Bioelectromagnetics

[cogreslab]

To PJ: Yes. Carcinogens may be chemical, organic, or viral in origin, but they all have this common feature of an ability to bind to vital parts of the ox-phos pathway, thereby preventing ubiquinone from carrying out its function. When you remove them ( by creating a peroxide free radical, just as ubiquinone creates a free radical as part of its delivery process) this initiates a chain reaction which works throughout the system and eliminates cancer cells from every part of the body, not just the primary site. That is how it solves the problem of metastasis. I can send you the biochemistry if you let me have your address.

Ubiquinone itself cannot do this, because its electronegativitity is weakened by its substituent methyl groups and its isoprenoid tail (these 10 isoprenoid units in humans are why it is sometimes referred to as CoQ10, as you probably know). Para benzoquinone does not have these methyl groups around the ring, nor any isoprenoid units (Ubiquinone needs them to maintain its position in the plasma membrane), which gives it a much greater RP value.

Are you beginning to understand the mechanism now? It a bit of a digression, but will help later when I deal with the effects of electric fields on this process inter alia.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Roger,

Did you attend Cambridge prior to 1272? You don't seem to be in this Cambridge alumni database, though that covers alumns from as far back as 1272. I guess your magnetic gizmos are doing you well, aren't they? But I am surprised to see one so fond of waving Cambridge about to be absent from this database.

Also, for one so fond of using the internet to make morally outrageous challenges, you seem to be missing from Cambridge's alumni e-mail directory.

When can we expect you to correct these errors, roger? There is a simple online registry system for the second one, and an email address to write the former Queens college president who runs the first one. This should be rather easy to correct, no?

Li'l' Bill, anyone can denigrate.

For instance, you, are a cretin who runs from questions: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?threadid=37789&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

However, you could actually try and debunk the science instead, but you don't. You'd rather try and attack the integrity of Mr Coghill and run from your peers.

Why is that?

 

[cogreslab]

To Cleopatra: This is the political bit now! This discovery poses an enormous problem for the cancer industry, because it is impossible to patent the basic quinones, so there can be no commercial return, and it will be so successful that thousands working in the cancer care business will not be needed. It poses an enormous problem for Government since it will be successful enough to shift the actuarial balance and cause an enormous extra drain on pension funding as a result of elderly people living longer.

There are enormous socio-economic implications. And cynically, dare I pose the horrendous question that in a world whose population is increasing out of control, maybe we should not aim to cure cancer anyway? (So long as it's not a cancer in my family!)

 

[cogreslab]

To PJ: Finally, (for I've a complicated in vitro blood analysis to do right now in the lab), I would point out that carcinogens are not the only way the ox phos pathway is blocked. I mentioned that restricted bioavailability of O2 could produce the same effect even without any carcinogens presnt. You see this particulalrly in mammary tumours, since the breast is poorly vascularised, and even a slight bruise can restrict O2 availablity, with increased likelihood of metabolic change. Easy bruising is also a feature of leukaemias, as is pallor, both indicators of a restricted blood circulation and lowered O2 bioavailability. I will soon explain how ELF electric fields have a part to play in these events e.g. via induction of bradycardia.

Are you beginning to get insight now? Page 1274 of Alberts, Bray et al., 1994 (3rd Edn) is useful in that regard.

 

[Lucianarchy]

It is the same with the scientific evidence for the 'psi' effect. The evidence demonstrates that the effect undoubtably exists, small, but measurable. The consquences and implications for humanity, though, are huge.

The reluctance to accept the data does not come from real sceptics any longer, it appears to come from those who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, to the detriment of scientific progress and the well being of humanity.

Given the quality and integrity of the data, it follows that these people aren't 'sceptics' at all. They are liars.

 

[Cleopatra]

To Cleopatra: This is the political bit now! This discovery poses an enormous problem for the cancer industry, because it is impossible to patent the basic quinones, so there can be no commercial return, and it will be so successful that thousands working in the cancer care business will not be needed. It poses an enormous problem for Government since it will be successful enough to shift the actuarial balance and cause an enormous extra drain on pension funding as a result of elderly people living longer.

There are enormous socio-economic implications. And cynically, dare I pose the horrendous question that in a world whose population is increasing out of control, maybe we should not aim to cure cancer anyway? (So long as it's not a cancer in my family!) ]

Mr Coghill, when I was younger,around 18 I had some leftist political ideas only to verify the famous quote of Sir Winston.I am sure you know.

