Yet another Nobel Laureate in Physics for intelligent design

Forum rules
Here, you can discuss your Faith, post inspirational and Theological memes and quotations, ask questions of a Religious and spritutal nature, and discuss how your Religious Tradition views Life and the Outdoors. This forum is completely Non-Denominational and respects all Faith Traditions, regardless of Diety. If you don't want to see God, Religion, and Theology being discussed, please respect the rights of the people here to do so in peace. We respect that right, that's why this forum was created. Discussion should always be respectful of the people here and thier beliefs. This Forum was not created for the purposes of you talking people out of thier Faith or to insult their intelligence. We respect your right to do so, but will not allow that kind of discussion here.
Post Reply
User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Yet another Nobel Laureate in Physics for intelligent design

#1

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:33 pm

I don't think we can call either of these 2 guys( see other recent thread on Nobel Laureates in Physics who are for ID) dumb flat earthers. They are obviously brilliant men of hard science. Yet they both agree with me, that design in the universe is obvious:
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/charles_townes_/
Off Topic
Physicist and Nobel laureate Charles Townes, who argued for intelligent design at the level of cosmology, has passed away at the age of 99. Dr. Townes shared a Nobel Prize in 1964 for research that led to the invention of the laser.

He earned a PhD at Caltech and then worked at Bell Labs during World War II where he designed radar systems. He joined the faculty of Columbia University in 1948. In 1961 he moved to MIT, and finally settled at UC Berkeley in 1967, where he taught and researched in the Space Sciences Laboratory for a half century.

In addition to his major career achievements, Townes is noteworthy for candid remarks supporting intelligent design in cosmology, comparing its scientific credibility, which he said appears to be “quite real,” with “fantastic” speculations about a multiverse.

In 2005, he said the following:

Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it’s remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren’t just the way they are, we couldn’t be here at all. The sun couldn’t be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here.

Some scientists argue that “well, there’s an enormous number of universes and each one is a little different. This one just happened to turn out right.” Well, that’s a postulate, and it’s a pretty fantastic postulate — it assumes there really are an enormous number of universes and that the laws could be different for each of them. The other possibility is that ours was planned, and that’s why it has come out so specially.

(‘Explore as much as we can’: Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes on evolution, intelligent design, and the meaning of life,” by Bonnie Azab Powell, UC Berkeley NewsCenter (June 17, 2005).)

Townes won the Templeton Prize in 2005, and seems to have accepted conventional views on biological evolution. But when it came to the origin of the cosmos, he said that the best explanation was intelligent design.

Some contemporary New Atheists, such as Lawrence Krauss in his current quarrel with Eric Metaxas, would have the public believe that mainstream physicists reject ID. But of course this is wrong. There have been, and continue to be, prominent and credible physicists like Townes who affirm intelligent design in their field as a scientific, not religious, theory. I suspect that Dr. Townes’s legacy will continue to be appreciated in many ways and for many years to come.


Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Yet another Nobel Laureate in Physics for intelligent design

#2

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 7:44 pm

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/rele ... wnes.shtml
Off Topic
Townes first wrote about the parallels between religion and science in IBM's Think magazine in 1966, two years after he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics for his groundbreaking work in quantum electronics: in 1953, thanks in part to what Townes calls a "revelation" experienced on a park bench, he invented the maser (his acronym for Microwave Amplification by Stimulated Emission), which amplifies microwaves to produce an intense beam. By building on this work, he achieved similar amplification using visible light, resulting in the laser (whose name he also coined).

Even as his research interests have segued from microwave physics to astrophysics, Townes has continued to explore topics such as "Science, values, and beyond," in Synthesis of Science and Religion (1987), "On Science, and what it may suggest about us," in Theological Education (1988), and "Why are we here; where are we going?" in The International Community of Physics, Essays on Physics (1997).

Townes sat down one morning recently to discuss how these and other weighty questions have shaped his own life, and their role in current controversies over public education.

Q. If science and religion share a common purpose, why have their proponents tended to be at loggerheads throughout history?

Science and religion have had a long interaction: some of it has been good and some of it hasn't. As Western science grew, Newtonian mechanics had scientists thinking that everything is predictable, meaning there's no room for God - so-called determinism. Religious people didn't want to agree with that. Then Darwin came along, and they really didn't want to agree with what he was saying, because it seemed to negate the idea of a creator. So there was a real clash for a while between science and religions.

But science has been digging deeper and deeper, and as it has done so, particularly in the basic sciences like physics and astronomy, we have begun to understand more. We have found that the world is not deterministic: quantum mechanics has revolutionized physics by showing that things are not completely predictable. That doesn't mean that we've found just where God comes in, but we know now that things are not as predictable as we thought and that there are things we don't understand. For example, we don't know what some 95 percent of the matter in the universe is: we can't see it - it's neither atom nor molecule, apparently. We think we can prove it's there, we see its effect on gravity, but we don't know what and where it is, other than broadly scattered around the universe. And that's very strange.


So as science encounters mysteries, it is starting to recognize its limitations and become somewhat more open. There are still scientists who differ strongly with religion and vice versa. But I think people are being more open-minded about recognizing the limitations in our frame of understanding.

Q:You've said "I believe there is no long-range question more important than the purpose and meaning of our lives and our universe." How have you attempted to answer that question?

Even as a youngster, you're usually taught that there's some purpose you'll try to do, how you are going to live. But that's a very localized thing, about what you want with your life. The broader question is, "What are humans all about in general, and what is this universe all about?" That comes as one tries to understand what is this beautiful world that we're in, that's so special: "Why has it come out this way? What is free will and why do we have it? What is a being? What is consciousness?" We can't even define consciousness. As one thinks about these broader problems, then one becomes more and more challenged by the question of what is the aim and purpose and meaning of this universe and of our lives.

Those aren't easy questions to answer, of course, but they're important and they're what religion is all about. I maintain that science is closely related to that, because science tries to understand how the universe is constructed and why it does what it does, including human life. If one understands the structure of the universe, maybe the purpose of man becomes a little clearer. I think maybe the best answer to that is that somehow, we humans were created somewhat in the likeness of God. We have free will. We have independence, we can do and create things, and that's amazing. And as we learn more and more - why, we become even more that way. What kind of a life will we build? That's what the universe is open about. The purpose of the universe, I think, is to see this develop and to allow humans the freedom to do the things that hopefully will work out well for them and for the rest of the world.

Q: How do you categorize your religious beliefs?

I'm a Protestant Christian, I would say a very progressive one. This has different meanings for different people. But I'm quite open minded and willing to consider all kinds of new ideas and to look at new things. At the same time it has a very deep meaning for me: I feel the presence of God. I feel it in my own life as a spirit that is somehow with me all the time.

Q: You've described your inspiration for the maser as a moment of revelation, more spiritual than what we think of as inspiration. Do you believe that God takes such an active interest in humankind?

[The maser] was a new idea, a sudden visualization I had of what might be done to produce electromagnetic waves, so it's somewhat parallel to what we normally call revelation in religion. Whether the inspiration for the maser and the laser was God's gift to me is something one can argue about. The real question should be, where do brand-new human ideas come from anyway? To what extent does God help us? I think he's been helping me all along. I think he helps all of us - that there's a direction in our universe and it has been determined and is being determined. How? We don't know these things. There are many questions in both science and religion and we have to make our best judgment. But I think spirituality has a continuous effect on me and on other people.

Q: That sounds like you agree with the "intelligent design" movement, the latest framing of creationism, which argues that the complexity of the universe proves it must have been created by a guiding force.

I do believe in both a creation and a continuous effect on this universe and our lives, that God has a continuing influence - certainly his laws guide how the universe was built. But the Bible's description of creation occurring over a week's time is just an analogy, as I see it. The Jews couldn't know very much at that time about the lifetime of the universe or how old it was. They were visualizing it as best they could and I think they did remarkably well, but it's just an analogy.

Q: Should intelligent design be taught alongside Darwinian evolution in schools as religious legislators have decided in Pennsylvania and Kansas?

I think it's very unfortunate that this kind of discussion has come up. People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view. Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real. This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way. If the laws of physics weren't just the way they are, we couldn't be here at all. The sun couldn't be there, the laws of gravity and nuclear laws and magnetic theory, quantum mechanics, and so on have to be just the way they are for us to be here. ..................................................................................................................................


Who created us? U.S. vs. UC Berkeley beliefs

A Nov. 18-21, 2004 New York Times/CBS News poll on American mores and attitudes, conducted with 885 U.S. adults, showed that a significant number of Americans believe that God created humankind. UC Berkeley's Office of Student Research asked the same question on its 2005 UC Undergraduate Experience Survey, results for which are still coming in. As of June 8, 2,057 students had responded.
Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin of human beings?

NYT/CBS

UC Berkeley
1. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process

13%

56%
2. Human beings evolved from less advanced life forms, but God guided this process

27%

31%
3. God created human beings in their present form

55%

13%
4. Don't know

5%

N/A.............................................................
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Yet another Nobel Laureate in Physics for intelligent design

#3

Post by BillyBob66 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 8:12 pm

Off Topic
LUCA — the last universal common ancestor of all living organisms:........................Origin-of-Life Researcher Admits, It’s “A Long, Long Way to LUCA”.......................I read the article by Patel et al (2015) that appeared in Nature Chemistry. While it is full of fascinating chemistry, given all of the manipulation of pH, precursor mixes, temperature, metal co-ions, etc., it is beyond the pale to pretend that anything in this paper represents undirected pre-biotic chemistry. The only way this paper represents a solution to origin-of-life issues is for Patel et al. to be time travelers who manipulated the pre-biotic environment to produce the building blocks of life….To claim that the whole suite of “precursors of ribonucleotides, amino acids and lipids can all be derived by the reductive homologation of hydrogen cyanide and some of its derivatives” rests on how one defines what are plausible early Earth conditions. By admitting that the products vary depending upon reaction conditions and metallic co-ions, the idea of a one-pot synthesis is not viable in this scenario. They also stretch the concept of “plausibility” to a new extreme. While it is easy to imagine a series of pools of the appropriate conditions and with the appropriate precursor compounds all feeding into a single pool, it would be wrong to conclude that what we can imagine is science.....................................................................................
In any case, the scenario of prebiotic synthesis he outlines once again suffers from the problems that his earlier work did. As Robert Shapiro put it, it is “highly unlikely” that “blind, undirected, inanimate chemistry would go out of its way in multiple steps and use of reagents in just the right sequence to form RNA.”

Sutherland’s reference in his paper’s title to “the end of the beginning” means he thinks we’re near the end of explaining how simple biological monomers might have arisen on the early earth in the absence of living organisms. That is step (1) (“the beginning”) in the list above. However, if Shapiro and other critics are correct, then Sutherland is probably still pretty far from the end of the beginning. And even if Sutherland were correct, he admits just how far a full-fledged explanation for step (1) is from explaining the origin of life:

[T]he prebiotic synthesis of building blocks — to which we have devoted so much of our time — only corresponds to a small increase in the complexity of the system and to no increase in its aliveness (a humbling thought).

Figure 3 in his review paper illustrates the distance that origin-of-life theorists must traverse to explain the chemical origin of life and the origin of LUCA — the last universal common ancestor of all living organisms:

Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Figure 3, John D. Sutherland, “Studies on the origin of life — the end of the beginning,” Nature Reviews Chemistry, Vol. 1:12 (2017).
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Yet another Nobel Laureate in Physics for intelligent design

#4

Post by GregD » Tue Jul 11, 2017 9:51 am

BillyBob66 wrote:I don't think we can call either of these 2 guys( see other recent thread on Nobel Laureates in Physics who are for ID) dumb flat earthers. They are obviously brilliant men of hard science. Yet they both agree with me, that design in the universe is obvious:
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/charles_townes_/
Scientists are celebrated for the relatively few things that they get right; never mind the multitude of things they got wrong. Indeed, the usual process is to get an awful lot of things wrong before finally figuring out some tidbit that is correct.

