1

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why are so many cancer drugs Snake Oil?

« on: 29/10/2017 19:57:46 »

Globalization may even promote cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299207/

The problem with this way of thinking is that you can lay many of the worlds ills against many factors without identifying the root cause and hence tackling the problem. Eg, in the paper you quote, the root cause is substance abuse - tobacco and alcohol. You could by the same logic blame globalisation for the Irish potato famine rather than reliance on monoculture.
Similarly you might single out exploration, eg discovery of the americas, rather than globalisation as promoting cancer.

Federal authorities arrested the billionaire founder and owner of Insys Therapeutics Thursday on charges of bribing doctors and pain clinics into prescribing the company’s fentanyl product to their patients,” reports the Daily Caller News Foundation, one of the best sources of real journalism in America today.

Addictive drugs that include opioids, we now know, are claiming over 64,000 lives a year in the United States alone.

From the DCNF:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) charged John Kapoor, 74, and seven other current and former executives at the pharmaceutical company with racketeering for a leading a national conspiracy through bribery and fraud to coerce the illegal distribution of the company’s fentanyl spray, which is intended for use as a pain killer by cancer patients. The company’s stock prices fell more than 20 percent following the arrests, according to the New York Post.

More than 20,000 Americans died of synthetic opioid overdoses last year, and millions are addicted to opioids. And yet some medical professionals would rather take advantage of the addicts than try to help them...

NEVER TRUST A DOCTOR.THEY ARE ON THE TAKE.

2

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Can chemotherapy cause cancer?

« on: 12/08/2017 12:07:37 »

The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory smear phrase thrown at someone in an attempt to paint them as a lunatic. It's a tactic frequently used by modern-day thought police in a desperate attempt to demand "Don't go there!"

 a "conspiracy" is simply when two or more people plot to commit an act of deceit (or a crime).

Nice try
However the grown-ups will realise that
" conspiracy theory"- which is what you said
 is not the same as " conspiracy " which is something else.

Did you somehow think we wouldn't recognise that you moved the goalposts there?

Well people like you always are always disparaging anything which is different or might change the status quo.

This is usually due to personal gain of some or inducement.I would not be surprised you were a 'consultant' to this or that as so many are nowadays.

The other reason would be impose your moribund viewpoints on others.

Not much different from religious zealots.

 People who are not skeptics of "official stories" tend to be dull-minded. To believe everything these institutions tell you is a sign of mental retardation. To ask questions, on the other hand, is a sign of higher intelligence and wisdom.

What is a "conspiracy theorist?

The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories.

The idea, then, that there is no such thing as a conspiracy is flatly ludicrous. And people who condemn others as being "conspiracy theorists" only make themselves look mentally impaired.

Our modern world which is full of collusion and conspiracy -- and yet you somehow DENY the existence of any conspiracies at all -- is an admission of a damaged brain. Of course there are conspiracies, and when people analyze those conspiracies, they are "theorizing" about what happened. This is, in fact, precisely the job that police detectives and law enforcement agents carry out almost daily.

Most police detectives are, in reality, "conspiracy investigators" and analysts.

3

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Can chemotherapy cause cancer?

« on: 11/08/2017 21:46:22 »

Well nearly every conspiracy theory has COME TRUE.

Name a few.
Here are plenty to choose from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is a derogatory smear phrase thrown at someone in an attempt to paint them as a lunatic. It's a tactic frequently used by modern-day thought police in a desperate attempt to demand "Don't go there!"

 a "conspiracy" is simply when two or more people plot to commit an act of deceit (or a crime).

Thus, when three hoodlums plan to rob the local Quickie Mart, they are engaged in a "conspiracy" and will likely be charged with a "conspiracy to commit armed robbery" in addition to the different crime of "armed robbery." The fact that they planned it with several friends makes it a "conspiracy" worthy of additional felony charges, you see. When these charges are brought up in court, the judge doesn't look at the prosecutor and say, "You are a conspiracy theorist!" That would be absurd.

4

General Science / Re: Why are builders using small bricks?

« on: 10/08/2017 21:42:38 »

i can lift a brick with a single hand 6 inch by 4 inch by 5 inch easily.bricks are not very heavy.
also it is absurd to state that you need to lift a brick.

you simply slide the brick from a suitable tray into the appropriate position.

keyword SLIDE.

small bricks suffer from spalling which makes them weaker.

This you might not understand.i will spell it out for you.
suppose you cut 1 inch of an elephant will be unharmed.
you cut 1 inch of a hamster it will be fatal.

Sliding sounds like it would come with its own complications. You now need more equipment than before in order to lift the bricks to a suitable height. A heavy brick wouldn't exactly be low friction either, so using such a system sounds like it would be slower than the conventional method. Accidentally dropping bricks on the ground would be a problem too, since now they are so heavy that only a machine (or several people working together) can lift even one of them. If you are suggesting making bricks as many times larger as elephants are than hamsters, these problems become greatly magnified.

I am afraid you are rather limited in your thinking and suffer from failure to integrate knowledge.

how did the ancients manage to build castles and vast palaces and monuments and big buildings out of large marble/granite blocks? all without the benefit of this expensive machinery of which you talk of.

You need to think and not join the herd in trying to beat me up.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Why doesn't NASA send microscopes to Mars?

« on: 22/07/2017 22:50:00 »

microscopes have come a long way since you were at college...the latest ones can do this automatically since year 2007.

Yes, do please tell us where we can get one, because at the moment I'm wasting a fortune in my lab paying expensive humans to prep gram stains on clinical samples. I'll go and buy one and put it to work immediately.

i just looked up automated microscopes with thousands of results.see when you save money using my idea could you keep half the savings and send me the remainder as i feel without my help you would still be doing old fashioned things.

you dont to do staining nonsense either.so old fashioned.

 Standard brightfield microscopy relies upon light from the lamp source being gathered by the substage condenser and shaped into a cone whose apex is focused at the plane of the specimen. Specimens are seen because of their ability to change the speed and the path of the light passing through them. This ability is dependent upon the refractive index and the opacity of the specimen. To see a specimen in a brightfield microscope, the light rays passing through it must be changed sufficiently to be able to interfere with each other which produces contrast (differences in light intensities) and, thereby, build an image. If the specimen has a refractive index too similar to the surrounding medium between the microscope stage and the objective lens, it will not be seen. To visualize biological materials well, the materials must have this inherent contrast caused by the proper refractive indices or be artificially stained. These limitations require instructors to find naturally high contrast materials or to enhance contrast by staining them which often requires killing them. Adequately visualizing transparent living materials or thin unstained specimens is not possible with a brightfield microscope.

Darkfield microscopy relies on a different illumination system. Rather than illuminating the sample with a filled cone of light, the condenser is designed to form a hollow cone of light. The light at the apex of the cone is focused at the plane of the specimen; as this light moves past the specimen plane it spreads again into a hollow cone. The objective lens sits in the dark hollow of this cone; although the light travels around and past the objective lens, no rays enter it (Fig. 1). The entire field appears dark when there is no sample on the microscope stage; thus the name darkfield microscopy. When a sample is on the stage, the light at the apex of the cone strikes it. The image is made only by those rays scattered by the sample and captured in the objective lens (note the rays scattered by the specimen in Figure 1). The image appears bright against the dark background. This situation can be compared to the glittery appearance of dust particles in a dark room illuminated by strong shafts of light coming in through a side window. The dust particles are very small, but are easily seen when they scatter the light rays. This is the working principle of darkfield microscopy and explains how the image of low contrast material is created: an object will be seen against a dark background if it scatters light which is captured with the proper device such as an objective lens.

The highest quality darkfield microscopes are equipped with specialized costly condensers constructed only for darkfield application. This darkfield effect can be achieved in a brightfield microscope, however, by the addition of a simple "stop". The stop is a piece of opaque material placed below the substage condenser; it blocks out the center of the beam of light coming from the base of the microscope and forms the hollow cone of light needed for darkfield illumination. ...


http://www.nature.com/nprot/journal/v7/n9/fig_tab/nprot.2012.096_T1.html?foxtrotcallback=true

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Is it possible to name a star?

« on: 22/07/2017 22:32:21 »

Madhu asks:


Just a silly question. Can we have a star named after us? (Probably if I pay?)
Who names the stars and what naming convention is followed?

Can you help?

=

I would like to have a a galaxy named after me.

7

General Science / Re: Can terrorism activity trigger our collective consciousness?

« on: 04/07/2017 21:20:51 »

The Quebec terrorist attack has affected my collective consciousness. I felt sad about how one can radicalise itself to commit violent acts on its own people. 

Can terrorism activity provoke a strong emotional response to awaken the "collective consciousness"? Or can the medias amplify the phenomenon?

Do we have a "collective mind" and is this evidence of brain-to-brain connectivity ?

Across the country, opioids killed more than 33,000 people in 2016, more than any year on record, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.NO WALL TO WALL COVERAGE ABOUT THIS? because it would hurt big business=big pharma.The media is controlled by big pharma who spend billions on advertising chemical concoctions and would pull the adverts and money if anything is said about it on the mainstream media.

Terrorism is the least cause of death but gets maximum media coverage. Heart disease is the biggest cause of death but gets the least amount of media coverage.

Your perception of reality is being distorted by the Money Making Media.Just look at them salivating.

Just look at you salivating like Pavlov's dogs when the bell was rung.

Heart Disease,Dementia and Alzheimer disease was the leading causes of death in 2016. There were 529,655 deaths registered in England and Wales in 2015. As previously reported in Deaths registered in England and Wales, 2015, at the broad disease group level, cancer was the most common cause of death in 2015 (27.9% of all deaths registered). This was followed by circulatory diseases, such as heart diseases and strokes (26.2%). At a lower level, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) uses a grouping based on that developed by the World Health Organisation (WHO) which allows mortality patterns in England and Wales to be analysed. The top 5 leading causes of death, using this grouping, account for 41.5% of all deaths registered in England and Wales in 2016.

Leading causes of death revealed: Cancer accounts for almost a third of cases while heart disease is the biggest killer of men and dementia in women

    For both sexes, lung cancer was the most deadly type if the disease
    Dementia now claims the lives of more than 51,000 women and men a year
    Dementia and Alzheimer's kill three times more women than breast cancer
    Now the second biggest killer of men, with most dying of heart disease 

Dementia, including Alzheimer's disease, has overtaken heart disease as the leading cause of death in England and Wales, latest figures reveal.

Last year, more than 61,000 people died of dementia - 11.6% of all recorded deaths.

Terrorism is the least cause of death but gets maximum media coverage. Heart disease is the biggest cause of death but gets the least amount of media coverage. Your perception of reality is being distorted by the Money Making Media.