The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Kangaroony on December 10, 2021, 10:46:43 PM
-
I've checked the Wiki, and couldn't find any mention of accredited scientists (of the era)
who were actually involved in the formation of and/or operations of the Society. The only
mention, by name, of anybody connected with it was Samuel Birley Rowbotham who was
merely a preacher, and who had no scientific qualifications, despite falsely styling himself
as Dr. Rowbotham.
In fact, Rowbotham's original FE map from around 1860 still forms the basis of current FE
maps—with virtually no amendments since that time, despite massive advances in the
sciences, with a commensurate understanding of the Earth's exact geometry and its relation
to the sun and the rest of our solar system.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a1/Rowbotham%27s_flat_Earth_map.jpg)
So my question is: Apart from the dubious Rowbotham, what were the names of its other
board and/or governing members? Likewise, who formed the board of its 1956 iteration, the
International Flat Earth Research Society? Were its founders, William Shenton and William
Mills technologists—of any profession. Or just fanciful dreamers?
And why was the Universal Zetetic Society so shrouded in mystery?
-
The only
mention, by name, of anybody connected with it was Samuel Birley Rowbotham who was
merely a preacher, and who had no scientific qualifications, despite falsely styling himself
as Dr. Rowbotham.
False.
Rowbotham was a Dr twice over. He was a doctor in that he was a qualified physician ... and he was also a doctor in that he had a PhD from the University of Edinburgh for his work on the effects of Phosphorus on the human brain. From that he invented a soft drink that he called Dr Birley's Phosphorus Tonic which was a fore runner for Dr Pepper, (They ripped his recipe off after his death). He used the money from his sales of this tonic to found the society and died a very rich man indeed. I've done a large amount of research myself into where Rowbotham might have got the human brains he needed at Edinburgh University during that time, and they undoubtedly had to come from Burke and Hare.
But hey, believe the idle drivel that Christine Garwood wrote instead if you like. She's a terrible old hack that did very little research before writing her book. Consequently she gets most things wrong.
-
The only
mention, by name, of anybody connected with it was Samuel Birley Rowbotham who was
merely a preacher, and who had no scientific qualifications, despite falsely styling himself
as Dr. Rowbotham.
False.
Rowbotham was a Dr twice over. He was a doctor in that he was a qualified physician ... and he was also a doctor in that he had a PhD from the University of Edinburgh for his work on the effects of Phosphorus on the human brain. From that he invented a soft drink that he called Dr Birley's Phosphorus Tonic which was a fore runner for Dr Pepper, (They ripped his recipe off after his death). He used the money from his sales of this tonic to found the society and died a very rich man indeed. I've done a large amount of research myself into where Rowbotham might have got the human brains he needed at Edinburgh University during that time, and they undoubtedly had to come from Burke and Hare.
But hey, believe the idle drivel that Christine Garwood wrote instead if you like. She's a terrible old hack that did very little research before writing her book. Consequently she gets most things wrong.
- What makes you think Garwood did very little research?
- What makes you think Dr. Pepper ripped off Rowbotham?
As in, what's your evidence for these claims?
Here's a neat pamphlet regarding Birley Elixirs from back in the day. Seems pretty snake-oil salesman-y to me:
(https://i.imgur.com/RAq6Wwb.png)
https://archive.org/details/b30470961/page/4/mode/2up
-
- What makes you think Garwood did very little research?
I've read her book. Its shit and full of absolute fantasies.
- What makes you think Dr. Pepper ripped off Rowbotham?
We compared the recipies from Dr Birleys and the original Dr Pepper. They are almost identical ... but Birley precedes Dr Pepper by some years.
As in, what's your evidence for these claims?
The recipes ::).
Here's a neat pamphlet regarding Birley Elixirs from back in the day. Seems pretty snake-oil salesman-y to me:
(https://i.imgur.com/RAq6Wwb.png)
https://archive.org/details/b30470961/page/4/mode/2up
All soft drinks were snake oily back then. This is before Coca Cola (also derived from the same phosphoric acid base as Dr Birley's). They were sold in a chemists and marketed as a cure all. But they were basically phosphoric acid, tartaric acid and a shit ton of sugar so that it doesn't taste vile.
Dr Birley's recipe is as follows
Sugar (partly as " invert sugar ") ... 74 parts
Tartaric acid ... ... ... ... 1.15
Phosphoric acid ... ... ... 0.07 part
Alcohol ... ... ... trace
Water to ... ... ... ... 100 fluid parts
Later these products would be carbonated as carbonation gave drinkers a sense that the drink was full of vitality. It is decades and decades before everyone realises they are junk food.
There is a book here on his tonic.
https://wellcomecollection.org/works/b92wbkxn
Maybe an admin should add it to our library?
Oh, and some Dr Pepper from back in the day
(http://ideasinfood.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/29/drpeppersyrup.jpg)
Dr Birley died in 1884. Dr Pepper is 'invented' in 1885 marketed in the exact same way.
-
A number of doctors at the time agreed that phosphorous had apparent health benefits.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Samuel_Rowbotham
Phosphorous has a rich history. Throughout the 1800's higher doses of phosphorous was closely studied by the medical community for its medicinal benefits. Phosphorous was said to be beneficial and curative for a number of ailments.
Neuralgia
From a medical text: Phosphorous in the Treatment of Nerualgia (1875) (https://books.google.com/books?id=IhlFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA241#v=onepage&q&f=false) in Transactions of the American Neurological Association, Volume 1, we find that Phosphorous was highly beneficial for treating Neuralgia:
“ Compared with the whole range of diseases in which phosphorus is said to have been tested, the list of affections in which it has been proven to be beneficial that I have to offer covers a narrow field.
In the relief of the cruel pains to which the cranial nerves are so commonly subject, and in the cure of the neuralgic condition itself, I have found phosphorus deserving of all the praise that has been bestowed upon it. Its curative effect upon the pure neuralgias, especially of the trigeminus, almost establishes its right to the title of a specific against this particular affection. (A glance at the condensed table of results will show, without the necessity of repetition, the number of cases of trifacial or trigeminal neuralgia, etc., treated, whether complicated or uncomplicated, and the result.) In the large number of these trigeminal cases, the cure or relief followed the administration of the drug very speedily, often in twenty-four to forty-eight hours, and the same remark applies to the cases of cervico-occipital neuralgia. ”
A list of cases appears here (https://books.google.com/books?id=IhlFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA237#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Cholera
Phosphorous has also been used to treat Cholera, producing success in even "advanced stages of Cholara, usually regarded as hopeless". From Materia Medica and Therapeutics (1857) on p.649 we see (https://books.google.com/books?id=atPGizuKTYoC&pg=PA649#v=onepage&q&f=false):
“ Phosphorus has been employed successfully by an English physician, in the advanced stage of cholera, usually regarded as hopeless. In 1833 he published his experience with this medicine in the London Lancet, and in the same journal for February, 1850, he reiterates the same views. His reliance has been chiefly on the following prescription:
R.—Phosphor. ӡSS;
Cer. alb. ӡSS.
With the aid of enough water to avoid combustion, rub these articles well together, divide the mass into ten pills, which should be kept in a small bottle containing pure water.
In far-advanced cases, these pills were the only reliable medicine. One was given every ten minutes, followed by a little water. Three pills usually sufficed to arrest the cramps, the vomiting and purging. In milder cases, the first medicine given was as follows:—
R.—Nit. acid fort., from three to five drops;
Tinct. opii, four to eight drops;
Syrup croci, a drachm;
Aquæ, an ounce and a half.
Mix for a draught, which very frequently answered the end in view. If this failed, the pills were administered as above stated.
Some six or eight cases are detailed to show the value of this practice. (See London Lancet, February, 1850.) ”
Fevers, Delerium, Tremors
In Materia Medica and Therapeutics (https://books.google.com/books?id=atPGizuKTYoC&pg=PA649#v=onepage&q&f=false) Dr. Mitchell relays the following accounts:
“ A considerable number of cases reported by Dr. Wolff, in 1793, would seem to show the good effects of phosphoric ether in low fevers attended with delirium, tremors, feeble pulse, petecchiæ, &c. Five drops of a very strong solution were given every three hours. The pulse improved after a few doses had been given, and equable heat pervaded the system, a pleasant moisture covered the skin, and the delirium subsided. Much testimony of a similar nature could be adduced; and there can be no doubt that salutary results have followed in judicious hands. It is true, however, that much mischief was apparent, as the consequence of the indiscriminate employment of the article, in the days of its greatest celebrity. ”
Overdose Risk
Phosphorous research by the medical community was possibly discontinued because of its poisonous effects when abused:
From the Materia Medica and Therapeutics section titled Phospherous A Poison (https://books.google.com/books?id=atPGizuKTYoC&dq=Rowbotham%20phosphorus&pg=PA647#v=onepage&q=Rowbotham%20phosphorus&f=false) we see:
“ A French chemist determined to test the power of phosphorus in his own person, and took a grain, with a good deal of sugar, for his first dose. On the next day he tried two grains, and on the next, three. Violent vomiting soon came on, with inflammation of the bowels, delirium, spasms, &c., and although vigorous measures were adopted, he perished, a victim of his own folly. ”
Further Reading
Phosphorus: Its Claims as a Therapeutic Agent (https://books.google.com/books?id=Ls5EROee2vEC&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Wm. Mason Turner, B. Ph: M.D.
-
- What makes you think Garwood did very little research?
I've read her book. Its shit and full of absolute fantasies.
That's an opinion, not evidence.
- What makes you think Dr. Pepper ripped off Rowbotham?
We compared the recipies from Dr Birleys and the original Dr Pepper. They are almost identical ... but Birley precedes Dr Pepper by some years.
As in, what's your evidence for these claims?
The recipes ::).
All colas have a similar ingredients. One thing Rowbotham missed was dosing the elixir with a bump of cocaine. And yeah, a bunch were advertised as wellness drinks. That doesn't mean there was any less quackery involved. For a "Dr" to say his elixir keeps pretty much all illnesses at bay is, well, quackery.
-
All colas have a similar ingredients. One thing Rowbotham missed was dosing the elixir with a bump of cocaine. And yeah, a bunch were advertised as wellness drinks. That doesn't mean there was any less quackery involved. For a "Dr" to say his elixir keeps pretty much all illnesses at bay is, well, quackery.
Actually, he never said it was a cure-all, and mixed it with other medicaments to enhance their qualities. He was providing multiple products of different compositions, not just claiming that phosphorous can do it all.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZSTOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA395&dq=Dr.+Birley+Phosphorus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUhoOK-bfjAhVkhOAKHaL6CKo4HhDoAQgpMAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
“ Birley's Preperations—More than forty years ago Dr. Samuel Birley advocated the use of free phosphorus in the treatment of disease. He did not consider it the “cure all,” but by judicious combination of other medicaments with phosphorus as the basis, he pretty nearly exhausted the more active members of the materia medica. Messrs. Gordon, Murray & Co., of 17 Castle Street, Holborn, E.C., are carrying out this theory, and have placed on the market no fewer than twenty different kinds of syrups of phosphorus—plain, ironised, magnesian, hepatitic, and so on—and are bringing them before the public in a forcible manner. All have their special uses, and have been for many years used in private practice. The plain syrup is an elegant preparation of free phosphorus in which the nauseous taste is fully disguised. ”
-
- What makes you think Garwood did very little research?
I've read her book. Its shit and full of absolute fantasies.
That's an opinion, not evidence.
Her book is the evidence. Being as you haven't read it, my opinion is all you've been bothered to find out. Either accept it or read the book for yourself.
All colas have a similar ingredients.
Correct! And Dr Birley's is the first cola. I have found nothing that pre-dates it. He basically pioneered the soft drinks industry, dictated how it would be marketed (as medicine) and made an absolute fortune. A smart guy, I think you will agree.
One thing Rowbotham missed was dosing the elixir with a bump of cocaine.
He wasn't a drug pusher. You have to wait 30 years for the coca cola company to do that.
And yeah, a bunch were advertised as wellness drinks. That doesn't mean there was any less quackery involved. For a "Dr" to say his elixir keeps pretty much all illnesses at bay is, well, quackery.
Pretty easy to say 150 years later. At the time his research was ground breaking and his medicine revered.
Anyway, we are going off topic. Dr Rowbowtham was most definitely a doctor.
-
- What makes you think Garwood did very little research?
I've read her book. Its shit and full of absolute fantasies.
That's an opinion, not evidence.
Her book is the evidence. Being as you haven't read it, my opinion is all you've been bothered to find out. Either accept it or read the book for yourself.
I read it 2 years ago. Very compelling.
All colas have a similar ingredients.
Correct! And Dr Birley's is the first cola. I have found nothing that pre-dates it. He basically pioneered the soft drinks industry, dictated how it would be marketed (as medicine) and made an absolute fortune. A smart guy, I think you will agree.
A smart marketer does automatically make for a smart Doctor.
One thing Rowbotham missed was dosing the elixir with a bump of cocaine.
He wasn't a drug pusher. You have to wait 30 years for the coca cola company to do that.
Fair point. But he was a pusher of an elixir that he claimed would keep all ailments at bay. Didn't he die of some infection he got from falling out of a carriage? His elixirs didn't seem to help.
And yeah, a bunch were advertised as wellness drinks. That doesn't mean there was any less quackery involved. For a "Dr" to say his elixir keeps pretty much all illnesses at bay is, well, quackery.
Pretty easy to say 150 years later. At the time his research was ground breaking and his medicine revered.
Revered by whom?