An excellent example is Linus Pauling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling
2 unshared Nobel prizes. And yet he put a lot of effort over many years into promoting medicinal benefits of vitamin C which have not stood the test of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pau ... C_advocacy. The evidence trumps his brilliance.

Two smart people are thinking that maybe the universe is "designed". I suppose that is an indication that there is some value in considering this possibility. Nevertheless it seems to me that Occam's Razor sets the probability of that possibility to an exceedingly small value.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Yet another Nobel Laureate in Physics for intelligent design

#5

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Jul 11, 2017 1:04 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:I don't think we can call either of these 2 guys( see other recent thread on Nobel Laureates in Physics who are for ID) dumb flat earthers. They are obviously brilliant men of hard science. Yet they both agree with me, that design in the universe is obvious:
https://evolutionnews.org/2015/01/charles_townes_/
Scientists are celebrated for the relatively few things that they get right; never mind the multitude of things they got wrong. Indeed, the usual process is to get an awful lot of things wrong before finally figuring out some tidbit that is correct.

An excellent example is Linus Pauling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pauling
2 unshared Nobel prizes. And yet he put a lot of effort over many years into promoting medicinal benefits of vitamin C which have not stood the test of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Pau ... C_advocacy. The evidence trumps his brilliance.

Two smart people are thinking that maybe the universe is "designed". I suppose that is an indication that there is some value in considering this possibility. Nevertheless it seems to me that Occam's Razor sets the probability of that possibility to an exceedingly small value.
You make some good points, Greg. But I would say that those vitamin C theories are still open for debate, IMO(ascorbic acid = Vit C ):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2767105/

https://emcrit.org/pulmcrit/metabolic-s ... scitation/
Off Topic
Zabet MH et al 2016: Effect of high-dose ascorbic acid on vasopressor requirement in septic shock

Since vitamin C is required for catecholamine synthesis, many authors have hypothesized that it could expedite weaning off vasopressors (Carr 2015). These investigators tested this hypothesis among 24 patients from a surgical ICU with vasopressor-dependent septic shock (tables below, left). Patients were randomized to receive placebo vs. Vitamin C 25 mg/kg IV q6hr.

The primary endpoint was vasopressor dose and duration, which were significantly reduced in patients receiving vitamin C (tables below, right). There was also a reduction in mortality among patients treated with Vitamin C
....................................................................

Marik P 2017: Hydrocortisone, vitamin C, and thiamine for the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock: A retrospective before-after study.

This is a before-after study investigating the impact of treating sepsis with a combination of thiamine 200 mg IV q12hr, Vitamin C 1.5 grams Q6hr, and hydrocortisone 50 mg IV q6hr. The rationale for combining steroid and Vitamin C is that they work synergistically, for example vitamin C may restore sensitivity to glucocorticoids (Marik 2016). In tissue cultures of endothelial cells, the combination of steroid and vitamin C (but neither drug in isolation) can preserve endothelial integrity against challenge from lipopolysaccharide.

This therapy was applied to patients in a medical ICU with sepsis and a procalcitonin >2 ng/ml. 47 patients were included in each group, with good matching between groups:

The primary outcome was mortality, which was substantially reduced in patients receiving vitamin C (p<0.001, figure below). Similar results were obtained when the data was analyzed via two alternative methods, using either a propensity-adjusted outcome or logistic multivariate analysis. The robustness of these analyses suggest that mortality differences reflect a true treatment effect, rather than statistical confounding.

Patients treated with Vitamin C were weaned off vasopressors much earlier than control patients, despite receiving on average a bit less fluid (figure below). This result is similar to findings discussed above from the RCT by Zabet 2016.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Yet another Nobel Laureate in Physics for intelligent design

#6

Post by BillyBob66 » Tue Jul 11, 2017 2:42 pm

SORRY, I'M GOING OFF TOPIC on my own thread, but this is all in response of the idea of using vitamin C to show how even brilliant nobel prize winning scientists can be wrong. And Greg, your point is well taken on that. But I think you might agree- based on your response- that, yes, though just because these 2 men seem to strongly see intelligent design in the universe, that does not mean they are right. But it does show ( I think you agree with this) that there are actually men who rank way high in the world of science who do see it the same as I do, and also proves that not every one who feels the evidence points to design is a knucklr dragging, unscientific flat earther. In fact, far from it.

Now back to Vitamin C and whether or not the 2 time Nobel prize winning Linus Pauling was way off re: benefits of vitamin C. This is a better summary of the promise that vitamin C has been showing in recent critical care practice for severely ill patients:
http://pulmccm.org/main/2017/critical-c ... es-sepsis/ ( from a site that claims: All the best in pulmonary and critical care )
Off Topic
After hundreds of trials failing to show benefit of drug treatments for sepsis, could a simple, cheap and effective treatment -- high-dose vitamin C -- be hiding in plain sight? A respected leader in critical care medicine thinks so, and his hospital system is all in...................................
The Case for Vitamin C Treatment In Sepsis

Vitamin C is believed generally safe at high doses, but can rarely cause acute renal failure through oxalate crystal deposition. Small studies have found high-dose IV vitamin C during critical illness safe and beneficial:

In Tanka et al (2000), among 37 patients with major burns, those randomized to receive infusion of vitamin C at high doses (e.g., 4-5 grams an hour) for 24 hours on admission required less fluid resuscitation and had fewer ventilator days than those who got usual care.
Fowler et al (2014) found less organ dysfunction among the 24 patients with severe sepsis randomized to vitamin C infusion vs placebo, with a significant dose-response (up to a maximum dose of ~3-5 grams IV every 6 hours). No safety issues in this Phase I trial.
Zabet et al (2016) randomized 24 post-surgical patients with septic shock to vitamin C infusion (~1.5-2.5 grams IV every 6 hours) or placebo; the vitamin-C treated patients had significantly lower mortality and need for vasopressors.

The renowned Dr. Paul Marik et al will soon publish in Chest their own small before-and-after unblinded cohort study, born of an anecdote that should intrigue any intensivist: three patients with "fulminant sepsis ... almost certainly destined to die" from shock and organ failure, infused with vitamin C and moderate dose hydrocortisone out of desperation. All three patients recovered quickly and left the ICU in days, "with no residual organ dysfunction".

Inspired by that experience, they went on to enroll and treat 47 septic patients with a cocktail of 1.5 g vitamin C IV every 6 hours, hydrocortisone 50 mg IV every 6 hours, and thiamine 200 mg IV every 12 hours (thiamine inhibits oxalate production and has potential benefits in septic shock). Controls were 47 patients matched in baseline characteristics.

Hospital mortality was 4 of 47 (8.5%) in those treated with the cocktail, compared to 19 of 47 (40%) in those not. Vasopressors were weaned off all cocktail-treated patients, usually in <24 hours (vs. 4 days for the controls). Renal function reportedly improved in all patients with acute kidney injury.

These are exciting preliminary findings, and a large randomized trial seems warranted, but a look at clinicaltrials.gov shows no studies of any size in progress testing vitamin C in sepsis. (There is one, n=170, testing vitamin C for acute lung injury, which is often due to sepsis.)

Dr. Marik and the hospitals associated with Eastern Virginia Medical School aren't letting that get in the way of following their own data and experience. The vitamin C-steroid-thiamine cocktail is now part of their standard therapy for patients with sepsis, often initiated in the emergency department. They're even doing PR, spreading the word with TV interviews, well-produced video testimonials, and a spot on NPR's Morning Edition:.......................................
Vitamin C for Sepsis: A "Cure?" Cue the Controversy

A spirited discussion on this can be found over on Josh Farkas's PulmCrit blog, along with additional commentary from Dr. Marik himself:

We have now treated over 150 patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. We have had only one patient die from sepsis ... [w]hile a few of the treated patients have died, none died from progressive organ failure related to sepsis. Our CEO and CMO has confirmed our results (shorter LOS and fewer deaths) and has requested that the protocol be instituted throughout our hospital system."

