On Mar 23, 1:57 am, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now let us examine the difference in scientific proving via a visual > demonstration versus a statistical matching of rates. What I mean is > that the chromium-6 was proven to cause cancer on PBS Newshour on > Friday, March 15, Miles OBrien went to the Wise Laboratory of Univ > Southern Maine to see how dangerous Chromium-6 was to health and he > shows a slide of a cell in replication of mitosis, only instead of > there being 2 centrosomes there are 4 centrosomes. Let us call that > the visual demonstration proof. And compare that to the Statistics > means of proving in science. > > Statistics were done by researchers at Arizona State > University and published in the journal Biological Trace Element > Research. > --- quoting --- ?http://www.naturalnews.com/039492_autism_children_heavy_metals.html > Based on three separate scales of autism severity, the researchers > also found that higher blood levels of toxic metals were associated > with more severe cases of autism. In fact, between 38 and 47 percent > of all variation in autism severity could be explained by varying > heavy metal levels, particularly cadmium and mercury. This made toxic > metal burden the single "strongest factor" predicting severity, the > researchers said. > --- end quoting --- > > So what we have is eye witness proving that Chromium-6 causes cancer > since it pulls apart centrosomes in mitosis. And we have Statistics > proving that the severity of Autism matches the amount of mercury > levels in the body of autistic children. > > For chromium-6 we actually see the havoc of the metal in making 4 > centrosomes and so we easily conclude it causes cancer. The proof is > in the seeing. > > For mercury in Autism, we do not eye witness what the mercury actually > does, and what we have is math numbers of autism severity matching the > math numbers of the amount of mercury in the body. > > Now the eye-witness proof is preferable than the numbers matching > proof. But sometimes we just have to wait for the technology to see > how the mercury causes autism. > > Now let us run the chromium-6 through the Statistics way of proving, > for it offers us a lesson in reasoning. > > Suppose we had a village in China that had many cases of stomach and > kidney cancer and we measured the bodies for metal in all those > patients and found that they had a lot of chromium-6 compared to > normal people. So, can we say that such a statistic is a proof that > chromium-6 caused the cancer? No, for we need a additional statistical > link-up. We need to show that if the chromium-6 amount in one patient > that had advanced cancer was a amount that matches the state of > advanced progression, compared to a smaller cancer and less > chromium-6, and compared to a normal person with no cancer and little > to none chromium-6 in the body. > > So we can say Statistics is a proof method, if it links up with a > metal, and the rate of progression of the disease links up with the > amount of metal. > > In the eyewitness proof, seeing is believing and chromium-6 is the > cause of cancer. > > In the Statistics proof, we need two link-ups: > (i) the metal is present in a large quantity in the disease and not > present or small quantity in the non-disease. > (ii) the severity of the disease matches the statistics of increasing > levels of quantity. So that if we had a mild autistic child with x > amount of mercury and a severe case of autism of 2x amount of mercury > and a normal child with a tiny amount of mercury, that those numbers > serve as a proof that mercury causes autism. >
Now I probably need a 3rd category of a **Scientific Proof Method** since in that Arizona State University research they indicate two metals of cadmium and mercury.
So how can (i) and (ii) standing alone distinguish whether the cadmium is the cause or whether mercury is the cause or whether the two combined is the cause of autism.
Now if we used just (i) and (ii) we could eliminate all the other metals such as aluminum or copper or iron etc etc because none of them would match a severity level of autism with a quantity of that metal. However, (i) and (ii) could not eliminate cadmium.
So, do I need a third criterion? I think so, and the third would involve toxicity. How much cadmium alone is a noticeable toxin on a human body and how much is mercury?
Well, for mercury the answer is very simple in that just one drop of mercury is enough to kill a human being. Is one drop of cadmium enough? At Dartmouth College in the 1990s, a chemistry professor Dr. Wetterhahn died of mercury poisoning from a single drop accidently spilled, and her gloves were incapable of protecting her as the mercury went straight through the glove.
Mercury is perhaps the single most dangerous non radioactive toxin on Earth, yet, we humans as a society continue to fill our houses, homes, hospitals with all sorts of devices and implements that contain mercury. Walk into any hospital across the USA and you will find fluorescent lamps filled with mercury for which when they cease working, a workman has a chance of breaking the lamp and filling the hospital floors and rooms with mercury poison, and when these lamps are discarded, end up in the landfill where the mercury leaks out and contaminates the water we drink.
So I need a third category:
(iii) A tiny amount of the toxin is able to do vast damage to a individual human being.
So if I ran cadmium through (i), (ii) and (iii) then it would fail at (iii), although cadmium is toxic, it requires more cadmium to cause death in humans.
> So in a Statistics proof, it is not sufficient to have mercury present > to prove autism is caused by mercury, but that the amount of mercury > present matches the severity of the disease. So if you have both (i) > and (ii), then we can say mercury causes autism. > > However, we would rather have the visual demonstration of where > mercury in cells, makes a normal child into autistic child. > > -- > > Google's (and Bing's) searches and archives are top-heavy in hate-spew > generated by search-engine-bombing. And the Google archive stopped > functioning properly by about May 2012 to accommodate Google's New- > Newsgroups, ruining the author-archive. > > And recently Niuz.biz (Docendi.org) threatens to harm?your?computer if > opening a post of mine. > > The solution to the sci. newsgroups is to have the sciences hosted by > colleges and universities such as Drexel University hosting sci.math, > not by corporations like Google out to make money. Science belongs in > education, not in money motivated corporations. Do I hear a?University > doing sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.biology, sci.geology, ?etc ?etc >
Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and fair author- archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here: