Bioelectromagnetics

[EHocking]

...I wish someone would count up the number of scientific references I have placed in this thread in support of my hypotheses, and compare them with the totality on this thread. You would find my specific references outnumber all the rest put together, I suspect. By contrast all I seem to get from you lot is a link to some enormous website, and I find that in fact it does not support your argument in the slightest, even I find the reverse.

The fact is, you really know little about this subject, only a load of outdated physics and outdated ideas about cancer.|

I'm new to this forum - where can I find that Ironometer icon...

 

[EHocking]

Your scholarship and crediblity are reaching all-time lows. I told you you need the quotation marks around it. I never said "nearly everyone." Can't be my "very words" if I never wrote them. In fact, nowhere on this JREF site have I ever written that phrase. I'll leave it to you and your team of crack researchers to figure out how to confirm that.

Damn - Google returns 27,400 on eric hocking, but only 236 on "eric hocking".

What can you be implying?

 

[EHocking]

Aye Carumba! I don't need to!. All I need to know is that Mr Coghill is qualified in the area of expertise he is talking about, that his claims stand up to scrutiny with his peers; or, alternatively be provided with a qualified rebutall which also stands up to peer review.

Appeal to authority doesn't work here

Mr Coghill has presented his evidence and his credentials. All I see in return is animated gifs....

Even in sci.skeptics you never grasped the idea of irony, did you?

 

[Rolfe]

Interesting page Dr Roger Coghill ??

http://www.iob.org/

I assume you will write and correct them ?

the South Wales Branch has it correct tho'. UWIC's just down the road, maybe i could pop along !

Since the IoB's lousy web site uses lousy frames, this link only gets you the main page.

The quote PJ is referring to is on the first page of the South Wales Branch section.

Wednesday 31 March
Dr Roger Coghill, 'Melatonin - the wonder molecule'?

If you then click on the "more details", the next page has it right.

September
Melatonin - The Wonder Molecule? - Mr Roger Coghill MA (Cantab)

Mr Roger Coghill MA (Cantab) read more at www.cogreslab.co.uk DATE: September 22nd, 2004 TIME: 7:00 for 7:30 VENUE: UWIC, Llandaff Campus, Western Avenue, Cardiff

Terribly proud of that MA (Cantab), isn't he? And we still don't know any more than that it was essentially awarded for his Classics study.

How soon can we expect a correction to be issued?

Rolfe.

 

[Pragmatist]

Wow, this thread is amazing!

I'm in awe of the detailed rebuttals people have taken the time to post to Roger's quite stunning pseudoscience. I'm also more than a little in awe of Roger's ability to pick up on small and slightly off-beat published papers and recruit them to his weird and wacky theories.

It's not that difficult for him to present these papers because he obviously doesn't actually READ or understand them!

However, the science of it is academic. If this were merely an intellectual discussion about the possible causes of cancer, then it wouldn't matter in the slightest. Everyone is entitled to their theories, and it's by examining theories that the truth becomes known. However, Roger isn't just theorising, is he? He has something to sell. In fact he has a lot of things to sell. Despite the evidence for his theories being shaky to put it politely, and despite no apparent evidence of efficacy for their intended purpose of just about anything he sells, he's happy, nay extremely keen, to relieve you of your money.

Exactly. He not only sells these things but "certifies" other equally woo woo objects with a veneer of pseudoscientific credibility as well. And as if that isn't bad enough he is being quoted as a "leading expert" in the popular press and invited to advise government committes to boot. Oh, and he is probably also doing some of it at the taxpayer's expense as well!

So I'm mainly worried about the quackery and the fraud going on. A bit less theorising and a bit more challenging the efficacy of the products he promotes might make an interesting change.

That was the purpose of the original thread raised by Cleopatra.

So if anybody issued any new guidelines about warnings on mobile phones after this case was heard, we have no evidence at all to demonstrate that this was cause and effect. And indeed it would seem fairly unlikely, except insofar as if you stir up enough unfounded concern about something, some publicity-hungry politician is likely to introduce some sort of response as a move in the popularity stakes.

It's quite simple, I believe that it was introduced solely to avoid tying the courts up in frivolous "copycat" cases. Welcome to the "compensation culture"!

The interesting part is really, who was ordered to pay what costs?

It was widely reported that he was ordered to pay Wayne Morgan's costs. He lost. End of story.

So here we have somebody with a couple of fairly low-down-the-food-chain qualifications that bear some relation to biological sciences, at least one of them obtained rather a long time in the past, and no postgraduate qualifications, and so far as we know no period of work in any academic or research institution other than his own establishment.

And here is where the IoB is particularly relevant. Because Roger doesn't "trade" on his "biological science" qualification, whatever it is. The simple fact that it appears it would take the loving ministrations of Torquemada himself to pry out of him, a clear, simple, unambiguous statement about what that qualification actually is, proves that admirably.

So in effect, what he REALLY "trades" on for "scientific credibility" is his IoB membership. THAT, in my opinion, should be of SERIOUS concern to the IoB. Particularly in the light of what he actually uses it for.

 

[Pragmatist]

THIRD time of asking:

Roger:

a) What is the electric field referenced to in the gold wire experiment?

b) Which textbook shows the Maxwell equations in an unconventional order?

 

[Rolfe]

And here is where the IoB is particularly relevant. Because Roger doesn't "trade" on his "biological science" qualification, whatever it is. The simple fact that it appears it would take the loving ministrations of Torquemada himself to pry out of him, a clear, simple, unambiguous statement about what that qualification actually is, proves that admirably.

So in effect, what he REALLY "trades" on for "scientific credibility" is his IoB membership. THAT, in my opinion, should be of SERIOUS concern to the IoB. Particularly in the light of what he actually uses it for.

Yes. And yet the South Wales branch has him giving them a lecture. Very curious.

I'm not in with the bricks in the IoB, I joined some years ago because a colleague had read about the membership drive they were having, and their monthly magazine sometimes has some interesting articles. They let me go straight to Fellowship, too, which was nice of them. And I won't deny that the little extra letters you get to put after your name can impress the unwary sometimes. One day I keep meaning to go on one of their local field trips, but so far there's always been something else more interesting to do with my time.

I don't honestly know how rigorous their standards are. I'd be awfully surprised if they encompassed the sort of quackery Roger is up to, but then they do seem to be tolerating him at least at some level. Most peculiar.

Rolfe.

 

[Pragmatist]

Wednesday 31 March
Dr Roger Coghill, 'Melatonin - the wonder molecule'?

Notice any pattern here?

Both lectures, same subject. And of course, our Roger just happens to be selling a "supplement" that he claims is the best natural source of melatonin. And which he also claims just happens to protect you against those evil ELF's...

I wonder when the IoB will start selling magical magnetic coasters that turn wine into the elixir of life? Homeopathically of course!

 

[cogreslab]

Since you find this so important:

In Rojansky Electromagnetic fields and Waves, DOVER Pubs, 1979 you will find the equations in vector notation with the "fourth" one (curl E -= -dB/dt) placed first, on page 365.

(V. Rogansky was Professor of Physics Emeritus at Harvey Mudd College). There were probably other text books with the equations in a different order too.


Frankly I would rather get back to demolishing your absurd science, and also the studpid comments you keep making about qualifications. I am seriously thinking of asking IoB to rem,ove your Fellow status. You don't seem to to think it of any particular merit judging by your last insulting post.

 

[Pragmatist]

Since you find this so important:

In Rojansky Electromagnetic fields and Waves, DOVER Pubs, 1979 you will find the equations in vector notation with the "fourth" one (curl E -= -dB/dt) placed first, on page 365.

(V. Rogansky was Professor of Physics Emeritus at Harvey Mudd College). There were probably other text books with the equations in a different order too.

Thank you. I'll check that one out. There are a lot of bad text books out there. The reason why they have a particular order (Maxwell's equations) is because each one builds on the previous one. If they are out of order the whole concept becomes unintelligible.

Frankly I would rather get back to demolishing your absurd science, and also the studpid comments you keep making about qualifications. I am seriously thinking of asking IoB to rem,ove your Fellow status. You don't seem to to think it of any particular merit judging by your last insulting post.

Oh, feel free to! I wasn't even aware that I WAS a Fellow of the IoB! Maybe they made me one in absentia. It wouldn't surprise me, they seem to be letting ANYONE in these days!

Gold wire experiment?

 

[Rolfe]

It is just possible that the fellow is a genius.

On rare occasions self-taught outsiders make a discovery in an area that is largely unknown to them, but this is indeed rare. Most fundamental discoveries are made by persons intimately familiar with their research discipline, because they not only know the subject matter of their field but also know the pitfalls and traps and have made many of the obvious mistakes.

This from a book seeking to clarify what lessons might be learned from the Cold Fusion fiasco, basically caused by a couple of electrochemists who knew bugger-all about nuclear physics but thought (because they misapplied a fundamental equation) that they had found the secret of unlimited cheap and clean energy. Admittedly they never got as far as marketing anything, but again it was greed for the prospect of commercial gains that was behind the tenacious clinging to disproved theories and bad science.

Oh, isn't biology wonderful - you can get away with any sort of quackery with the right patter and a fundamental reliance of the fact that most people don't get seriously ill and almost all people who are mildly ill get better anyway.

Luci, you wouldn't recognise a genius if it came and bit you on the ankle. But I can assure you that Roger isn't one. He's been spouting his nonsense quite far and wide and the only response he's getting is polite sniggers. When unexpected insights come from unlikely places this is usually demonstrated by the fact that their treatments WORK. We haven't even established that Roger's magnetised water can be distinguished from ordinary water, never mind that any of his alleged prophylactics or cures have any effect whatsoever.

Rolfe.

 

[cogreslab]

Another gem from Rolfe:

When unexpected insights come from unlikely places this is usually demonstrated by the fact that their treatments WORK.

Static magnets work.
The Quinone treatments work.
How many of either have you ever tested to support your comment in this issue?

Answer: none.

Skeptometer now reads 88.

 

[Timble]

Yes, but the quinone treatments don't come from you and you disagree with the Hungarian's proposed mechanism of action, which is absolutely consistent with real current thinking on carcinogenesis.

The static magnets data are debatable, to be polite about it.

Coghill credibility meter -3 and falling.

 

[cogreslab]

To Rolfe:

You said: "the South Wales Branch has it correct tho'. UWIC's just down the road, maybe i could pop along" !

Yes, why don't you come along? You might learn something new.

I will by that time have made sure that the IoB correct their mistake: note once again you are quoting a misrepresentation by a third party website and blaming me for their error.

The trouble is, most people expect me to have a doctorate (though not a spin doctorate like you guys) and I am continually having to correct these errors when I find them, without also going out looking for them all over the Internet.

As for being proud of my MA, yes I am proud: Cambridge is a fine University with a long pedigree of academic acheivement in many different fields. Again (third or fourth time of asking) what are your qualifications and affiliations? (Perhaps I will at last discover when you come to the IoB meeting on 22 September). Meanwhile, if you are curious about melatonin, you will find a dozen pages of references on it via our Scientific References Database on our website. (But of course you may not wish to mention this resource because it is entirely free to all visitors, so you cannot indict me with a commercial motive).

 

[Timble]

I apologise to Rolfe for reposting this, but I think Mr Coghill missed it earlier.

.
snip....
Rolfe.
BVMS (Glasgow), BSc (pure biochemistry, Glasgow), PhD (biochemistry of exercise, Glasgow), FIBiol, CBiol (I knew some people too), MRCVS (licence to practice that comes free with the BVMS). Just in case anybody was going to ask me.

Edited to add: The BSc was a 2.1, just for completeness.

Me? Nothing much, Pharmacology, Manchester, only a Desmond. Eight years in toxicology labs. Ten years regulatory writing in the pharmaceutical industry. Ten years more general medical writing pharmaceutical industry. So no-one in particular.

 

[Rolfe]

To Rolfe:

You said: "the South Wales Branch has it correct tho'. UWIC's just down the road, maybe i could pop along" !

The trouble is, most people expect me to have a doctorate (though not a spin doctorate like you guys)

No, I said no such thing. That was Prester John, he's the one in Wales, not me.

But it is me who has the FIBiol, not Pragmatist. You've been using that mobile phone too much again, admit it.

And in just what way is my PhD a "spin doctorate", by the way?

Timble, who says he's no one in particular, could wipe the floor with you in experience and credibility, Roger.

Rolfe.

 

[cogreslab]

But I can assure you that Roger isn't one. He's been spouting his nonsense quite far and wide and the only response he's getting is polite sni**ers. When unexpected insights come from unlikely places this is usually demonstrated by the fact that their treatments WORK.

Have you not heard of Thomas Kuhn, Rolfe?

Try taking a look at The Structure of Scientific Revolutions some day.

A for my "nonsense" ( I think you mean my scientific ideas) , yes is is quoted far and wide, and has been for perhaps fifteen years. Surely by now the game would have been up if my ideas were that bad?

Now I finally get some hard information about your own qualifications perhaps you might enlighten us about your own published work too?

"Rolfe.
BVMS (Glasgow), BSc (pure biochemistry, Glasgow), PhD (biochemistry of exercise, Glasgow), FIBiol, CBiol (I knew some people too), MRCVS (licence to practice that comes free with the BVMS). Just in case anybody was going to ask me.

Edited to add: The BSc was a 2.1, just for completeness".

Hopefully you know something about metabolism, then?

 

[Rolfe]

the only response he's getting is polite sni**ers.

Huh? Has the automatic asterisker gone completely off its automatic rocker?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

They laughed at Galileo, they laughed at Einstein - they also laughed at Bozo the Clown (and at Fleishmann and Pons, and they were a darn sight more credit-worthy than Roger).

Magnets and their credibility. This doesn't specifically address Roger's angle, so far as I can see, however. He may think he's widely quoted, but he's also completely off the wall. His ideas about "metabolism", well, I think I'll just go away and cry now.

Roger, I taught my subject at university level for over six years. I was a guest lecturer at Cambridge University for a year. Give it up. In the immortal words of Geni's new sig, I outnumber you.

Rolfe.

 

[cogreslab]

Hey, Rolfe.

Is this the kind of research you BVMs do (I'd better be careful how I write BVMs, in view of my classical education):

Holistic Nutrition
by John Burns BVMS MRCVS

Our affluent Western society has largely overcome the problem of infectious disease. This is due mainly to public health measures. Similarly, our pet animals rarely die of infectious disease (unlike farm animals which suffer epidemics due to poor hygiene and overcrowding).
But although we have seen off infectious disease, our hospitals and mental health clinics are swamped, veterinary clinics are busier than ever and our society is fragmented and ill-at-ease.
We have replaced the problem of infectious disease with that of degenerative disease.
Thankfully, Holistic Medicine offers us a solution [\B].