Since (if clinicaltrials.gov is accurate) no randomized trials are going to answer this question for years, it will be fascinating to see how this anecdotal therapy is adopted and future results reported and shared. Dr. Marik's stature and the dramatic findings will grant it credibility and a wide audience. The therapy's apparent benignity will lead reasonable physicians to consider it ethical in severe septic shock, or even an ethical imperative under a "compassionate use"-like philosophy.
Now I want you to consider what the above means. Notice no new trials are under way as of the print of this article. Now, why wouldn't every one be all over this to either prove or disprove it? Because if it is truly this beneficial, as it appears to be, IF SO that means that science failing to adequately, and WITHOUT BIAS ( that can be the real trick in studies ) has cost thousands and thousands of lives over the decades. And I'm convinced this would be because no one had any interest in what a simple vitamin might be able to do compared to a whiz bang drug by way of which billions can be made.

As far as I am concerned, when looking at any study, whether for my views or against them, the bias of the investigator or his/her sponsors must always be taken into account, as far as it is possible to do so.

Now what about the bias of these guys in the above mentioned clinical studies? What is their bias? Do they have a corner on the Vitamins C and thiamine market? Or do they just want to save lives, and are going to do what is required academic studies be damned? And in my experience, don't hold your breath waiting for the large randomized studies to prove or disprove this. This will not bring billions into the pockets of the usual folks doing the studies. In fact, it might even hurt their bottom line.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Yet another Nobel Laureate in Physics for intelligent design

#7

Post by GregD » Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:17 am

BillyBob66 wrote:SORRY, I'M GOING OFF TOPIC on my own thread, but this is all in response of the idea of using vitamin C to show how even brilliant nobel prize winning scientists can be wrong...

Now back to Vitamin C and whether or not the 2 time Nobel prize winning Linus Pauling was way off re: benefits of vitamin C. This is a better summary of the promise that vitamin C has been showing in recent critical care practice for severely ill patients:
http://pulmccm.org/main/2017/critical-c ... es-sepsis/ ( from a site that claims: All the best in pulmonary and critical care )
It depends on whether Pauling was claiming that Vitamin C offered the particular medicinal benefits Pauling cited, or was claiming that Vitamin C was very likely to have medicinal benefits which might possibly include the particular ones Pauling cited. So far it seems that vitamin C does not have the particular benefits Pauling cited, which is my point. But this evidence does suggest vitamin C does have other medicinal benefits, which is Bill's point. The data is clear. What isn't so clear to me, due to my ignorance, is what exactly Pauling was claiming.


BillyBob66 wrote:And in my experience, don't hold your breath waiting for the large randomized studies to prove or disprove this. This will not bring billions into the pockets of the usual folks doing the studies. In fact, it might even hurt their bottom line.
Indeed one would expect private companies would limit their investments to activities that are likely to make them money. And there is not much money to be made in the discovery of some wonderful benefit of a commonly available material such as Vitamin C. But such a discovery would have a great value to our society. I consider it highly desirable for the government to consider funding the appropriate research in situations like this. But then I'm a liberal; I think a well-run government is good for some things.

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Yet another Nobel Laureate in Physics for intelligent design

#8

Post by BillyBob66 » Wed Jul 12, 2017 11:15 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:SORRY, I'M GOING OFF TOPIC on my own thread, but this is all in response of the idea of using vitamin C to show how even brilliant nobel prize winning scientists can be wrong...