I used to believe back then that the reason why they do not launch a treatment for diabetes is because the establishment of the pharmaceutical industries that sell insuline do not let scientists to do their job. I believed the same about cancer,that there is "somebody" who doesn't let scientists to find their way. Then I grew up and although I still believed in those things I was serious enough not to ridicule myself by narrating conspiracy theories in public. 10 years later I met my husband who was a Wall Street hawk and in simple logistics and with a big smile on his face proved me that a treatment for cancer would bring tremendous profits for the pharmaceutical industries and the politicans also he reminded me that in History none has ever been capable to suppress the scientific truth.

I wish that your theory had a basis sir because it would be easier for simple people like me that are involved in politics and stuff to trace and uncover this secret establishment. We have been looking everywhere but we haven't found anything. And please notice that we don't have products to sell, if we had an interest this would be to satisfy our thirsty egos. Other than that nothing.

 

[Cleopatra]

And the most cynical thing Sir is that if they find a treatment for cancer and they address the environmental issues, parties as they one you belong, the Greens, will have to dissolve. Do not be so ungrateful towards this Establishment.

 

[Marian]

However, you could actually try and debunk the science instead, but you don't. You'd rather try and attack the integrity of Mr Coghill and run from your peers.

Why is that?

First off, Bill has debunked and addressed 'the science' numerous times in this thread.

Second, Mr. Coghill has repeatedly made nasty remarks about other people's professions (which have nothing to do with the content of their posts as they are not claiming degrees or qualifications in their statements to prop them up). Things like:

Originally posted by cogreslab

Not being acquainted with many garbage collectors or strip club bouncer s (we live a sheltered life in Pontypool) I perhaps came to the mistaken conclusion that such folk may not understand the niceties of bioelectromagnetics. I did not intend to be haughty about it.

Since Garbage Man has questioned the possibility that 60Hz line sources might radiate and thereby put vicinals (oops sorry, nearby people) into the far field of its emissions, I will come back with a more understandable version later. Meanwhile, it would elevate the quality of this thread if we could stick to science, since I am already fully conversant with the invective abilities of some members, having had many examples during this dialogue.

And

Originally posted by cogreslab

It will be difficult for me to adjust my texts to the level of a bouncer at local strip clubs, but if I am to get my message over, so be it.

Finally, Mr. Coghill has repeatedly presented his 'credentials' to bolster his arguments, and as such they are subject to challenge. If I present an argument, I must (of course) be prepared to defend my position. If I present that argument as an expert, or present experience that grants me additional knowledge than the 'average person' then I am presenting credentials that can be questioned, and probably WILL be if I am propping my argument up with 'I'm an expert!'. Generally, people don't question credentials, as they're often not instrumental to the argument. An argument has to be able to stand on its merits regardless of who is presenting it. However time and again Mr. Coghill has repeatedly fallen back on his credentials and has gone out of his way to belittle other people's opinions...not on the merit of the arguments but attacking their personal lives. (Be it bouncer, trash collector, or crocodile breeder ).

 

[cogreslab]

to cleopatra:

I wish that your theory had a basis sir because it would be easier for simple people like me that are involved in politics and stuff to trace and uncover this secret establishment. We have been looking everywhere but we haven't found anything. And please notice that we don't have products to sell, if we had an interest this would be to satisfy our thirsty egos. Other than that nothing.

Now you have a reason to visit the WHO conference in Istanbul! I will show you the conspiracy at work there!

 

[Cleopatra]

Now you have a reason to visit the WHO conference in Istanbul! I will show you the conspiracy at work there!

The incarnation of Ulysses puts his James Bond suit on and he sails to a new adventure along with an activist conservative lawyer in the role of the Bond Girl. Will they be able to reveal the Shocking Truth that hides in the basements of the Exotic Palaces of Instabul ?

LOL

Oh well, since there is nothing to find we can always sell the story for a scenario

 

[cogreslab]

To Cleopatra: do I take that as an acceptance? Shall I get Miss Moneypenny to arrange your registration at the Conference?

PS Bring your thermal socks and a swim suit.

 

[cogreslab]

To Marian: Did I miss something? So far I didn't equate Bouncer Bill with science, only with calling me a fraud and being ridicuolously pedantic.

 

[Marian]

To Marian: Did I miss something? So far I didn't equate Bouncer Bill with science, only with calling me a fraud and being ridicuolously pedantic.

I think that people need only refer to pages 14 and 15 of this thread to get a fair idea of the specific science principles Bill Hoyt and others were refering to, which you repeatedly dodged.

And please, you calling anyone "ridicuolously pedantic" after your numerous comments (two of which I quoted in my last post) is blatent hypocrisy.

 

[cogreslab]

to marian:

Quote from Bouncer Bill in page 15:

Yeah, its back to "rogbot," rogbot. I'll get to that later. First let's deal with this little tirade, worthy of Frank Zappa's weany little psychic who resorts to squealing "But I have crystal balls!" as skeptics laugh at him.

What "expertise" did it require for you to make this self-contradictory pair of claims, sir:

o We don't test animals.
o We did test worms?

When you were called on your ignorance of basic biologic taxonomy, which degree was responsible for this brilliant pair:

o I concede worms are animals.
o Bacteria are animals?

As if your biology credibility were not already shot, we proceeded to discuss your morally reprehensible call for someone to commit infanticide. Specifically, someone asked why a human infant must be endangered by your challenge. Why not a mammal such as a rat. Which degree instilled in you sufficient ignorance to ejaculate this:"

Not much science, but a load of invective, denigration, and pedantry, it seems to me.

 

[Prester John]

By cogreslab:

To PJ: Yes. Carcinogens may be chemical, organic, or viral in origin, but they all have this common feature of an ability to bind to vital parts of the ox-phos pathway, thereby preventing ubiquinone from carrying out its function.

Please reference this. You need experimental evidence to show this is really happening.

You are looking at it from the wrong direction, increased glucose consumption is caused because cancerous cells are basically protein factories. It is well established that the induction of Cancer is a multi step process of clonal evolution that is driven by a series of mutations the convert the cell from normal, to pre cancerous to finally a cancerous state. The genes involved in these mutations generally fall into one of 3 categories namely:
1) Induce Cellular proliferation
2) Inhibit Cellular proliferation
3) Regulate apoptosis.
Carcinogens interact with the cells genome to cause mutations in genes with the above functions.

However i guess you are aware of all that, so do you not accept it? I repeat you need to show peer reviewed evidence of your version.

 

[BillHoyt]

Not much science, but a load of invective, denigration, and pedantry, it seems to me.

Which is it, sir? Do you dispute you made those statements? Or do you now wish to maintain worms aren't animals? Or that bacteria are animals? Or that humans aren't mammals?

Of course, you also conveniently leave out the entire dodged questions list, the ones to which marian referred and from which you now wish to deflect yet again, about radio waves ceasing to exist when the transmitter plug is pulled?

Your "understanding" of science is, to say the least, highly suspect. Its suspect nature is reflected in your morally repugnant challenge, your dubious statements here and the crap you try to palm off on the unsuspecting.

So, tell us:

o Are worms not animals?
o Are humans not mammals?
o Are bacteria animals?
o Do radio waves cease to exist when the transmitter plug is pulled?
o Is there something wrong with the above science, sir?

 

[EHocking]

I was asked for my own protocol, I thought, and I made it clear that my anecdotal evidence was not being regarded by me as a publishable experiment. Suddenly my entire academic capacity is being challenged for telling you my anecdote with my own pet, including the genuineness of my academic degrees! Some of you guys build castles in the air then attempt to live in them.

Nevertheless, video cameras (and the need to sit and watch them for hours to chronicle the results) and the other paraphernalia you mention were not appropriate for my simple test on one subject. We have not done any peer reviewable work ourselves on this issue, but I will get on to the manufacturers about this to see what they say (apart from branding you as overly skeptical of course).

Apart from what the manufacturers say, you, as owner/director of the companies that market and host the marketing these products, are liable for misleading advertising.

By your own anecdotal evidence a pet will NOT always prefer water "magnetised" by the Pet Counter. Not only is the advertising misleading, it is wilfully misleading, as you are well aware, by your own "case study", that the claim is untrue.

Here's a reminder of the Trades Description Act summary at the DTI website "The Trade Descriptions Act 1968 makes it an offence for a trader to apply, by any means, false or misleading statements, or to knowingly or recklessly make such statements about services."

It makes me wonder what you ask when you buy a loaf of bread: do you demand proof that the flour was white?

The ingredients are listed on the packaging. If the labelling is misleading the manufacturer can be liable for prosecution.

The "ingredients" of the Pet Coaster is not the issue, it is the misleading advertising and the untrue claims made on your website that is.

 

[EHocking]

Thanks EHocking, btw, for elevating my wealth for me by hundreds of thousands of dollars at a stroke. Sadly for me, a million dollars is not the same however as a million pounds: is this the kind of accuracy you would bring to your experimental protocols?

How childish. When I point out your errors I'm accused of pedantry!

But this is how the scientific method works - by reproducing experimental protocols errors that might influence the outcome are brought to light.

Even typographical errors.

 

[cogreslab]

To PJ: Yes, I am of course aware of the multistage theory of carcinogenesis (initiation, promotion, progression) but in my view this theory is not correct.

 

[cogreslab]

To PJ: I am making the assumption that cell mutation is not, in your schema, possible unless there is a carcinogen present. Is that correct? In other words that without a carcinogen no cancer is possible? (I include radiation in the list of carcinogens).

Also I do not see how the multistage explanation of carcinogenesis can account for spontaneous remission or metastasis. Could you throw light on these difficulties for me?