news:C8cd4.1977$Fy3.116510@news1.gvcl1.bc.home.com…
:
: "- Prof. Jonez©" <TheProfes…@lawrence.livermore.gov> wrote in message
: news:01bf53fc$c07636e0$8201a8c0@anon.gol…
: >
: >
: > The smokers premise: Everyone has a right to urinate, therefore you have
: the
: > right to urinate in public, and upon other people.
: >
: > Yeah, sure you do. Show me one study that links any cancer or permanent
: harm
: > caused by public urination.
: >
:
: What a very excellent analogy!

The analogy was anal. The professor believes that sex is a right, so sex in
public is OK. Same diff…

:
: Unfortunately, you damged your credibility a bit with the folowing
: gratuitous attack.
:
: >
: > Canada … Northern New York State … ha ha …

the professor is puckering up to kiss my Canadian ass.

> The smokers premise: Everyone has a right to urinate, therefore you have
the
> right to urinate in public, and upon other people.

> Yeah, sure you do. Show me one study that links any cancer or permanent
harm
> caused by public urination.

What a very excellent analogy!

Unfortunately, you damged your credibility a bit with the folowing
gratuitous attack.

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

> Canada … Northern New York State … ha ha …

PS; It’s the smoke, stupid!
—

Mark McQuiggan <mark…@interlog.com> wrote in article
<G12d4.1342$FW.103…@cac1.rdr.news.psi.ca>…
:
: Michael Grey <mg…@gpsocket.com> wrote in message
: news:3874A44F.3ECD880C@gpsocket.com…
: > Oh, ok, I see where you are coming from now. You figure that people
: pollute the air
: > with cars and manufacturing plants – You don’t care that these things
: improve peoples
: > lives by providing necessities and luxuries that normally would not be
: available. You
: > say "everyone else is polluting the air so I’m gonna take it a step
: further and
: > pollute twice as much as everyone else by smoking 20 packs a day" So for
: you to drive
: > a car, ride a bus, taxi, etc. and smoke, you are polluting twice as much
: as me
: > because I don’t smoke.
:
: Not at all true.  The L.A. study referenced in another post claimed that 70%
: of urban air pollution was car exhaust, while 0.7% was cigarette smoke.  You
: and you car is polluting 100 times more than any smoker.

The argument to restrict and control public smoking isn’t based on
the premise that it is the only source of, as you say, "pollution".
Nor is it based on any need for "provable permanent harm".

My loud stereo doesn’t cause you any provable harm, but if I blast it
next to your house at 2am, every 2am, bet you ask the police to enforce
the existing laws on public nuisance.

Its the smoke stupid. They public smoking that is a public nuisance,
physical harm, permanent or otherwise, isn’t necessary for society to
severely restrict and control the addicted dullards who abuse others.

<snip>

: >
: > I don’t have the right to smash my car into everyone else because I feel
: like it so
: > what gives you the right to injure me with your cigarette smoke?
:
: Nothing.  How does cigarette smoke injure you?

It doesn’t have to to be restricted. See above.

: Please provide evidence.  I
: would suggest not using either the EPA or WHO meta-studies.

No evidence of harm is necessary, just nuisance.

: >Maybe I should start
: > my house on fire – I certainly have that right
:
: No.
:
: > – It’s too bad if the whole block
: > catches fire and burns everyone’s house down – If they didn’t want their
: house to
: > catch fire they should have moved it. How about if my friends and I like
: the taste of
: > chlorine in our water – so we go down to the city water plant and dump
: 50,000 lbs of
: > chlorine into the city water – we have the right to do this
:
: No.
:
: > because we like the
: > chlorine taste, if everyone else doesn’t then they don’t have to drink
: water –  This
: > is the same logic you use when trying to justify smoking – doesn’t make
: much sense
: > does it?
: >
:
: Sorry, but while your passion is evident, your logic is not.
:
: When push comes to shove, people usually justify smoking by saying that it
: is a legal activity for those of age in which they choose to partake.  Your
: examples of arson and sabotage above are not legal activities.

Neither is smoking in public in many places. Obey the laws, or face more of them.

: Your inital
: premise is flawed.  And if you were being facetious, no one has the right to
: smoke or blow smoke in your face.  So your logic in that argument is flawed
: as well.

The smokers premise: Everyone has a right to urinate, therefore you have the
right to urinate in public, and upon other people.

Yeah, sure you do. Show me one study that links any cancer or permanent harm
caused by public urination.

:
: In several of your posts (including this one), you talk about "rights".  I
: would suggest that you do some research into what rights you actually have.
: Judging by your posts, you will be very surprised.

You never had, in the USA anyway, a "right" to smoke in public. And seeing the
repression of crazy Canadian laws, no free press, bearing arms etc. don’t guess
you have it in cannuk-land either.

:
: Mark McQuiggan
: Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Canada … Northern New York State … ha ha …

> "Thomas F. Unke" wrote:

> > In <387563F1.E27C1…@epix.net> "Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P." wrote:

> > > 1. In Cancer, The Magnetic/Oxygen Answer, pg. 49: The first statement
> > > under Cancer and Cancer Tumors reads "Primary to advanced types of
> > > 1,2,3,4, A,B,C,D, classifications…" This statement makes no sense as
> > > it does not correspond to commonly used histologic or staging
> > > nomenclature.

> > Perhabs he meant stage 1-4 resp. Dukes A-D (for colon cancer).

> One shouldn’t have to guess what someone meant in a scientific paper.

I want to respond to this and Dr. Roda’s response to the
materials I sent, which he posted on the 7th.

I am not a doctor. I am making a serious effort to grasp the
pertinent facts, but my background comes in evaluating
people’s motives, etc.,  involved in executive search.

Dr. Philpott did many years of research before he ever heard
of magnetic therapy.  This involved such as bain allergies
and diebetes. He also did a lot of work on the brain, and is
a neuropsychiatrist. He made significant contributions, and
a couple of years ago his peers awarded him the Linus Pauling
Award.

He practiced and did research for 40 years. But several years
ago he gve this up, (I think about 15), and he went and
studied under the phycisist Albert Roy Davis, a man who
devoted 60 years of his life to studying the differences of
the two polarities on living systems.  He discovered some
very remarkable things, and he also did a lot of animal
research regarding cancer.  This involved first creating an
infection, and then implanting one of over 90 types of
cancer.  Overall, the cure rate exceeded 70%.  The work was
replicated by various scientists.

But the use of the negative (south seeking) magnetic field
has many, many more applications.  I can testify at length to
that from personal experience, (pls see my "biomagnetic
resume") however I have not had cancer and I am not
personally aware of a case treated this way.  I base my
enthusiasm on my other experience, which includes
effectiveness against viruses and anaerobic bacteria caused
infection.

I am working, then, with a different approach.  It is not
based on my great scientific knowledge but rather that this
energy works with other microbes which are said to process
ATP the same way, and the experts actually working in this
say so, and there is a hell of a lot with mag. therapy which
does work, so they don’t have to pay so much attention to
something they know doesn’t.

That having been said, I don’t think Dr. Philpott is a
superman.  He  is well into his 80′s, obviously. He wrote the
piece about curing a melanoma (was this the instance he
mentioned the patient’s name?) in his wife a good 10 yrs abo
because I received a copy then and I don’t know how much
earlier it was written, and she was 75 then.

I think it must be hard for a man of that age (even using
magnets as he does), to juggle all the balls he does.  He is
receiving calls from all over the world.  He puts out a
tremendous amount of writings.  (Earlier on, I noticed more
typo errors, etc., but he seems to have better clerical help
now.)

I quite agree with you, Dr. Roda, that to have a case of a
cure of cancer, you have to be sure you have a cancer case.
I am not happy about that, but I can imagine that since his
specialty is not oncology, and he probably was relying some
on the other doctor he was correponding with, this slipped
by. Sloppy, and it certainly does not prove magnets work for
cancer, but for me it doesn’t prove they don’t either.

John Bain (I don’t know how he gets time to send us all those
research reports and read all the posts he responds to), sent
us a Russian study a couple of days ago.  In Garfy Null PhD’s
hastily written book "Healing With Magnets," he has over a
hundred pages supplied him by Wm. Pawluk , M.D. formerly of
the faculty of John Hopkins, of summaries of Russian and East
European mgnetotherapy studies.  About a dozen cover cancer.
I think this was a way for Dr. Pawluk to publicize his own
book which gives more info on those studies.  I will try to
get hold of a copy and send you anything that looks
pertinent, Dr. Roda.

Truthfully, I have not gotten excited over the Russian work
because I have seen so much evidence of the effect of using
the neg. pole only, and they don’t do this.

I hope I get some clarification from Dr. Philpott as I am
making him aware of what has been posted regarding him here
lately.

For myself, I have seen many experts rejecting something I
know is true (magnet therapy subjects), because it conflicted
with their understanding of some scientific point. I think it
must be far better to find out what works, and let that be
the proof, and then work back and TRY to explain. It. John
Bain made the remark that it was 60 yrs. before it was
understood how aspirin worked, but people started using it
right away.

I suspect Dr. P’s explanation about how this works on cancer
may be off a little.  But is it not true that the pH of blood
of cancer patients drops?  Is this cause and effect or is it
not a vicious circle?  Does blood that has a low pH feed a
cancer better?

Bear in mind that when you can put a neg. magnet directly on
a cancer you can raise the pH well above even the normal 7.4,
in that location. And you change the environment of the
cancer from acidic to alkaline.

Dr. P. mentioned that the neg. pole is vascoconstricting,
given as a minor reason why this works. He recognized that
cancers are very vascular.

In summary, Dr. Roda, I appreciate that you are not
convinced, but please stand by.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

> If you’ll post a copy of the study translated into English for us all
to
> read

That I can’t do, I don’t read or speak Russian and I don’t even have
full access to medline.   I am not a cancer specialist, but the
abstract seems to suggest that magnotherapy has an effect on tumours.
From other Russian studies on medline it is used in conjunction with
other therapies for a great many conditions.   They seem to think it
helps.   But there are very few studies done in the west.   Are
combinations of therapy discouraged by the way we do and present our
studies?   Do we tend to break things down too much in comparison with
the Russians?

Best wishes
—
John Bain
UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor
http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html
Surround Sound for Television

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

> "A number of morphological changes" is not only very vague, but
compared to
> what, given the design of the study?

Compared to the results from patients who did not have magnotherapy
prior to surgery.

> Radiotherapy can cause some tumours to disappear, even

histologically, when

> used as a preoperative adjuvant.  Surely tumour regression can be
shown if
> magnets have any worthwhile effect.

I think you need to read the study to find out.   This is an English
translation of the abstract of a Russian study.   I posted it to show
that some work has been done in the field, not to prove anything.   If
you wish to do your own research, the term in Russian studies is
magnetotherapy.

I find it interesting that they had time for 20 sessions of
magnotherapy prior to surgery.

Best wishes
—
John Bain
UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor
http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html
Surround Sound for Television

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Radiotherapy can cause some tumours to disappear, even histologically, when
used as a preoperative adjuvant.  Surely tumour regression can be shown if
magnets have any worthwhile effect.

Peter Moran

–
P Moran

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -

John Bain wrote in message <8554sc$u9…@nnrp1.deja.com>…
>  "Paul I. Roda, M.D., F.A.C.P." <paulr…@epix.net> wrote:
>> I continue to believe that their’s no evidence to support an
>> anti–tumor effect of magnetic fields.

>Could I have your comments on this study.

>Morphological criteria of lung cancer regression under the effect of
>magnetotherapy
>Ogorodnikova LS; Ga¨irabed’iants NG; Ratner ON; Chirvina ED; S´em LD
>Vopr Onkol, 26(1):28-34 1980
>Abstract
>The complex investigation (histological, histochemical, morphological,
>electrone microscopy) of lung cancerous tumors from 20 patients,
>subjected preoperatively to the action of magnetic fields enhancing the
>antitumor resistance by developing general nonspecific adaptation
>reactions: activation and training, has revealed a number of
>morphological changes which indicate a marked antitumor effect of
>magnetic fields. These changes were maximum manifest after 20-30
>sessions. High-differentiated adenocarcinoma proved to be mostly
>sensitive to the magnetic field action.

>Best wishes
>–
>John Bain
>UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor
>http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html
>Surround Sound for Television

>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.

> Could I have your comments on this study.

If you’ll post a copy of the study translated into English for us all to
read

> > 1. In Cancer, The Magnetic/Oxygen Answer, pg. 49: The first statement
> > under Cancer and Cancer Tumors reads "Primary to advanced types of
> > 1,2,3,4, A,B,C,D, classifications…" This statement makes no sense as
> > it does not correspond to commonly used histologic or staging
> > nomenclature.

> Perhabs he meant stage 1-4 resp. Dukes A-D (for colon cancer).

One shouldn’t have to guess what someone meant in a scientific paper.
There’s nothing in that section to suggest the numbers referred to stage,
histologic grade, or any particular cancer type.