Sayonara

I agree... I was talking about the member called SS

nevvvveeerrrr knoooowwww

I'll be interested in hearing about your findings (even if I do seem like a bitter, cynical, sceptic dragon half the time )

If you think this is a grilling you ought to try publishing a paper OK, great. I'm glad we established that. Now all the model needs is some evidence that supports it. There's nothing at all wrong with having a theory, but there is certainly a wrong way of delivering it. Since homeostasis and its effects on the immune system are the crux of the issue I don't see how you can leave them out of the debate really. Well, I went to the page you posted. It was simple to the point of banality but it was accurate I suppose insofar as it actually delved into the biology of fevers, which wasn't a great deal. Nothing there however suggests that I am wrong and you are right. I am not arguing that a pathogen-induced fever is not a part of the immune response, I am arguing that it is damaging to the host. This is the case. If you don't believe that fevers can cause protein to denature, then what use do you suppose it is as a defence mechanism? Also explain how without causing systemic, intrasomatic distress conditions, a fever can induce violent spasms or even ultimately lead to death. Water is generally only replaced if the patient is tended to by another or is not so sick that they are incapable of assuring themselves basic necessities - if you are going to assume the patient has access to as much water as they need, you are not considering the fever per se, you are considering an integrated recovery process with external interference. If in doubt, you may find it useful to imagine these processes in a higher mammal that is not human, and does not have the medical support we expect to receive when we are seriously ill. I'm not going to go into the smattering of websites I found. But this was among the most cogent: http://www.123relax.com/articles/H_eathealthy.html Is that a fair summary of the field, would you say? You may be missing the point. You can't force homeopathy and "science" together in the same way you might merge geological and meterological disciplines (for example), because "science" is not a discipline. It is a methodical approach that, while allowing flexibility in practice, uses a strict code to ensure that all hypotheses are tested rigorously according to the same standards. A scientific approach to the problems you are describing will doubtless reveal the truth of the matter.

I'm pretty sure someone was discussing dark energy in the physics forum last week. Go to the search page up there --^ and have a look.

I imagine this would be tricky in the case of AIDS. How can you set the proper priority when a lowered immune response means that secondary infections constantly flare up, with no way of predicting which diseases will become involved? This is all terribly controversial.

This looks promising: http://www.genchemcorp.com/markets/water/oxygen_removal.shtml

I suspect most of their day consists of laughing at the 'norms' who splat against their tests like bugs on a windscreen.

... or we could have a "make Daisy a funky avatar" competition!

Ah yes, the constellations chap. If you have a scattering of buildings and a scattering of something else, oh I don't know - how about stars, of course you are going to be able to find matching configurations. In fact as I recall somebody went out and matched random buildings in US cities to the constellations he was interested in, just to prove the point. I'm sure you could find trees (as an example) standing in the same configurations, are we to believe they were planted by post-Atlantean civilisations?

Banana wins! You will never know what the mystery option was!

You could make one with Paint Shop Pro or similar software, or find an image you like from the web. Then all you have to do is go to User CP > Edit options > Change Avatar

And let's not forget my little speech: To which you replied: What I am trying to say here is that I'm not automatically ruling out everything you have said. Like any scientist, instead of simply listening to what you believe and deciding if I like it or not, I want you to show me the evidence. [edit] Which reminds me, I meant to ask why the title of this thread is "Not science, we are told"? Is it because someone said research into this area was not a valid scientific endeavour? If so I suggest reminding them that it is the investigative approach that is considered to be scientific (or unscientific if applicable), not the subject matter.

