Date: Mar 23, 2013 2:57 AM Author: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com 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

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.

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:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium

http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium

whole entire Universe is just one big atom

where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies