*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15330
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #40 on: December 11, 2021, 11:48:44 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2021, 11:51:27 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #41 on: December 12, 2021, 01:14:28 AM »
Quote from: Kangaroony
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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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.



Offline GoldCashew

  • *
  • Posts: 1165
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #42 on: December 12, 2021, 01:37:43 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2021, 01:51:41 AM by GoldCashew »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10173
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2021, 10:39:49 AM »
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.

Quote from: Kangaroony
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."

Quote from: Kangaroony
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.

Quote from: Kangaroony
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.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2022, 01:13:32 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3363
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #44 on: December 12, 2021, 04:53:07 PM »
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?

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

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 3474
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #45 on: December 12, 2021, 05:02:59 PM »
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?

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.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3363
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #46 on: December 12, 2021, 05:55:51 PM »
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.

*

Offline Roundy

  • Abdicator of the Zetetic Council
  • *
  • Posts: 3474
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #47 on: December 12, 2021, 06:39:24 PM »
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.
Dr. Frank is a physicist. He says it's impossible. So it's impossible.
My friends, please remember Tom said this the next time you fall into the trap of engaging him, and thank you. :)

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #48 on: December 12, 2021, 08:37:34 PM »
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!

From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3363
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #49 on: December 12, 2021, 11:01:44 PM »
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.

*

Offline Tron

  • *
  • Posts: 440
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #50 on: December 13, 2021, 04:52:52 AM »
Your notion would be considered anecdotal pseudo-science at best.

At least you mentioned the word "science" there... lol.

From the surface Earth looks flat.  From space Earth looks round.  Now what?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 15330
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #51 on: December 13, 2021, 10:58:37 AM »
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?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

شاحنات صعبة للغاية

Re: Universal Zetetic Society - Scientific Accreditation?
« Reply #52 on: December 13, 2021, 06:45:32 PM »
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").

Quote from: Kangaroony
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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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%).

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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.

Quote from: Kangaroony
And as a former cancer sufferer (more than 30 years ago) I can assure that doctors do know how to eradicate it.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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.

Quote from: Kangaroony
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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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!

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
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.