I have plenty to say that's constructive, but if you won't hear it I really can't help you. Nobody likes having their theory taken apart but if you are going to bring it to a science forum you have to expect that's exactly what's going to happen. It's called "peer review", and it's the way things are. There's a big difference between refusing to consider new and potentially valid information, and disregarding that which does not fit in with the observable evidence. If you have a look around this site you'll see it's littered with the remains of theories that fell foul of this process. The general idea is that if a theory can't stand under the weight of evidence, it's probably not worth clinging to. Now, in your first post you claimed there was a scientific problem to be solved, and that you would explain later. So it's about time you did, rather than firing off statements of 'fact' that are only backed up by references to the work of someone whose methods and findings science has largely ignored. I am actually interested to hear what this problem is, as it may actually shed some light both ways (if you see what I mean). If you are going to make statements such as then you may want to cite some evidence or deductive reasoning, especially if you are later going to say "The location of HCS is unknown. It may have several components at various locations in the brain". Where is this information coming from? Is it purely theoretical? Does it explain all observed evidence? Yes, perhaps "hijack" was not the best word to choose, as it implies a deliberately directed effect. What I was trying to get across is that the homeostatic response - when triggered by an infection - usually does more harm than good. Please do not try to tell me that the best way the body can aid an immune response, that can act over a mere 3 days to an indefinite period, is to raise the temperature of the body so high that water is lost exponentially and proteins are denatured. Define 'psyche' input. I am fully aware of neural and endocrine input into homeostasis. Having been taught all the way through school, college and University by some very highly regarded academics that the immune system and the homeostatic system are completely separate I am going to need some convincing of your assertion that they are inseparably intertwined, rather than just being expected to accept it from "some guy" on the net. No, pretty sure I mean mediated. Although yes - initiated too, although in this context the actual initiation is in no way relevant. What has this got to do with anything? "My computer makes me dinner" "No it doesn't, it merely processes information according to the rules of the software you install" "And how the hell does it do it? By magic? Therefore you are wrong, HA!" Really? Then perhaps you can give me an example that is backed up by empirical evidence and has been subjected to the rigours of the scientific method. As you suggested I have read your posts again. There is a strong underlying order to everything you have said except for the one or two critical assumptions that I have already pointed out. You probably hate me by now but believe me this is nothing compared to the public drubbing people have got for suggesting much milder theories without covering their bases first. Let's have some actual quantifiable evidence. OK, that last bit about languages was just totally unnecessary. Sorry. But that quote is just funny ---^

Out of the six cataclysmic mass extinction events that have occurred since life arose on Earth, we have found the impact craters for four of them. There's some food for though :-s

It's a nice concept but unfortunately it's bollocks. The homeostatic functions do nothing to help the body when it is under attack - in fact most viral infections we only notice because they hijack homeostatic functions, causing fever etc. Immune responses have nothing whatsoever to do with the hypothallamus or activity of the pituitary - they are mediated by discrete biochemical events at a cellular level. Homeostasis involves the correct regulation of glucose, water, heat and oxygen throughout the body - nothing more. Of course it is possible to mitigate the symptoms of disease by meddling with homeostasis, but there is no way to launch some kind of "homeostatic response" at the cause. I think that someone here is getting confused because homeostasis and homeopathy both begin with the five same letters. Clearly doesn't realise why formal Latin and ancient Greek are used for scientific terms.

rofl I really wish I could see some dumb-ass stoner hippy find the thing and try to make it give him the world. From a distance of course.

It depends what you mean by 'human'.

Macs do what they do well. If you don't need to use a Mac, you go use a PC. You don't hang around whining about how you don't use them. EOF.

First Contact absolutely rocks. Insurrection is a pile of steaming horse waste.

Visits / Checking up / Modding: http://news.bbc.co.uk/ http://www.scienceforums.net http://pirate.planetarion.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=2 http://www.b3ta.com/ http://gallery.netgamers.org/index.php http://trektoday.com/ http://www.phpbuilder.com/ Working: http://www.ishiphop.com/ http://www.armadawars.co.uk/ http://forums.starfleetarchive.com/

Okay, fine, what it supposedly does according to the ancient bearded dudes.

The homeopathic model is apparently directed to addressing the symptoms of disease, and not the cause. While this means that Dr Hahnemann no more cured anyone than I could with a stick of ginseng and my enthusiasm, it surely also means the homeopathic model does not need to explain any of the workings of either medicine or the immune system? I think Dr Hahnemann's invstigative approach may have had some accidental merit, but it was most likely masked by his "if I punch you in the face, you'll forget about your bladder problems" approach.

I think he's trying to sell a map to the Holy Grail by putting it online. Fztttpop. I'd pay good money for someone else to find the thing and watch their face when they realise - too late - what it actually does.

Donkey. Carrot. Space.