Now back to Vitamin C and whether or not the 2 time Nobel prize winning Linus Pauling was way off re: benefits of vitamin C. This is a better summary of the promise that vitamin C has been showing in recent critical care practice for severely ill patients:
http://pulmccm.org/main/2017/critical-c ... es-sepsis/ ( from a site that claims: All the best in pulmonary and critical care )
It depends on whether Pauling was claiming that Vitamin C offered the particular medicinal benefits Pauling cited, or was claiming that Vitamin C was very likely to have medicinal benefits which might possibly include the particular ones Pauling cited. So far it seems that vitamin C does not have the particular benefits Pauling cited, which is my point. But this evidence does suggest vitamin C does have other medicinal benefits, which is Bill's point. The data is clear. What isn't so clear to me, due to my ignorance, is what exactly Pauling was claiming.


BillyBob66 wrote:And in my experience, don't hold your breath waiting for the large randomized studies to prove or disprove this. This will not bring billions into the pockets of the usual folks doing the studies. In fact, it might even hurt their bottom line.
Indeed one would expect private companies would limit their investments to activities that are likely to make them money. And there is not much money to be made in the discovery of some wonderful benefit of a commonly available material such as Vitamin C. But such a discovery would have a great value to our society. I consider it highly desirable for the government to consider funding the appropriate research in situations like this. But then I'm a liberal; I think a well-run government is good for some things.
Hey, what the heck, I have been saying the same thing for years! I think this makes twice now we have agreed on something, I'm getting nervous! ;) The way I figure it, the government wastes trillions on things I think are worthless or things I even hate. So why not spend money looking into such as this or whatever Pauling loved about Vitamin C? Also, a function of government has always been to supply things for the benefit of all- and paid for by all- that the private sector will not or can not supply. Interstate highways, bridges, military defense against invasion by foreign nations desiring to enslave or exterminate us. So maybe studying health related issues that have no profit potential for any specific company, or that might even hurt profits for some huge companies?

But there may be one problem with my request, and it may explain why such( unbiased research into foods and supplements vs disease) has virtually never happened. The FDA is not exactly, IMO, an unbiased source. The big pharmaceuticals and the FDA, IMO, are tight as Dick's hatband. There are a few infamous examples out there of them actually going after sellers of fruit for hinting at health benefits for said fruits, and doing so with out the typical megabuck, double blind, placebo controlled studies that they require for new drugs. Drugs which not infrequently, a year or two after being declared both safe and effective by the FDA, are found to have injured or killed a bunch of folks. Then the drugs are given a black box warning or even pulled from the market. I had this happen to me before I retired from anesthesia, no one died but we had a few very close calls with the newest FDA approved drug, which about the time we finally figured out it was this new drug that nearly killed some of our patients, it was suddenly pulled from the market. How did that approval happen in the first place? Yet, they get really concerned that someone might make an exaggerated, unproven claim for a vitamin or even food? My point is that the idea of the government actually performing unbiased studies to confirm the supposed benefits of food or even supplements seems a bit of a stretch. And as evidence of my theory I offer the # of studies done so far. Still, in a more perfect world, they would do the unbiased research.
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

User avatar
GregD
Reactions:
Posts: 505
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 1:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Hammock:
Tarp:
Suspension:
Insulation:

Re: Yet another Nobel Laureate in Physics for intelligent design

#9

Post by GregD » Thu Jul 13, 2017 7:24 am

BillyBob66 wrote:The big pharmaceuticals and the FDA, IMO, are tight as Dick's hatband.
As tight as Dick's hatband?

What century is THAT from?

User avatar
BillyBob66
Reactions:
Posts: 683
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:43 am
Location: Tupelo, MS
Hammock: Claytor/JRB/HH/SB
Tarp: JRB 11X10
Suspension: CinchBuckle/WS/TriG
Insulation: HHSS,P.Pod,MWUQ,Yeti

Re: Yet another Nobel Laureate in Physics for intelligent design

#10

Post by BillyBob66 » Thu Jul 13, 2017 3:07 pm

GregD wrote:
BillyBob66 wrote:The big pharmaceuticals and the FDA, IMO, are tight as Dick's hatband.
As tight as Dick's hatband?

What century is THAT from?
From the 19th maybe, or 18th? Shows you how old and how country I am!
Rom8:21the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption23..but..we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit.. groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body

Post Reply

Return to “God”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest