V5 Date of first posting 14/1/2009,
present
posting 30/1/2009. POLITICS IN SCIENCE
Actually Politics in
Science have been already extensively shown and published here in the section
LECTURES-DIALEXEIS in the Greek language. So, as a matter of fact, we
shall present here an improved translation of it. It will posted gradually and
in the usual practice of ours for avoiding farther delays, i.e., as the
translation progresses. It will be subject to the standard money/papimi reward
"if you get us anywhere wrong", declared in our front page.
Our main example of
politics in science will be shown by making obvious to anyone the impossibility
of having a "Big Bang" for the creation of the Universe some 13.5 billion years
ago or at any other time, any where, contrary to the generally suggested wrong
theory for the creation of our Universe.
Instead, a continuous creation of matter and energy will be suggested, inside
matter, and/or in the presence of energy which takes place in every star and
every planet of our solar system, making our Universe to expand and become
bigger with time.
This theory will be
obviously different from Robert Hoyl's Theory of continuous creation of matter
in vacuum.
Our Theory will follow the
following principles
1. Matter creates nearly similar
matter everywhere and anytime.
2. Energy creates similar energy everywhere and anytime.
3. Vacuum creates similar vacuum.
4. Similar produces similar
Obviously, the above
principles are against the fundamental principle of Physics and of the Theory of
Relativity for the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.
The exciting thing here
will be the promised reward for any one who will prove us contrary wrong
for the above, WILL BE ALSO VALID.
We also claim that the current counter suggested relevant views are also
maintained for POLITICAL REASONS.
So surely, We expect to have a lot of future fun and excitement with the
orthodox, close minded and scared scientist.
Our main proof of the non
existence of the "Big Bang" for the creation of our Universe, before 13.5
billion years, will be based on the indisputable existence of deposits on the
surface of the Earth or close to the surface, for example inside mountains.
Here the word deposit will
be used not under the meaning that something was left there, but rather with the
meaning of a mine which implies that something (the mine) just exists there. We
say this having in mind the deposit of bauxite under the mountain of Parnassos
near Delphi in Greece, one of the world's biggest bauxite deposits. This example
is not exceptional but common and typical as many hundred thousands of deposits
or mines on Earth.
This particular deposit as many others, should have come into existence recently
and after the creation of the Earth, being on the surface of the rotating Earth,
just under the surface of the mountain of Parnassos. The mountain of Parnassos is
like a pin point seeing on the Globe of the Earth. The Earth makes a full
rotation in 24 hours. This rotation is not new and existed since billion of
years for the Earth, with a period of approximately 24 hours or less, which
means the Earth was always rotating in the past, even faster, and will
continuous to rotate in the future keeping its angular momentum above zero.
Now we are ready to make
the argument of the impossibility of the theory Big Bang.
If all matter on Earth comes from the sky, as dust, from the Big Bang or
intermediately from the explosion of a star which was formed previously by the
Big Bang, as this theory claims, it is impossible for the bauxite of Parnasos to
have been concentrated on pin point on a rotating Earth, falling from the sky.
It would rather have formed a deposit on concentric circle line with axle of
rotation of the Earth. Because no deposit on Earth out of the hundred thousands
of deposits forms concentric circles on Earth, none of them has fallen from
the sky on Earth. Therefore, none one of them has come from the Big Bang
somewhere in the sky, some 13.5 billion years or at any other time. So the
Big has not created the Earth. Because the Earth is not an exception, the Big
Bang has not created any heavenly body in the Universe.
So there was no Big Bang with the meaning of creating the Universe ! Q.E.D.
If matter on Earth, therefore, does not come from the sky, it has to be created
from the inside of Earth.
As declared
in the front page of the present web site, the above is subject to a hundred
thousand reward..., if found in error.
Since matter on the surface
of Earth is not coming down from the sky. the origin of this matter should be
locally from Earth. The very fact that as a general rule. all left ancient
monuments, buildings, structures are found covered by ground or they are
underground the present surface level, generally at a rate of two meters per
thousand years, independently of the location of these structures. either on the
top of a mountain or on a plane. Ie, on the top of Lycion mountain in Peloponese,
Greece, the Temple of Epicourios Apollon was found fully buried under ground
with no possibility for the ground to have come down from a higher location.
Similar case is the buried structures in Delphi, on the Parnassos mountain in
Greece in hundreds of different occasions and locations. This proves that on the
average the radius of Earth everywhere is increasing at a rate of two meters per
thousand years. This rate of increasing Earth radius compares to the known fact
of the rate of the continents going apart, as mathematically should had been
expected for a globe with an increasing radius.
The extra ground covering
up existing ground, either with structures or not, with no possibility for this
extra ground to have been brought from a different location, proves that
existing ground creates nearly similar ground. This is clearly an expression of the
Theory of Continuous Creation of Professor Pappas.
... continuous with more
details, numerous examples of the Theory of continuous creation of matter and
energy from nearly similar matter and energy by Professor, Doctor Pappas.
