcast.net>>

> wrote:

>

> > The argument is not that evidence based medicine is incorrect. The

> > argument is that allotropic medicine is financially based and

> > therefore, no longer representative of pure science. The same is true

> > in the energy field. We have the politicians yelling drill, baby

> > drill, while in the background and undetected by mainstream press, we

> > have an entire league of science dating back to Nicola Tesla and leading

> > up the the current " Cold Fusion " debacle saying that there are alternate

> > sources of energy out there that are thousands of times more powerful

> > going unnoticed. I would guess, given your past posts, that you side

> > with the mainstream on these issues also. You are in the majority, but

> > that does not make you correct... now let me get back to running my joe

> > cell powered car while you continue your ranting.

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > We seem to have a highly interesting debate with two opposing camps of

> > > pro and anti science and medicine or at least the administrative

> > > systems that apply them to society. I would be really happy to see us

> > > talk it out in a friendly way and learn from it.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >