My new book is planned to be published early November. A full announcement will be made here when it’s for sale. It will be about the same size for the about the same price as “The Fiction Of Science”.
My new book is planned to be published early November. A full announcement will be made here when it’s for sale. It will be about the same size for the about the same price as “The Fiction Of Science”.
New research has found that some therapies could stop melanoma from spreading or returning. Well, that’s what they hope. But is that hope based on anything?
“One Australian dies every five hours from advanced melanoma,” That’s about 1500 a year. And the number is probably increasing, just like with all cancers. And melanoma therapies have not been particularly effective, just like with all cancer therapies. “Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) said the findings could change the way the cancer is treated in the future.” Could, but not will. But I suppose that’s because they are still trials. The problem is that all those medical trials rarely lead to anything useful and therefore there is no news value in publishing this kind of stuff. But I suppose that without publishing “promising research” the medical journals couldn’t exist anymore.
“block the BRAF gene — which causes melanoma to spread.” Ah, another genetic cancer, which was rare or non-existent 100 years ago. It’s amazing how quickly all these genetic diseases have spread. I have no idea how researchers find genes that they can blame for diseases, but it cannot possibly be based in science. Generally it’s a matter of “so many people with this gene have the disease”, so the gene must be the cause. But many people with the disease don’t have the gene and many people with the gene don’t get the disease. Which makes the correlation very weak at best. And BTW, a gene is nothing more than a complex molecule. I’m not sure how you can block a molecule.
“found the therapy prevented Stage III melanoma from recurring, and helped improve patients’ overall survival rate.” How long have these studies been going? To improve survival rates you would need to keep going for at least five years and to be sure that the cancer indeed doesn’t come back you would need to have at least 20 years. I don’t think that has happened. Cancer statistics are usually highly manipulated to make them look better than they are. If the patients that got the therapy developed another cancer and died from it, then the melanoma didn’t recur. But that didn’t really help the patient. Oncology is chockful of smokescreens and most cancer patients don’t know it.
“said the drugs reduced the rate at which the disease would return by 53 per cent.” Professor Scolyer, how do you know that? And how exactly did you measure this? “basically stop melanoma in its tracks,” Does it really? Or does it so in theory? And what does this mean for the life expectancy of the patients? For the latter is what matters, not all the theories about one disease. It’s remarkably that oncologists never talk about life expectancy, which is the only thing that is important. If you don’t get melanoma back, but you die from another cancer, or a heart attack, then this is hardly helpful. “also reduced the rate the disease would return by about 35 per cent. ” Same here. Why doesn’t it return? Is the patient healthier? That’s not very likely, considering the high toxicity of cancer treatments.
“worked to help boost the body’s own immune system to fight the cancer.” These are the most bizarre types of cancer treatment. Boosting the immune system should be done with good food, fresh air, sunshine, low stress, happiness and such things. The idea that you can improve the immune system with toxic drugs is weird, not to say laughable.
“But he said it was too soon to tell if those drugs improved overall survival rates.” Huh? Professor Scolyer, you have me confused now. The new drug stops melanoma and prevents it from recurring, but you don’t know if it actually works? What are you talking about? “They only work locally, but don’t prevent the disease if it’s already spread elsewhere,” So you say that you don’t know why people get melanoma and why they get cancer somewhere else, or what that means. You actually say that you don’t know much at all. I already got that impression. “there must be little seeded deposits of little cells that we can’t detect now ” This sounds a bit desperate, like you really don’t know what you are doing and make a wild guess. If the therapy would remove those deposits, then the patients should survive longer. But you just say that you don’t know about that.
Then we still get a story of a cancer patient who was part of the trial and has a really positive story. But at a closer look the story isn’t that positive at all, but full of mights and maybes. And how the other people in the trial do is unclear. Probably not so good, for else it would have been mentioned.
The reality is that in the war on cancer no battles have been won. A few have been undetermined, but most battles have been lost. And a lot of number manipulation, vague terminology and other smokescreens are necessary to hide this. The only ones that benefit from cancer treatments are the pharmaceutical businesses that make the drugs. Cancer drugs are the most profitable category and the manufacturers would like to keep the many billions of dollars coming.
It is a scientifically proven fact that in most cases not doing anything gives a much better life expectancy than getting conventional treatments. And it is also a scientifically proven fact that natural therapies cure cancer and they usually do that fast, cheap and without any dangerous side-effects. But there is not a lot of money in them and so patients aren’t told this life-saving information.
Professor Brendan Murphy, Australia’s chief medical officer, says that there is no truth in the anti-vaccine campaign. And he’s a professor, so he knows, right? Wrong. Very wrong. Just the idea that an “education campaign” will work where blackmail failed is so absurd, that you can’t take the person suggesting it seriously.
“suggested autism might be linked to vaccines was “completely false and has been debunked.” Professor, did you see the movie Vaxxed? Or are you saying that everyone is lying, including official CDC documents? You say that thoroughly proven CDC fraud is a figment of the imagination? Then you live in fantasy land yourself. I suppose you didn’t like the movie to be such a success and now you are showing your despair? Not smart to show it so clearly. It will just make more people wonder what your problem is.
“with evidence-based information that parents could easily access.” Evidence-based information? I would like to see that. My guess is that it will be just the same unscientific propaganda as usual. Professor, you cannot convince anyone with repeating the same old stuff again and again. You would have to come with something new. Maybe you can make a documentary about a pro-vax whistleblower who exposes all the anti-vax lies? Somehow I feel like it wouldn’t quite work, because you couldn’t find the evidence.
“Nationally the immunisation rate is 93 per cent” I would love to see proof of that. Parents stop vaccinating in large numbers. Many others never even start. And nobody changes their mind once they stop (though some can be blackmailed). But the government keeps telling us that the vaccination rates remain stable, or even go up. Something is seriously wrong with the statistics.
“our job here to say that message is false, untrue, incorrect.” Now it gets funny. Your job is to say this? Wouldn’t it be your job to prove this? You know, many parents have found truckloads of proof to know that vaccinations and unsafe and ineffective. You telling them that they are wrong won’t make a difference. Don’t treat the citizens of Australia like they are just as dumb as their government. It will backfire big time, you know.
“in relation to a [measles] breakout at a local school,” Mr. Hunt, you speak like a politician who has no idea about reality. Oh wait, you are. Two cases of measles is not an outbreak. It’s not worth media hysteria. It’s not news. It’s just two cases of measles. Just like there are cases of measles everywhere. But in vaccinated children the disease is not diagnosed as such.
“Our baby Dana died from whooping cough.” Every baby who dies is a tragedy. But many babies get whooping cough and survive. With the right treatment it’s nothing but a very unpleasant experience. On the other hand at least one baby a week dies from the whooping cough vaccine. Why doesn’t that get any attention from the government? An education campaign should show both sides of the story. Else it’s a propaganda campaign. The government has used the help of this family multiple times before. It didn’t work then, it won’t work now. Come with something new, Mr. Hunt.
“Doctors said diseases like measles could be wiped out through immunisation.”Doctors say a lot, but that doesn’t mean they are correct. Doctors are trained and actively encouraged not to diagnose vaccine diseases in vaccinated individuals. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, but the only thing that gets wiped out is the diagnosis, not the disease. Families who stop vaccinating usually know this. You can’t fool them anymore repeating the same old stuff.
“But Professor Murphy said nearly eradicated diseases like polio could also spread again” Also polio has been nominally eradicated by renaming it. There are now more people with paralytic diseases and more people using ventilators than there ever were before 1950. Renaming a disease doesn’t make the vaccine effective. It just shows how ineffective the vaccine is. After all, if it would work the renaming trick wouldn’t be necessary.
“seeing the horrible complications from measles,” Professor Murphy, you are now intentionally telling lies. Or you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And again, the parents who have stopped vaccinating know that you are lying. So repeating your lies might make them laugh or shake their heads, but that’s about it.
“Parents need facts and that is what this campaign does. Get the facts.” Your campaign will present facts? That I would like to see. So far it sounds like it will be nothing more than a repetition of the old propaganda. And if you would know anything about psychology you would know that this campaign will just make more people curious why you think you need to repeat the old stuff. And why you can’t come with something new and convincing. Just like all the negative talk about the movie Vaxxed made people go to the screenings in large crowds. I would like to know how many people have Googled Vaxxed after the avalanche of warnings. Your new campaign will likely do the same.
“Immunisation is incredibly safe, and it does save lives.” Why don’t the manufacturers accept liability for a product that is so incredibly safe? Can you explain that, professor? And if vaccines are such a fantastic product, then why exactly do you feel that you need to spend 5.5 million dollars for an advertising campaign? A good product sells itself. You don’t need to blackmail people to buy it. And BTW, I can imagine that many people are not happy that so much tax money is spent for an advertising campaign. It gives them the feeling that you have other interests than the health of the people.
Vaccinations are not based on science. From the very beginning they were based on myths, lies and greed. And luckily the people start to see that. A government campaign won’t change that. And that is really not rocket science.
Australian researchers say they have discovered a new link between Alzheimer’s disease and the levels of iron in the brain. They can think all kinds of things, but that doesn’t mean that they are correct.
They start out with an assumption that has been proven to be incorrect: “amyloid — the Alzheimer’s protein”. That story about amyloid plaques and Alzheimer’s has been debunked decades ago, but that is generally ignored. Modern scientists do that a lot, which automatically makes their work unscientific.
“Three-dimensional brain scans suggest lower iron levels may delay the progress of memory loss” It suggests that it may. That’s not a discovery, that’s a theory. “scientists have known for some time that iron levels in the brain rise with age.” Why? Is there a reason for this? Does it happen to everyone? If it doesn’t happen in everyone, then this statement is incorrect and the rest of the research is rubbish.
“this iron elevation that occurs in humans and all mammals is unnecessary,” Unnecessary? According to whom? Considering that evolution doesn’t allow for flawed design you say now that God has made a mistake. That’s quite arrogant, professor Bush. I tend to not listen to people with a god complex. ” if the two phenomenon occur together you get conditions that appear to lead to Alzheimer’s disease.” If that happens. So under what circumstances does that happen and why does it happen so much more now than a hundred years ago? Dementia is an epidemic and that has very little to do with the increased age of the population.
“amyloid, which scientists have long known” Nope, they have assumed that for a long time. And once it was proven to be incorrect they didn’t correct their assumption. And from that moment research became pseudo-science. “the amyloid with such high levels of iron that seems to set up the deterioration.” Professor Bush, how large was your control group? How many old people without cognitive problems did you put into your scanners? I assume none, as that would not be ethical and it would be hard to find volunteers. Without a control group your findings are worth nothing.
“occur very early on and allow us to actually predict the age at which a person is going to come down with symptoms.” You can predict that? How would you know? You make gigantic assumptions here, which most probably will never amount to anything. Like with most medical research.
“That’s going to help us with our drug-making in particular.” Professor Bush, can I ask who paid for this research? It sounds like you were just told to come up with something that would create options for a new drug. But I’ll tell you a secret: Alzheimer’s disease is not caused by lack of a drug. No disease is caused by lack of toxic pharmaceuticals. On the other hand, these drugs do cause a lot of disease. Why won’t you do a study to see if there is a correlation between the use of certain drugs and Alzheimer’s? Just a suggestion. It would make a lot of sense, wouldn’t it? Except that it will be hard to find anyone who would pay for this.
Here’s another suggestion. Cultures that eat a lot of turmeric and coconut oil have very low incidence of Alzheimer’s. That strongly suggests Alzheimer’s is an inflammatory disease. You see, professor, that makes sense. And I’m sure that it could pretty easily be proven to be correct. So why don’t you do some useful research for a change?
Researchers think they will soon have a “breakthrough” drug to help the immune system fight viruses. But the immune system works on things like good food, lack of poison, fresh air, sunshine and happiness. So how can a toxic drug help?
The new drug would “negate the need for some vaccinations”. That sounds odd. Vaccines are the backbone of the pharmaceutical industry and their only hope in financially uncertain times. So why would they want something that takes away the needs for vaccines?
“They said the treatment could help save the lives of 3,000 Australians aged over 50 who died each year because of the flu,” 3000? Over 50? That almost sounds like the flu is a dangerous disease that can even kill middle aged people. Luckily that’s not true. These kind of numbers are completely made up. It’s not so easy to determine the cause of death, especially when someone has multiple medical problems, which is often the case nowadays. So if someone has lung problems, bad kidneys and a very bad immune system and then the flu makes a visit, then the person doesn’t die from the flu. He/she dies from a very weak body, that can’t handle the flu anymore. And many of these people end up in hospital, which is so dangerous that almost anyone who “died from the flu” probably died from the bad medical treatment.
“enhanced viral disease in mice” and was highly likely to have the same effect in humans.” Let’s put this into the category wishful thinking. Many things that work fine in mice and rabbits do not work in humans. Besides it’s often overlooked that the mice die or get health problems after the treatment and that is usually something that does show up in humans as well.
“protein that causes inflammation” Inflammation is a very important reaction. Something you really don’t want to mess with. “reduces the immune system’s ability to clear infection”. Now it gets interesting. The science behind the flu is laughable, as I explain here. Viruses don’t cause disease anyway, so how exactly does the immune system clear an infection with a non-existing pathogen?
“Professor Doug Brooks said viruses had evolved over the past 500 million years”. Professor, I can only shake my head here. You are using the belief in evolution to explain non-existing viruses? I would have thought that someone with the title professor would at least use a bit of science. But you have entered now the area of pure fiction. You should consider writing novels.
“You don’t get all the cell death, all the inflammation and all of the mucus.” So you are saying that all those billions of years of evolution have resulted in a body that doesn’t know how to fight an infection. You are saying that what the body is doing is wrong. That definitely sounds like you have a god complex, but that doesn’t combine well with your belief in evolution.
“with no side effects” No side effects? That would be the first drug that doesn’t have any side-effects. Someone should really draw you back to reality. “unnecessary to create new flu vaccines each year” And why would anyone (except the ordinary person) want that? Even though the flu shot sales go down every year, the profits are still pretty high. Big Pharma won’t let anyone get in between them and their profits. Unless they would expect this new drug to become a blockbuster, which is highly unlikely. “the body could generate its own antibodies”: But professor, don’t you know that antibodies have nothing to do with immunity? That has already been known for a very long time. If you don’t know that, then why would anyone take you seriously?
“anti-viral drugs that must be taken in the early days of contracting a virus to be effective,” Anti-viral drugs effective? I suppose that depends on your definition of efficacy. Do these drugs kill viruses? Well, they are so toxic that they kill loads of things in the body, also the viruses that the body produces to get healthy. Virus dead, patient dead, drug effective. Hardly the kind of drug that doesn’t have any side effects. If you compare your product to these drugs, then we can only expect the worst.
Let’s face it: the last thing the world needs is another flu-fighting drug. The current anti-viral drugs have already killed many and saved none. There is no reason to think that a drug that interferes with the defense mechanisms of the body will be any better. The best way to get over the flu quickly is to take high doses of vitamin C and D. Cheap and totally safe. (Don’t you know that, professor?) Add a box of tissues and few days off work and you will be fine. The most important thing to do when you have the flu is to stay away from doctors. They will give you all kinds of drugs that only increase your chances of death. And that, professor Brooks, has been thoroughly scientifically proven.
Whenever you see the word “research” you should always be careful. Usually what follows is a lot of fiction. But sometimes it’s more than fiction. Sometimes research is just a joke. Like the study that looked at how children are doing that have been conceived with donor sperm.
Considering that many children are conceived this way it’s not likely that such a study will have a negative outcome. That would simply be unacceptable. Not only would a negative study not be published, it won’t even happen. Study results are not hard to manipulate and that happens all the time. But with this study that is so easy that the outcome was clearly predetermined and the study of no value whatsoever. A waste of time and money.
The researchers looked at both the physical and mental health of these children. There is absolutely no reason to think that donor sperm children would be in worse physical health than others. Unless only donors with loads of health problems would be used, which is not a likely scenario. But another question is how you can possibly know if donor children are in worse physical health, considering sickness is the standard nowadays and healthy children are becoming an anomaly. When everyone is sick you can’t easily determine whether someone has health problems due to being a donor kid.
“in fact on several of the measures, they seemed to actually be doing better.” Dr. Amor, give me one reason why this would be anything else than wishful thinking and manipulation of the results. What reason could there possibly be that these kids do better? “Researchers also found a child’s family structure — such as same-sex, different-sex or single parent, did not appear to affect their wellbeing.” Really? Any other result would be completely socially and politically unacceptable. This had to be the result of the study. “previous studies focused on newborns.” I would love to see these studies. Did they ask newborns how they felt about having two mothers, or growing up with a man who is not your biological father? These researchers are just creating work for themselves and I wonder who funds this kind of stuff.
“mental health and development through questionnaires answered by their mothers” This is laughable. Questionnaires are known to be a very poor source of information, as people tend not to fill them in honestly. We like to see ourselves as better than we are. Now mothers must answer questions that will say whether they made a good or a bad choice when using donor sperm to get a child. The chance that mothers will give unfavourable answers is close to zero. That is the reason why these kids came out as healthier than others. This is not research, it’s a joke. A high school student would get a bad mark for this kind of study.
“they have had health problems which they can’t attribute to their biological parents.” Well, children have more and more health problems that cannot be attributed to biological parents. School age children have been exposed to so much poison, both from doctors and otherwise, that it’s hard to know what could be a biological influence and what’s caused by the environment. Previous generations simply didn’t have this problem.
“Professor Amor is confident in the study’s results.” Of course he is. He can’t really admit that he wasted time and money for a completely useless study. Most researchers are confident in the work they do, no matter how useless it is. “we are confident that our results are representative of the donor-conceived population as a whole,” You mean that all mothers of donor kids would give highly biased answers on your questionnaire? I would think that that is true. But if everyone gives biased answers that doesn’t make your study any more valuable. A lot of rubbish doesn’t make a pearl.
The article doesn’t mention if this study has been published, but I assume so, for else nobody would know about it. It’s generally pretty hard to get studies published. That rubbish like this gets a place somewhere only shows that a lot of research is even worse than this. Why on earth do researchers have the status that they have? They should better get a job as a rubbish collector. Then they would do something useful. Now they just add to the pile.
If climate change happens then the biodiversity of Antarctica is in danger. It’s funny how climate scientists twist themselves into knots to come with scary stories that at least sound like they make any sense. The problem is that the general public has abandoned the topic. So many scare stories never happened that the people are tired of it.
Let’s have a look at the latest attempt. “Areas of Antarctica that are permanently without ice could increase by up to 25 per cent ” Could, if there would be climate change. Have you noticed that climate scientists nowadays always talk in hypotheses? It could happen, it might happen. It’s a bit hard to say that it will happen when you know that the earth is cooling down, admitted by their own IPCC. “a worst-case climate change scenario.” I suppose that’s a scenario that the climate scientsts themselves have made.
“Any expansion of ice-free areas could have serious implications for biodiversity” That’s another “could”. The ice could disappear and this could have bad consequences. Somehow it doesn’t sound very convincing. “so dispersal may increase and things might start to interact”. It’s becoming funny, for here we have a may and a might. It sounds like mr. Terauds just makes wild guesses. “this creates more potential habitat for non-native species,” Potential. So that doesn’t mean it will happen, even if the ice would disappear. It’s just a theory. Species usually are not so eager to migrate to places where they shouldn’t be and where they will have to fight for a place with native species. Non-native species are usually introduced by humans. Oops! There’s a big hole in the theory.
“Scientists predict the Antarctic Peninsula will be the hardest hit by ice melt.” Here I see a serious problem. So far the predictions of climate scientists have been very consistently wrong. So there is absolutely no reason to believe them this time. “it was the region already most affected by climate change.” I don’t know the details of Antarctic geography, but I do know that the ice masses there grow and melt all the time. When one area is losing ice another area is growing and during the last few years the total ice mass has increased. So obviously one part is affected by climate change and the other areas are not. I would like to hear an explanation for this.
“The scientists said reducing global carbon emissions would help arrest the rate of ice melt in Antarctica.” This is such an old, worn out story that it’s becoming very boring. Besides as is generally known, there is no ice melt in Antarctica. The nett ice mass is growing, which is to be expected when the worldwide temperatures are going down. It’s funny how climate scientists miss such things. That in itself already shows that they have no idea what they are talking about. Unless they ignore it of course, which would show that they are just frauds. Either way I don’t think anyone should believe them.
“It is the first time scientists have looked at the effect of climate change on Antarctic biodiversity.” Well, you must do something when all other theories keep going wrong. There is a limit to how often you can come with the same scare stories. “research has focused on how melting ice will contribute to global sea level rises.” That’s the kind of worn-out scare stories that I mean. For decades we have heard stories about rising sea levels and floods, but so far the sea has not risen with even one centimeter. It makes it a bit hard to keep repeating that story without making a complete fool of yourself.
“The study was published today in the journal Nature.” I don’t know what kind of journal this is, but if this kind of “research” is an indication of the level of science in the journal, then I hope that no paper is wasted to print it. This is not science. It’s pure fiction and of a very poor quality. Writing the same kind of story again and again doesn’t work for any fiction writer. And it most definitely doesn’t work for climate fantasy fiction.