Brain storming for expansion
Field of Gravity, Field of
Morphogenesis, For classical Medicine nothing else other than matter, chemistry, materialistic physics exists. No Nuclear activity, No Frequency
communication....
In ancient times. objects were
falling always downwards with no exception as today. This seemed to be natural
for the objects and no question was raised. No investigation was carried and no
development of Celestial Mechanics was achieved, until Isaac Newton realized
that the fall of objects downwards is special and exceptional and that there must
be a cause that makes objects falling downwards. This cause was the field of
Gravity created by the ||Earth and every object, proportionally to its mass. There
afterwards, it was a matter of relatively short of time needed to explore
Gravity and develop the whole science of celestial mechanics which until then
Celestial Mechanics was unthinkable and nothing relevant had been developed for
many many thousands of years until then.
Similarly, the proliferation
and shaping of cells coming from a fertilized egg and their gradual
differentiation according to precise positions in the proliferated mass, is
considered natural and no questions are asked. At most, shaping and
differentiation are attributed to the DNA code of the fertilized egg, a chemical
chain characteristic of the fertilized egg. But again, how may a chemical chain like DNA
guide subsequent shaping and cell differentiation in precise position ? However,
thisn process seemed to
be a natural process, occurring always in similar situations, and no questions
needed to be asked, like the downward fall was to considered to be natural and
no questions should hab been asked. However, if we
think in a similar way like Isaac Newton for the downward fall of objects, who
attributed this fall to the field of Gravity associated with the Earth, then we
should attribute the shaping of proliferation and the associated cell
differentiation on something special associated with the fertilized egg. We call
the causing the shaping and its relevant cell differentiation, the
Field of Morphogenesis of the fertilized egg.
On the other hand, as there is no general principle known in chemistry
indicating how a chemical molecule or chemical chain may guide other
chemical processes, DNA code can not be the concept of the field of
Morphogenesis. DNA can not be, but nothing else than an identification code for
the cells of the same organism
with no possibility to guide other chemical processes.
Classical Biology and Medicine, following the extreme politics of
a materialistic approach for which nothing else may exist for life other than
strict chemistry and physics, ignores any consideration of any Field of
Morphogenesis different than the existing chemical molecules.
Thus, Biology,
like this, prohibits any farther relevant development of
Morphogenesis as a non existing concept. Biology without a concept of
Morphogenic field suffers from a serious scientific gap which prohibits its
farther development to the phenomenon of life.
On the other hand, adopting
such a new concept of a guiding field of Morphogenesis for Biology, it will be a
matter of short time to explore and discover this field of Morphogenesis,
similar to the adoption of the field of Gravity for the celestial bodies, for
which it was a matter of short time to develop the concrete science of celestial
Mechanics in a short time interval in the human history.
Sodium Potassium Pump -
The "Holy Cow" of Medicine and Biology
The diagram shows the classical model. It is
based on the factual assumption that Na, K concentration outside a cell are 145
mM/L for Na and 4 mM/L for K. Inside the cell the relevant concentrations are 12
mM/L and 139mM/L. Thus the naive assumption is made that the cell membrane
inserts Na and excretes K CONTINUOUSLY at ratio 2 to 3 to keep it inside
with a lack of positive charge i.e. -70 mV. This is impossible because at
certain time all the K inside the cell will be depleted and the inside will be
saturated with Na. UNLESS the Na inside the cell is turned into K by O. I.E.the
Na is transmuted into K, utilizing Oxygen. This is the Pappas assumption showing
in above Pappas model. The Pappas model explains all the observed facts.
1. The excess of exertion of K with the
respect of the intake in the body of K, first found by Louis Kervnan.
2. Why hyperkalemia in the body causes death.
3.Na adds energy. Na is the basis of all
energy drinks.
4. We add salt containing Na to all food
containing K.
5. Most of human food contains salt, Na
6. Animals not getting salt get sick
7. Farmers provide salty stones for the
animals to leak.
8. The word salary comes from the word salt
containing Na. In difficult times the salt was precious and it was a mean of
exchange thats the where the word salary comes from..
9. Na increases blood pressure, giving energy
to the hart.
10 No practical water retention may be
caused by a small amount Na. One molecule of Na retains six molecules of water.
11 Opposite roles of Na, K O, Energy in
animals vs plants.
Science in the Private
Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted Biomedical Research?
Editorial Reviews
From The New England Journal of
Medicine
The title of this book may scare some readers away. They shouldn't let
it. Even as it takes an uncompromising stance on the need for scientific
integrity, Science in the Private Interest is carefully researched and
presents arguments from all sides of the issues under discussion. Case
studies sprinkled throughout the book demonstrate that the main
characters -- universities, large companies, and some academicians -- at
times cloak monetary and career-advancing priorities in scientific
clothing. Yet most of the pages of the book are not exposes of
biomedical wrongdoing but explanations of the laws and regulations that
govern how academia and industry interrelate. In Science in the Private
Interest, Sheldon Krimsky explores how scientific discoveries made
within academic walls can be translated into better lives for members of
the general public. Without the profit motive to stimulate private
investment in discoveries with potential application to human need,
laboratory breakthroughs might be confined to the pages of a prominent
or obscure journal. Yet that same profit-oriented motive introduces a
new set of priorities, motivations, and cultural norms into university
laboratories and academic investigations. One university official is
quoted as saying, "The only thing wrong with tainted money is there
t'aint enough of it." Is there a way out of the dilemma? Can corporate
funding be made available to translate biomedical advances into
beneficial products without allowing the money to distort the purity of
scientific inquiry? In an important contribution to scholarly inquiry
into university-industry collaboration, Krimsky considers the work of
sociologist Robert Merton, who in the 1930s proposed a series of
standards by which science should be evaluated. Merton suggested four
norms of science. "Universalism" refers to the objective nature of
science that transcends national, cultural, or institutional boundaries.
"Communalism" stands for public ownership of the fruits of scientific
investigation, holding that each scientific advance is built on past
discoveries and should not become the private property of a person or
institution. Merton's third norm is "disinterestedness," requiring
scientists to perform and to interpret their work "without
considerations of personal gain, ideology, or fidelity to any cause
other than the pursuit of truth." Finally, Merton calls on scientists
and their institutions to practice "organized skepticism," suspending
final judgment on a discovery until all possible facts are at hand.
Krimsky uses these standards to evaluate the state of scientific inquiry
in the current era of growing private funding of universities and
heightened corporate influence over academic behavior. He struggles with
the applicability of Mertonian norms to modern reality. For example, is
communalism (public access to scientific knowledge) an absolute
yardstick of scientific integrity, given that industry has a reasonable
right to patent products (a process requiring secrecy) that its funds
help to develop? What kinds of discoveries merit the overriding of
communalism? Is it proper to patent objects that already exist in nature,
such as genes? Or should knowledge be treated as private property only
for such inventions as the vacuum cleaner and the hepatitis B vaccine?
This book is worthwhile reading for anyone interested in biomedical
innovation. Thomas Bodenheimer, M.D.
University science is now entangled with entrepreneurship, and
researchers with a commercial interest are caught in an ethical quandary.
Science in the Private Interest investigates the trends and effects of
modern, commercialized academic science.
In Medical Research for Hire, Jill Fisher goes behind the curtain of the
drug trial industry to tell an interesting and complicated story of what
has gone wrong in pharmaceutical research. This well-crafted study
offers those who seek justice in health care the rich detail and
brilliant analysis they need to change a broken system. --Raymond De
Vries, co-editor of The View From Here: Bioethics and the Social
Sciences
Jill Fisher shows us the daily workings of neoliberal medicine that
produce the 'gold standard' of clinical trials. Anyone concerned with
the future of medicine--and with the testing of the pharmaceuticals we
ingest--should read this well-crafted, provocative, and disturbing book
--Arthur W. Frank, author of The Wounded Storyteller and The Renewal of
Generosity
Medical Research for Hire presents a vivid and often disturbing picture
of everyday life at the new frontiers of pharmaceutical drug development.
In this timely book, Fisher sounds the alarm about the new economics of
research, where volunteering to be a human subject may become the way
for the poor to earn cash or for the uninsured to access medical care.
--Steven Epstein, author of Inclusion: The Politics of Difference in
Medical Research
Product Description
Today, more than 75 percent of pharmaceutical drug trials in the United
States are being conducted in the private sector. Once the sole province
of academic researchers, these important studies are now being
outsourced to non-academic physicians.
According to Jill A. Fisher, this major change in the way medical
research is performed is the outcome of two problems in U.S. health care:
decreasing revenue for physicians and decreasing access to treatment for
patients. As physicians report diminishing income due to restrictive
relationships with insurers, increasing malpractice insurance premiums,
and inflated overhead costs to operate private practices, they are
attracted to pharmaceutical contract research for its lucrative return.
Clinical trials also provide limited medical access to individuals who
have no or inadequate health insurance because they offer free doctors
visits, diagnostic tests, and medications to participants. Focusing on
the professional roles of those involved, as well as key research
practices, Fisher assesses the risks and advantages for physicians and
patients alike when pharmaceutical drug studies are used as an
alternative to standard medical care.
A volume in the Critical Issues in Health and Medicine series, edited by
Rima D. Apple and Janet Golden
..... DCΑ (dichloroacetic acid), ένα φθηνό φάρμακο
που κυκλοφορεί τα τελευταία 30 χρόνια για την αντιμετώπιση μιας σπάνιας
κληρονομικής μεταβολικής νόσου και το οποίο βρίσκεται αυτή τη στιγμή σε φάση
δοκιμών από την ομάδα του κ. Μιχελάκη ενάντια στον καρκίνο............