Anyway, we are going off topic. Dr Rowbowtham was most definitely a doctor.
That moniker at that time doesn't automatically give him credibility as such especially considering he became wealthy at the hand of a "cure all" cola.
-
Fair point. But he was a pusher of an elixir that he claimed would keep all ailments at bay.
Incorrect. He actually provided multiple medical products of different compositions, not a single one which was purported to remedy all ailments, and thought that phosphorous was not a cure all:
Actually, he never said it was a cure-all, and mixed it with other medicaments to enhance their qualities. He was providing multiple products of different compositions, not just claiming that phosphorous can do it all.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZSTOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA395&dq=Dr.+Birley+Phosphorus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUhoOK-bfjAhVkhOAKHaL6CKo4HhDoAQgpMAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
“ Birley's Preperations—More than forty years ago Dr. Samuel Birley advocated the use of free phosphorus in the treatment of disease. He did not consider it the “cure all,” but by judicious combination of other medicaments with phosphorus as the basis, he pretty nearly exhausted the more active members of the materia medica. Messrs. Gordon, Murray & Co., of 17 Castle Street, Holborn, E.C., are carrying out this theory, and have placed on the market no fewer than twenty different kinds of syrups of phosphorus—plain, ironised, magnesian, hepatitic, and so on—and are bringing them before the public in a forcible manner. All have their special uses, and have been for many years used in private practice. The plain syrup is an elegant preparation of free phosphorus in which the nauseous taste is fully disguised. ”
-
Fair point. But he was a pusher of an elixir that he claimed would keep all ailments at bay.
Incorrect. He actually provided multiple medical products of different compositions, not a single one which was purported to remedy all ailments, and thought that phosphorous was not a cure all:
Marketing says otherwise:
(https://i.imgur.com/RAq6Wwb.png)
-
What you quoted does not state that phosphorous can resolve all nervous system related impairments.
If I say that apples rot from bacteria it doesn't mean that my product that delays or prevents rot is going to be effective towards all types of bacteria or all rot. The statements have nothing to do with each other.
-
What you quoted does not state that phosphorous can resolve all nervous system impairments.
(https://i.imgur.com/Os2FsYu.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Oquerl9.png)
Pretty much the calling card of snake oil.
-
Not too surprising. A lot of doctors were claiming that phosphorous was effective for a number of ailments.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Samuel_Rowbotham
Phosphorous has a rich history. Throughout the 1800's higher doses of phosphorous was closely studied by the medical community for its medicinal benefits. Phosphorous was said to be beneficial and curative for a number of ailments.
Neuralgia
From a medical text: Phosphorous in the Treatment of Nerualgia (1875) (https://books.google.com/books?id=IhlFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA241#v=onepage&q&f=false) in Transactions of the American Neurological Association, Volume 1, we find that Phosphorous was highly beneficial for treating Neuralgia:
“ Compared with the whole range of diseases in which phosphorus is said to have been tested, the list of affections in which it has been proven to be beneficial that I have to offer covers a narrow field.
In the relief of the cruel pains to which the cranial nerves are so commonly subject, and in the cure of the neuralgic condition itself, I have found phosphorus deserving of all the praise that has been bestowed upon it. Its curative effect upon the pure neuralgias, especially of the trigeminus, almost establishes its right to the title of a specific against this particular affection. (A glance at the condensed table of results will show, without the necessity of repetition, the number of cases of trifacial or trigeminal neuralgia, etc., treated, whether complicated or uncomplicated, and the result.) In the large number of these trigeminal cases, the cure or relief followed the administration of the drug very speedily, often in twenty-four to forty-eight hours, and the same remark applies to the cases of cervico-occipital neuralgia. ”
A list of cases appears here (https://books.google.com/books?id=IhlFAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA237#v=onepage&q&f=false)
Cholera
Phosphorous has also been used to treat Cholera, producing success in even "advanced stages of Cholara, usually regarded as hopeless". From Materia Medica and Therapeutics (1857) on p.649 we see (https://books.google.com/books?id=atPGizuKTYoC&pg=PA649#v=onepage&q&f=false):
“ Phosphorus has been employed successfully by an English physician, in the advanced stage of cholera, usually regarded as hopeless. In 1833 he published his experience with this medicine in the London Lancet, and in the same journal for February, 1850, he reiterates the same views. His reliance has been chiefly on the following prescription:
R.—Phosphor. ӡSS;
Cer. alb. ӡSS.
With the aid of enough water to avoid combustion, rub these articles well together, divide the mass into ten pills, which should be kept in a small bottle containing pure water.
In far-advanced cases, these pills were the only reliable medicine. One was given every ten minutes, followed by a little water. Three pills usually sufficed to arrest the cramps, the vomiting and purging. In milder cases, the first medicine given was as follows:—
R.—Nit. acid fort., from three to five drops;
Tinct. opii, four to eight drops;
Syrup croci, a drachm;
Aquæ, an ounce and a half.
Mix for a draught, which very frequently answered the end in view. If this failed, the pills were administered as above stated.
Some six or eight cases are detailed to show the value of this practice. (See London Lancet, February, 1850.) ”
Fevers, Delerium, Tremors
In Materia Medica and Therapeutics (https://books.google.com/books?id=atPGizuKTYoC&pg=PA649#v=onepage&q&f=false) Dr. Mitchell relays the following accounts:
“ A considerable number of cases reported by Dr. Wolff, in 1793, would seem to show the good effects of phosphoric ether in low fevers attended with delirium, tremors, feeble pulse, petecchiæ, &c. Five drops of a very strong solution were given every three hours. The pulse improved after a few doses had been given, and equable heat pervaded the system, a pleasant moisture covered the skin, and the delirium subsided. Much testimony of a similar nature could be adduced; and there can be no doubt that salutary results have followed in judicious hands. It is true, however, that much mischief was apparent, as the consequence of the indiscriminate employment of the article, in the days of its greatest celebrity. ”
Overdose Risk
Phosphorous research by the medical community was possibly discontinued because of its poisonous effects when abused:
From the Materia Medica and Therapeutics section titled Phospherous A Poison (https://books.google.com/books?id=atPGizuKTYoC&dq=Rowbotham%20phosphorus&pg=PA647#v=onepage&q=Rowbotham%20phosphorus&f=false) we see:
“ A French chemist determined to test the power of phosphorus in his own person, and took a grain, with a good deal of sugar, for his first dose. On the next day he tried two grains, and on the next, three. Violent vomiting soon came on, with inflammation of the bowels, delirium, spasms, &c., and although vigorous measures were adopted, he perished, a victim of his own folly. ”
Further Reading
Phosphorus: Its Claims as a Therapeutic Agent (https://books.google.com/books?id=Ls5EROee2vEC&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Wm. Mason Turner, B. Ph: M.D.
-
Not too surprising. A lot of doctors were claiming that phosphorous was effective for a number of ailments.
Doesn't matter. You said, "What you quoted does not state that phosphorous can resolve all nervous system impairments.". Sure, the claim is not all, but a bunch. He even threw Cancer in the mix. Part of the problem is that he claimed every ailment was due to a "nervous disorder". Cancer, really? Caused by a nervous disorder?
And I'm not sure all those Dr's were marketing tonics for profit. I mean seriously, it doesn't get more snake oil than Birley's Elixir. Any idiot can see that.
-
Not too surprising. A lot of doctors were claiming that phosphorous was effective for a number of ailments.
Doesn't matter. You said, "What you quoted does not state that phosphorous can resolve all nervous system impairments.". Sure, the claim is not all, but a bunch.
Incorrect. He says that a lot of diseases are associated with nervous system degradation. This is not a statement that phosphorous can resolve everything he stated. It's a statement that a lot of diseases are associated with nervous system degradation.
Part of the problem is that he claimed every ailment was due to a "nervous disorder". Cancer, really? Caused by a nervous disorder?
Actually research of recent decades has found that certain nervous system disorders are associated with increased risk of cancer:
https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-017-0466-y
"During the past decades, a series of epidemiological observational studies and meta-analyses have claimed that central nervous disorders are associated with increased risk of cancer at several specific sites"
Clearly, Rowbotham was ahead of his time in medical science as well.
-
Not too surprising. A lot of doctors were claiming that phosphorous was effective for a number of ailments.
Doesn't matter. You said, "What you quoted does not state that phosphorous can resolve all nervous system impairments.". Sure, the claim is not all, but a bunch.
Incorrect. He says that a lot of diseases are associated with nervous system degradation. This is not a statement that phosphorous can resolve everything he stated. It's a statement that a lot of diseases are associated with nervous system degradation.
It's right there in the pamphlet, "'Plain Syrup of Phosphorus' is a real most effectual remedy."
Part of the problem is that he claimed every ailment was due to a "nervous disorder". Cancer, really? Caused by a nervous disorder?
Actually research of past decades has found that cancer is associated with certain nervous system disorders:
https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-017-0466-y
"During the past decades, a series of epidemiological observational studies and meta-analyses have claimed that central nervous disorders are associated with increased risk of cancer at several specific sites"
Umm, lots of things "are associated with increased risk of cancer at several specific sites." I don't think any oncologist currently prescribes Dr. Pepper for any cancer treatments.
How did Rowbotham know they would be related? Clearly, he was ahead of his time in medical science as well.
Clearly not. He concocted what is now Dr. Pepper, according to Thork. I guess you think Dr. Pepper is medicinal? ::)
-
It's right there in the pamphlet, "'Plain Syrup of Phosphorus' is a real most effectual remedy."
That may be so, but Rowbotham says it's not a cure-all and he mixes it with other medicaments for treatment of the diseases he treats. Rowbotham indicates that phosphorous on its own is only good for certain conditions.
Umm, lots of things "are associated with increased risk of cancer at several specific sites."
Yes. The ailments associated with higher risk of cancer are indicative that certain systems are degraded in the body to cause it.
Schizophrenia and vulnerability to stress are associated with increased risk of Breast Cancer, which is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18492-8
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women worldwide1. Some evidence suggests that vulnerability to stress2,3,4, particularly indicated by the presence of psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia5,6, may be associated with increased risk of subsequent breast cancer.
~
Schizophrenia was associated with a 49% increased risk of subsequent invasive breast cancer (95% confidence interval [CI], 37–63%, P = 1.72 × 10−19; Table 1).
~
Despite lower screening attendance19, it has recently been recognized that patients with schizophrenia are at increased risk of breast cancer6 but not of cancer overall30,31.
-
Clearly not. He concocted what is now Dr. Pepper, according to Thork. I guess you think Dr. Pepper is medicinal? ::)
AT THE TIME people believed colas to have medicinal properties. Rowbotham invents the first cola.
In the 1950's doctors prescribed thalidomide to pregnant women. With disastrous consequences. We now know that thalidomide is not a good medicine. Your argument goes 'the people who invented thalidomide can't have been real medical professionals because thalidomide is snake oil'.
Step out of 2021 for a second and stop judging Rowbotham through the eyes of someone who has 150 years more science behind them. The guy kick starts the cola industry. An industry that is still worth billions of dollars to the economy today. He does it through the invention of a product that comes about by his own medical research ... for which he is awarded a PhD at the University of Edinburgh ... and you say 'no, not a doctor'. You're just wrong. As I also mentioned he was a physician as well which also confers the title doctor.
-
Ok.
So let’s say he was a doctor. And that while he might have been a quack, you could probably say that about most doctors of that era.
What has that got to do with anything? That doesn’t make him qualified to pontificate about the shape of the earth. Especially given that his motivation for doing so was his religious beliefs and his interpretation of Scripture.
-
The notion that Rowbotham is the father of soda is a bold faced lie. Thomas Henry, an apothecary from Manchester, was the first to sell artificial mineral water to the general public for medicinal purposes, beginning in the 1770s. The history of the origin of soft drinks predates Rowbotham's birth by 40 years. He may have certainly contributed to the industry but so was basically everyone who called themselves a pharmacist or apothecary at that time.
-
Ok.
So let’s say he was a doctor. And that while he might have been a quack, you could probably say that about most doctors of that era.
What has that got to do with anything? That doesn’t make him qualified to pontificate about the shape of the earth.
Hey, go ahead and shift those goalposts, why not?
-
What's with the fascination with Rowbotham anyways? Let's say he is as qualified a scientist as one could be in the 1870s. Let's all be real, the bar for empiricism in the 1800s was not high. With the bar for empiricism so low, I would bet a majority of scientists and physicians would be considered quacks by today's standards.
Regardless, he is just one man out of millions of physicists, astronomers, geologists, meteorologists, engineers, that have been born, worked long careers, and died since that time. It is quite literally Rowbotham vs. The World when it comes to Flat Earth belief. If the best Flat Earth can do is quack doctor who died 137 years ago, you should be able to see why his contribution is very much unconvincing.
-
The fascination with Rowbotham comes from Round Earthers who seem to think their best shot at discrediting empirical observation is not to debate the facts, but rather to attack a long-dead man of little modern significance.
Look inward. Introspect. Improve.
-
The fascination with Rowbotham comes from Round Earthers who seem to think their best shot at discrediting empirical observation is not to debate the facts, but rather to attack a long-dead man of little modern significance.
That fascination probably stems from the fact that flat earthers use Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment as their "best evidence". It would be analogous to flat earthers discrediting photos from space or Einstein.
-
Hey, go ahead and shift those goalposts, why not?
Do what?!
The OP says:
I've checked the Wiki, and couldn't find any mention of accredited scientists (of the era)
who were actually involved in the formation of and/or operations of the Society. The only
mention, by name, of anybody connected with it was Samuel Birley Rowbotham who was
merely a preacher, and who had no scientific qualifications, despite falsely styling himself
as Dr. Rowbotham.
The thread then devolved into a whole back and forth about whether he was really a doctor and whether he was a quack.
What the hell is that to do with the OP about whether anyone involved in the formation of the society had any scientific credentials?
-
The fascination with Rowbotham comes from Round Earthers who seem to think their best shot at discrediting empirical observation is not to debate the facts, but rather to attack a long-dead man of little modern significance.
Look inward. Introspect. Improve.
I’d suggest it comes from the Wiki heavily leaning on Rowbotham’s writing in ENaG and the fact that the modern FET is still largely based on it - with some amendments, admittedly.
I’d never heard of him before I found this place.
-
Hey, go ahead and shift those goalposts, why not?
Do what?!
The OP says:
I've checked the Wiki, and couldn't find any mention of accredited scientists (of the era)
who were actually involved in the formation of and/or operations of the Society. The only
mention, by name, of anybody connected with it was Samuel Birley Rowbotham who was
merely a preacher, and who had no scientific qualifications, despite falsely styling himself
as Dr. Rowbotham.
The thread then devolved into a whole back and forth about whether he was really a doctor and whether he was a quack.
What the hell is that to do with the OP about whether anyone involved in the formation of the society had any scientific credentials?
He was a medical doctor. He had a PhD. I'm missing the lack of qualifications. ???
-
That fascination probably stems from the fact that flat earthers use Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment as their "best evidence".
If your fascination stems from something you made up, and which finds no confirmation in reality, then your situation is even worse than what I describe.
Definitely work on your introspection.
-
The fascination with Rowbotham comes from Round Earthers who seem to think their best shot at discrediting empirical observation is not to debate the facts, but rather to attack a long-dead man of little modern significance.
Look inward. Introspect. Improve.
Perhaps the fascination stems from his prominence in certain FE circles. For instance, the main page of your Wiki states, "Flat Earth Theory has grown over the centuries like a wondering sojourner hungry for truth and eager for discovery. It’s changed from the learned conjectures by our ancestors of Antiquity to Victorian polymaths like Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham, and it even thrives today in a world-wide grassroots effort of scholarship."
Rowbotham is the only FE scholar mentioned on the main page. No mention on the wiki main page of Blount, Carpenter, Hampden, Voliva, S. Shenton, or D.Shenton. Just Rowbotham.
-
He was a medical doctor. He had a PhD. I'm missing the lack of qualifications. ???
Then have another look at my first post in this thread:
What has that got to do with anything? That doesn’t make him qualified to pontificate about the shape of the earth.
Ok, so he was a medical doctor. So? How does that qualify him to write a book about the shape of the earth? If I want to know about that I don’t talk to my GP.
-
That fascination probably stems from the fact that flat earthers use Rowbotham's Bedford Level Experiment as their "best evidence".
If your fascination stems from something you made up, and which finds no confirmation in reality, then your situation is even worse than what I describe.
Definitely work on your introspection.
I didn't make it up. That is what is says in the FAQ in the wiki.
Perhaps the best example of Flat Earth proof is the Bedford Level Experiment. In short, this was an experiment performed many times on a six-mile stretch of water that proved the surface of the water to be flat. It did not conform to the curvature of the Earth that Round Earth proponents teach
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions
-
Rowbotham’s thesis was that the earth was flat, and a map was created. This flat map was created with longitudinal lines diverging South of the equator. There was a section in ENAG where an example of distance measurements was cited that supported this thesis. Unfortunately (for Rowbotham) some mistakes were made. The book “Earth Not A Globe” might have been written by a ‘scientist’ but not by a qualified navigator. There might have been some scientific accreditations but those would NOT be relevant in this case.
-
He was a medical doctor. He had a PhD. I'm missing the lack of qualifications. ???
Then have another look at my first post in this thread:
What has that got to do with anything? That doesn’t make him qualified to pontificate about the shape of the earth.
Ok, so he was a medical doctor. So? How does that qualify him to write a book about the shape of the earth? If I want to know about that I don’t talk to my GP.
Okay, let's go around in circles then. Go ahead, move them goalposts. The OP doesn't ask if anyone involved in the movement in the 19th century was qualified to "pontificate about the shape of the Earth". It merely asks if any accredited scientists were part of the movement in the 19th century. And as demonstrated, at least one was: Samuel Birley Rowbotham!
-
He was a medical doctor. He had a PhD. I'm missing the lack of qualifications. ???
Then have another look at my first post in this thread:
What has that got to do with anything? That doesn’t make him qualified to pontificate about the shape of the earth.
Ok, so he was a medical doctor. So? How does that qualify him to write a book about the shape of the earth? If I want to know about that I don’t talk to my GP.
Okay, let's go around in circles then. Go ahead, move them goalposts. The OP doesn't ask if anyone involved in the movement in the 19th century was qualified to "pontificate about the shape of the Earth". It merely asks if any accredited scientists were part of the movement in the 19th century. And as demonstrated, at least one was: Samuel Birley Rowbotham!
In part, specifically, the OP asks, "Apart from the dubious Rowbotham, what were the names of its other board and/or governing members?" So perhaps Rowbotham isn't even a part of the discussion.
-
He was a medical doctor. He had a PhD. I'm missing the lack of qualifications. ???
Then have another look at my first post in this thread:
What has that got to do with anything? That doesn’t make him qualified to pontificate about the shape of the earth.
Ok, so he was a medical doctor. So? How does that qualify him to write a book about the shape of the earth? If I want to know about that I don’t talk to my GP.
Okay, let's go around in circles then. Go ahead, move them goalposts. The OP doesn't ask if anyone involved in the movement in the 19th century was qualified to "pontificate about the shape of the Earth". It merely asks if any accredited scientists were part of the movement in the 19th century. And as demonstrated, at least one was: Samuel Birley Rowbotham!
In part, specifically, the OP asks, "Apart from the dubious Rowbotham, what were the names of its other board and/or governing members?" So perhaps Rowbotham isn't even a part of the discussion.
Well no, the OP makes it clear that he's ignorant of Rowbotham's credentials, and unqualifiedly asks if ANYONE involved in the movement was an accredited scientist.
I've always seen this site as more of an educational tool than anything else. I hope the OP and the rest of you who were making incorrect assumptions about the movement's founders learned something new today.
-
Okay, let's go around in circles then. Go ahead, move them goalposts. The OP doesn't ask if anyone involved in the movement in the 19th century was qualified to "pontificate about the shape of the Earth". It merely asks if any accredited scientists were part of the movement in the 19th century. And as demonstrated, at least one was: Samuel Birley Rowbotham!
According to Thork’s post:
Rowbotham was a Dr twice over. He was a doctor in that he was a qualified physician ... and he was also a doctor in that he had a PhD from the University of Edinburgh for his work on the effects of Phosphorus on the human brain.
You’re being pretty disingenuous here. It’s pretty clear what the OP is asking here and how he’s using the word “scientist”. In the context of someone setting up the FES he’s clearly not talking about qualifications in medicine.
-
Okay, let's go around in circles then. Go ahead, move them goalposts. The OP doesn't ask if anyone involved in the movement in the 19th century was qualified to "pontificate about the shape of the Earth". It merely asks if any accredited scientists were part of the movement in the 19th century. And as demonstrated, at least one was: Samuel Birley Rowbotham!
According to Thork’s post:
Rowbotham was a Dr twice over. He was a doctor in that he was a qualified physician ... and he was also a doctor in that he had a PhD from the University of Edinburgh for his work on the effects of Phosphorus on the human brain.
You’re being pretty disingenuous here. It’s pretty clear what the OP is asking here and how he’s using the word “scientist”. In the context of someone setting up the FES he’s clearly not talking about qualifications in medicine.
I don't see how. Rowbotham was a learned man who worked in a scientific field. He wasn't the mere "preacher and quack" those who wish to smear his name make him out to be. Again if you want to move the goalposts that's fine, understand that it's a bit hypocritical of you to accuse me of being disingenuous while doing so.
-
The only
mention, by name, of anybody connected with it was Samuel Birley Rowbotham who was
merely a preacher, and who had no scientific qualifications, despite falsely styling himself
as Dr. Rowbotham.
False.
Rowbotham was a Dr twice over. He was a doctor in that he was a qualified physician ... and he was also a doctor in that he had a PhD from the University of Edinburgh for his work on the effects of Phosphorus on the human brain. From that he invented a soft drink that he called Dr Birley's Phosphorus Tonic which was a fore runner for Dr Pepper, (They ripped his recipe off after his death). He used the money from his sales of this tonic to found the society and died a very rich man indeed. I've done a large amount of research myself into where Rowbotham might have got the human brains he needed at Edinburgh University during that time, and they undoubtedly had to come from Burke and Hare.
But hey, believe the idle drivel that Christine Garwood wrote instead if you like. She's a terrible old hack that did very little research before writing her book. Consequently she gets most things wrong.
Thanks David.
I'd never heard of Christine Garwood, but apparently she has a B.A in history, and a Ph.D in the history of science, so I'd
assume she knows what she's talking about. Why in particular do you say her writing is "idle drivel"? In fact, the Sunday
Times reviewed her book "Flat Earth: The History of an Infamous Idea" as "Meticulously researched and compellingly readable".
I haven't yet read her book, but I assume you discredit her on the basis of disinformation, misrepresentation, or even blatant lies?
I also did some Googling regarding Samuel Rowbotham, and I couldn't find any confirmation of his alleged medical doctorate
from the University of Edinburgh. I found several other Rowbothams by surname, but no Samuel B. Nor could I find anything
about him even being an MD. Could you give me a link that points to his medical qualifications please.
As an aside, I'm not sure exactly why you've mention Dr Pepper, the drink, as apparently it was invented in the 1880s by Texas
pharmacist Charles Alderton, and the name itself wasn't used until 1885.
I note that the image posted by Stack doesn't refer to Dr Rowbotham, but Dr Birley, which was his middle name. Why is this?
(https://i.imgur.com/RAq6Wwb.png)
At any rate, it's obvious that the good doctor had not the faintest notion of what actually caused cancer. He assumed it was
a "germ" that lowered the "nerve force"—by which I'm guessing he meant our immune system?
Anyway, I compared Dr Birley's drink ingredients with those of Dr Pepper, and found they're almost totally different:
Dr Pepper:
Carbonated Water, Sugar, Colour (Caramel), Phosphoric Acid, Potassium Sorbate, Flavourings, Caffeine, Aspartame, Acesulfame K, Phenylalanine.
Dr Birley:
Sugar, Tartaric Acid, Phosphoric Acid, Alcohol, and plain water.
-
At any rate, it's obvious that the good doctor had not the faintest notion of what actually caused cancer.
You are implying that modern doctors know what causes cancer. If they knew exactly what caused cancer on a biological and biochemical level they would know exactly how to prevent and cure it, which they do not.
Rowbotham had it on the money that nervous system degradation and disorders are associated with cancer though. The most common type of skin cancer is Melanoma, and it is "surprising" that it is associated with the nervous system disorder Parkinson's Disease.
https://parkinsonsdisease.net/clinical/melanoma-skin-cancer-link
A Surprising Relationship: Parkinson’s Disease & Melanoma
Melanoma is a type of skin cancer that develops from melanocytes, and Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a progressive movement disorder that affects the nervous system.
~
The link between melanoma & Parkinson’s
The relationship between melanoma and PD runs both ways: Specifically, people with PD are 4x more likely to develop melanoma, and people with melanoma have 4x the risk of developing PD.1
Maybe this is surprising to the parkinsonsdisease.net editors, but Rowbotham wouldn't be surprised. The association with nervous system degradation and cancer was long predicted by Samuel Rowbotham in the Victorian Era.
-
I didn't make it up. That is what is says in the FAQ in the wiki.
Your unhealthy obsession with a long-dead man and your reluctance to introspect are showing. The Bedford Level Experiment is valued for its repeatability and empirical power, not for its connection to Rowbotham.
Don't come up with excuses to sustain the obsession. Overcome it. Improve as a person. Look inward.
-
At any rate, it's obvious that the good doctor had not the faintest notion of what actually caused cancer.
You are implying that modern doctors know what causes cancer. If they knew exactly what caused cancer on a biological and biochemical level they would know exactly how to prevent and cure it, which they do not.
Yes; modern doctors do know exactly what causes cancer, and it's not germs, as Rowbotham believed.
Cancer is caused by gene mutations to the DNA within cells. The DNA inside a cell is packaged into a large
number of individual genes, each of which contains a set of instructions telling the cell what functions to
perform, as well as how to grow and divide. Errors in these instructions can cause the cell to stop its normal
function, and can allow the cell to become cancerous. A number of things can cause gene mutations, such
as smoking, radiation, carcinogens, hormone imbalance, or chronic tissue inflammation.
And as a former cancer sufferer (more than 30 years ago) I can assure that doctors do know how to eradicate it.
Rowbotham had it on the money that nervous system degradation and disorders are associated with cancer though.
No; Rowbotham didn't "have it on the money". He clearly believed that cancer was caused by germs, which
of course actually have no connection with cancer. And neither did the "nerve force" that Rowbotham talked
about have anything to do with cancer... whatever his nerve force was even meant to define, as he couldn't
describe it beyond that simplistic description.
Tellingly, in Rowbotham's day, cancer killed everybody who developed it, and he couldn't do anything about it
other than selling his elixir. Nor could doctors even diagnose it back then.
I think it's important not to credit Rowbotham with medical expertise he didn't possess, and which has never
been evidenced.
-
Taking a slightly different topic path from the OP question, I have sometimes wondered that if folks like Rowbotham and Lady Blount were alive today, would they hold similar beliefs or theories about space travel being fake? Given the Zetetic approach of observation and the empirical approach, would they tend to shy away from introducing conspiracy beliefs and try and hold steadfast to the Zetetic method or would they subscibe to believing in a non-empiracal space travel conspiracy?
Maybe an interesting thought provoking question.
On the flip side, I've also asked myself if I were born long before space travel, would I myself (and perhaps many of my fellow Round Earthers) be flat earth believers.
-
Yes; modern doctors do know exactly what causes cancer, and it's not germs, as Rowbotham believed.
Please read the quote you posted. This is an incorrect restatement. The quote says that the nervous system can be degraded by germs, as well as by "causes other than germs". The quote is speaking of the nervous system in the role of disease, and not specifically cancer, and states that it is also degraded by causes other than germs. Your statement is incorrect.
Cancer is caused by gene mutations to the DNA within cells. The DNA inside a cell is packaged into a large
number of individual genes, each of which contains a set of instructions telling the cell what functions to
perform, as well as how to grow and divide. Errors in these instructions can cause the cell to stop its normal
function, and can allow the cell to become cancerous. A number of things can cause gene mutations, such
as smoking, radiation, carcinogens, hormone imbalance, or chronic tissue inflammation.
A nice story, but they don't know what is occurring on a biochemical level and how everything interacts with each other, and how those environmental effects which were identified affects the bodily system in all its pathways and ends up turning into cancer. Cancer research and research of possible in vivo remedies are still ongoing.
It is seen that smoking and radiation could also degrade the nervous system as well.
Smoking:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090623090400.htm
"Researchers, led by Debapriya Ghosh and Dr Anirban Basu from the Indian National Brain Research Center (NBRC), have found that a compound in tobacco provokes white blood cells in the central nervous system to attack healthy cells, leading to severe neurological damage."
Radiation:
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull3-4/03405800607.pdf
"Until recently it had been generally believed that the tissue of the nervous system was especially resistant to radiation and that any kind of damage to it could occur only at extremely high radiation doses. Over the past few years, however, there has been increasing evidence to show that the nervous system responds to even small doses of radiation and that this response may often be associated with some form of radiation damage."
And as a former cancer sufferer (more than 30 years ago) I can assure that doctors do know how to eradicate it.
You can't possibly think that surgery, radiation therapy and chemo are cures or preventatives for cancer, as I indicated were lacking.
Tellingly, in Rowbotham's day, cancer killed everybody who developed it, and he couldn't do anything about it
other than selling his elixir. Nor could doctors even diagnose it back then.
This is incorrect as well. See these cancer facts reproduced from the American Cancer Society -
https://web.archive.org/web/20150310060321/http://thomlatimercares.org/Cancer_Facts.htm
For a modern oncologist practicing traditional oncology 60% of their patients would be dead within 5 years.
According to that same article above, in the 1930's before modern oncology, 75% of cancer patients would have died within 5 years. 1 in 4 would people would have survived by their own natural survival mechanisms.
From the article:
How Many People Are Surviving Cancer?
In the early 1900s, few cancer patients had any hope of long-term survival. In the 1930s, about one in four was alive five years after treatment. About 491,400 Americans, or 4 of 10 patients who get cancer this year, are expected to be alive five years after diagnosis.
So in the 1930's 75% of cancer patients would have died within 5 years
"This year" (modern) the statistics are that 6 out of 10, or about 60% of cancer patients, die within five years
Modern medicine and its trillions of dollars have added a whooping 15% survival rate, and this is ignoring the many people who regress years later. How great is modern oncology at fighting cancer, really?
See, this is the main problem for all of these muh science sentiments in general. In your OP you declare modern science to have created "massive advances" when this could be abjectly false. You are appealing to popular lore and dogma, without actually bothering to show the claims from first principles.
-
From that he invented a soft drink that he called Dr Birley's Phosphorus Tonic which was a fore runner for Dr Pepper, (They ripped his recipe off after his death).
We compared the recipies from Dr Birleys and the original Dr Pepper. They are almost identical ... but Birley precedes Dr Pepper by some years.
Is Dr Pepper Bad For You? (https://www.isitbadforyou.com/questions/is-dr-pepper-bad-for-you#short)
Short answer
Apart from giving some people a jolt of energy from the caffeine, Dr Pepper is an extremely unhealthy beverage. What is more, many of its ingredients have been linked to several deleterious health effects such as cancer.
...Phosphoric acid, like HFCS, has been shown to possibly have a negative effect on the kidneys. Additionally, it may cause calcium loss in bones and lead to osteoporosis.
Possible long-term side effects
tooth decay
osteoporosis
diabetes
cancer
metabolic syndrome
lowered white blood cell count
lowered lymphocyte count
central nervous system damage
kidney damage
weight gain
addiction
-
From that he invented a soft drink that he called Dr Birley's Phosphorus Tonic which was a fore runner for Dr Pepper, (They ripped his recipe off after his death).
We compared the recipies from Dr Birleys and the original Dr Pepper. They are almost identical ... but Birley precedes Dr Pepper by some years.
Is Dr Pepper Bad For You? (https://www.isitbadforyou.com/questions/is-dr-pepper-bad-for-you#short)
Short answer
Apart from giving some people a jolt of energy from the caffeine, Dr Pepper is an extremely unhealthy beverage. What is more, many of its ingredients have been linked to several deleterious health effects such as cancer.
...Phosphoric acid, like HFCS, has been shown to possibly have a negative effect on the kidneys. Additionally, it may cause calcium loss in bones and lead to osteoporosis.
Possible long-term side effects
tooth decay
osteoporosis
diabetes
cancer
metabolic syndrome
lowered white blood cell count
lowered lymphocyte count
central nervous system damage
kidney damage
weight gain
addiction
I'm sorry, I just don't see the relevance to the current discussion. Obviously understanding of medical matters was limited in the 19th Century; I don't think anyone here is arguing that.
-
I'm sorry, I just don't see the relevance to the current discussion. Obviously understanding of medical matters was limited in the 19th Century; I don't think anyone here is arguing that.
That's fine that you don't see the relevance, your prerogative. But you did tease out a point that 19th Century medical matters (and science in general), is quite a far cry from where we are in 2021. Essentially, were the founder(s) of said society technically, scientifically minded enough to truly determine the validity of the beliefs held, being 150 years away from its founding, how applicable are those beliefs fast forward to today?
Probably why the fascination GEr's have with Rowbotham's qualifications and ENAG. Kind of a 'chop off the head of the snake' type of thing.
-
I'm sorry, I just don't see the relevance to the current discussion. Obviously understanding of medical matters was limited in the 19th Century; I don't think anyone here is arguing that.
That's fine that you don't see the relevance, your prerogative. But you did tease out a point that 19th Century medical matters (and science in general), is quite a far cry from where we are in 2021. Essentially, were the founder(s) of said society technically, scientifically minded enough to truly determine the validity of the beliefs held, being 150 years away from its founding, how applicable are those beliefs fast forward to today?
Probably why the fascination GEr's have with Rowbotham's qualifications and ENAG. Kind of a 'chop off the head of the snake' type of thing.
As has been pointed out multiple times in this thread, if Rowbotham's experiments weren't as robustly repeatable as they are, there wouldn't be any reason to put stock in what he said.
Also, I think it's important to point out that while most of us recognize his importance in the history and formation of the movement, it was a movement in its infancy, and no modern FEer treats ENaG as a Bible; indeed a lot of spirited debate has taken place over the years, among FEers, regarding various points made in the book.
-
Can everyone agree if 2+2=4 you don't need a scientist to tell you so? Way long ago conditions were different and the answer to medical ailments may have been different then the answers which work today. What are the answers? That's where modern science needs to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water as Tom once said.
Some people then and now think spiritual concerns can help or hinder a person's health. if you take food that was stolen is that better for you than waiting for home grown vegetables?
I've seen a person deal with ailments like Parkinson's. I told them I think they should stop eating raw fish because you will get help from the spirits of fish who are fluid and constant in motion. Then Covid-19 hit, and he stopped going out and eating sushi and now he bike rides like he never had it and hasn't mentioned it since. Psuodo-science? Perhaps, on some level, but can you really be sure?
One of the great things about FE's and ancient texts is they explore matters unlike they do today. We generally have research and technology greater than the past but unless you look back or in different places, you might lose something!
-
I've seen a person deal with ailments like Parkinson's. I told them I think they should stop eating raw fish because you will get help from the spirits of fish who are fluid and constant in motion. Then Covid-19 hit, and he stopped going out and eating sushi and now he bike rides like he never had it and hasn't mentioned it since. Psuodo-science? Perhaps, on some level, but can you really be sure?
I don't know about 100% for sure, but you could have some sort of double-blind clinical A/B trial with a bunch of participants with Parkinsons who can't ride a bike, half no sushi, half sushi eaters. Then after a specified amount of time, see who can ride a bike. And of course, accounting for innumerable contributing factors.
You telling one guy with Parkinsons that he should lay off the sushi, he does, and now he can ride a bike, doesn't really seem like a viable, credible study that would even remotely confirm (or deny) your notion. Your notion would be considered anecdotal pseudo-science at best.
-
Your notion would be considered anecdotal pseudo-science at best.
At least you mentioned the word "science" there... lol.
-
Can everyone agree if 2+2=4 you don't need a scientist to tell you so?
I mean, have you seen the RE'ers around here?
-
Yes; modern doctors do know exactly what causes cancer, and it's not germs, as Rowbotham believed.
Please read the quote you posted. This is an incorrect restatement. The quote says that the nervous system can be degraded by germs, as well as by "causes other than germs". The quote is speaking of the nervous system in the role of disease, and not specifically cancer, and states that it is also degraded by causes other than germs. Your statement is incorrect.
Firstly Tom, thank you for your detailed response.
Rowbotham specifically mentioned cancer as being caused by "germs". Nowhere did he mention gene mutation
as the real and actual cause.
In the mid-1800s, neuroscience, and the human central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous
system (PNS) were not well understood, and certainly not by any lay person such as Rowbotham It wasn't
until the late 1890s that the brain's neural system was discovered and confirmed to function—as we know it
does today—by Santiago Ramón y Cajal (the so called "neuron doctrine").
Cancer is caused by gene mutations to the DNA within cells. The DNA inside a cell is packaged into a large
number of individual genes, each of which contains a set of instructions telling the cell what functions to
perform, as well as how to grow and divide. Errors in these instructions can cause the cell to stop its normal
function, and can allow the cell to become cancerous. A number of things can cause gene mutations, such
as smoking, radiation, carcinogens, hormone imbalance, or chronic tissue inflammation.
A nice story, but they don't know what is occurring on a biochemical level and how everything interacts with each other, and how those environmental effects which were identified affects the bodily system in all its pathways and ends up turning into cancer. Cancer research and research of possible in vivo remedies are still ongoing.
Yes we do know what cause cancers at a biochemical level; that's how we now know to use radiation and/or
chemotherapy to cure the majority of cases. You've claimed that, currently, "60% of cancer patients, die
within five years". That's debatable, at least here in Australia; according to the National Cancer Control
Indicators,the 10-year survival was highest for prostate cancer (91%), melanoma (87%) and female breast
cancer (85%). The lowest 10-year survival rate was for pancreatic cancer (8%).
It is seen that smoking and radiation could also degrade the nervous system as well.
Immaterial and irrelevant in Rowbotham's lifetime. In the mid-1800s nobody believed that smoking could or
would produce illnesses of any sort, and it wasn't until 1896 that French physicist Henri Becquerel discovered
radioactivity, 12 years after Rowbotham's death.
And as a former cancer sufferer (more than 30 years ago) I can assure that doctors do know how to eradicate it.
You can't possibly think that surgery, radiation therapy and chemo are cures or preventatives for cancer, as I indicated were lacking.
Well, actually I do; I'm living proof after 33 years. I underwent surgery, and extensive radiation therapy.
Tellingly, in Rowbotham's day, cancer killed everybody who developed it, and he couldn't do anything about it
other than selling his elixir. Nor could doctors even diagnose it back then.
This is incorrect as well. https://web.archive.org/web/20150310060321/http://thomlatimercares.org/Cancer_Facts.htm
No, it's not incorrect. Could you please post a citation supporting your claim. And your link is 25 years out of date!
Modern medicine and its trillions of dollars have added a whopping 15% survival rate,
and this is ignoring the many people who regress years later. How great is modern oncology at fighting cancer, really?
Could you please post links to support those claims I've highlighted? And it's patently obvious that modern medicine
has advanced cancer (and other life-threatening illnesses) diagnoses and treatments way, way beyond Rowbotham's era.
See, this is the main problem for all of these muh science sentiments in general. In your OP you declare modern science to have created "massive advances" when this could be abjectly false. You are appealing to popular lore and dogma, without actually bothering to show the claims from first principles.
Can you please clarify what you mean by "popular lore and dogma" and also "first principles"? And yes, my claim
about scientific advancements since Rowbotham's lifetime have, undoubtedly, been massive. In his day, the
best he could come up with as any sort of cure was nothing more than sugar, water and alcohol.
He was named in numerous cases of wrongful deaths, including a "death by misadventure" for accidentally poisoning
one of his own children. He was also held responsible for several other deaths using his quack cures of phosphorus.