Date: Mar 23, 2013 2:57 AM
Subject: Chapt3 Math-Statistics proving method #117 book Metal Causation Diseases
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
--- 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
--- 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.
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:
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies