Bioelectromagnetics

Wow. Thanks to Bill Hoyt for setting up the list of questions, to Mr. Coghill for responding to the questions and to Pragmatist for debunking the claims and summing up the whole issue.
 
cogreslab said:
Hans if you are going to continue making these unsupported value judgements you will detract from any credibility you might still possess.

Heheh. You might be more effecive in attacking my credibility if you were able to counter my arguments.

Look at your comments here:

I read that study and it shows no causality. Nor surprising, since you are not able to define exactly what an "endogenous electric field" is. The study fails to rule out several posible confounders. It may have been peer-reviewed, although by now one has to wonder that exactly the term "peer" denotes in this case.

a) "It shows no causality". Explain this and support your value judgement.

You placed samples near to the donor, "inside the donor's endogenous" field. Since you were not able to quantify that alleged field, you were not able to define a proper control. Without a proper control, you are unable to even suggest causality.

b) "You wre unable to define what an endogenous field is". Not true, we did not characterise the power density nor the frequencies being delivered, but the deifinition of the source and method was complete, so that anyone can replicate this study.

No. What you measured was just some field surrounding the person. You did nothing to prove the origin of the field. An endogenous field is per definition a field that is generated by the person. In the case of your experiment, I claim that the field you measured was just part of the ambient field transmited by the person, and you are not albe to reject that claim based on the data you have.

c) "fails to rule out several confounders"

Which were these? Another unsupported value judgement!

Temperature, light, lack of blinding, chemical contamination, just to mention some off my head.

c) "what exactly the word peer denotes in this case"

I quoted one of the peers. Are you arguing that this well known physics professor's views are not of any scientific value?

No, that was a sarcastic remark referring to your qualifications. I doubt that a physics professor is you peer. Anyhow, I'm sure you are aware that peer review is no blue stamp. I do not know on which criteria these people reviewed your paper. I don't even know if they criticized it. Appeal to authority, even if it is a valid authority, does not free you from addressing concrete criticism against your study.
Click to expand...

Hans
 
Coghill R.W. Galonja-Coghill, T.
Protective effect of a donor's endogenous electric field on human peripheral blood lymphocytes.
Electro and Magneto Biology. v19 i1 p46 p59 2000
Click to expand...

Can't seem to find this one, anyone know anything about the journal, doesn't appear to be in pubmed. Meanwhile perhaps you could explain a little about what you did here Roger......

edited to add - i found it
 
Hans said:

You placed samples near to the donor, "inside the donor's endogenous" field. Since you were not able to quantify that alleged field, you were not able to define a proper control. Without a proper control, you are unable to even suggest causality.

Not so. We used the endogenous field of a non-donor as the control, and this showed no protective effect at all. Since all the other parameters were identical, (e.g. length ansd thickness of connecting wire, character size and shape of the containers, the aliquots of the cultures) it strongly supports the conclusion that there is a causal relationship: the donor's endogenous fields whether characterised or not in the way that most EMF exposures are characterised (e.g. duration, field intensity, nature of the waveform) were the only parameter by which this effect could be produced. Perhaps I should also have mentioned that these experiments were replicated double blind over several days in he presence of

a) a scientist from the Karolinska, Prof Olle Johanssen

b) the Professor of Neurosciences from Oxford University, Prof Trevor Hughes

c) a biologist from NRPB (whose permission I do not have to reveal his name at this moment)

The codes were held by these scrutineers and broken only at the end of the study. In all cases these scrutineers approved the study design, the controls, and the results of the work.

We invited these eminent independent scientists to oversee the experiment because we recognised its fundamental importance in biology (so did they, which is why they came) and to underpin the honesty and integrity of the reported facts.

The study was published in at least one peer reviewed journal and several bioelectromagnetics conferences, where it attracted great attention.

Against this background your tortured attempts to deny the results and dispute them are quite frankly ludicrous, and are yet another example of a biased mindset.
 
Because the cells have shifted their metabolic pathway and are transformed. Sometimes however spontaneous remissions occur when the ox phos pathway is restored again in appropriate circumstances of plentiful oxygen bioavailablity peroxide free radical presence, and of course the absence of carcinogens such as ELF electric fields.
Click to expand...

So how do they pass on their "shifted metabolic pathway" to their daughter cells when they divide? This includes after they have moved away from the ELF electric field? Again what happens in the absence of a carcinogen?

(Answer - the cells have genetic mutations that they pass on when they divide. It is these mutations that cause the cell to becom cancerous. Whilst cancerous cells have abnormal metabolism, this is an effect of, not the cause of transformation.)
 
Anyone else done that little experiment Mr Coghill ? Any independent verification ?
 
To PJ: My previous post may assist you in answering your question about verification. As for replication in an independent lab, this is underway. I am not at liberty to disclose the lab just yet, sadly, but I can say it is among the most reputable in the world.
 
Yet no defence of your carcinogenesis theory, the holes are simply too big to patch, you are wrong.
 
To PJ:

"So how do they pass on their "shifted metabolic pathway" to their daughter cells when they divide? This includes after they have moved away from the ELF electric field? Again what happens in the absence of a carcinogen?

(Answer - the cells have genetic mutations that they pass on when they divide. It is these mutations that cause the cell to become cancerous. Whilst cancerous cells have abnormal metabolism, this is an effect of, not the cause of transformation.)"

Maybe so, but this does not prevent the impact of a quinone from having a up/down-regulatory effect on gene expression, so to that extent the quinone has caused the correction just as the carcinogen may have been instrumental in causing the up/down regulation responsible for the faulty metabolism in the first place. In the absence of a carcinogen the same effect has been acheived by O2 intermittency, (as shown by Goldblatt and Cameron, 1953).

You can see this exampled with heat shock proteins:

e.g. both EMF and thermal energy cause the expression of HSP70, as Martin Blank and Reba Goodman from Columbia have demonstrated often over the last decade.

The point you don''t seem to grasp (though I have said it elsewhere on this thread) is that cells respond to events by up/down regulation of gene expression, not the other way around.
 
cogreslab said:
Oh I forgot:
to answer the point about qualifications, in case it is relevant, after completing part One of the Classical Tripos as an Open Scholar I continued as a Senior Exhibitioner in Biological Sciences and received an honours degree in that subject from Cambridge University in 1962. I regard the level of biology incorporated in the Environmental Management MA from UWCN as a relevant discipline. Perhaps the prospectus is available on the UW website?

What are your qualifications Prag? Or are we going to see the same post we got from others, namely "Mind your Own Business".
Click to expand...

Thank you. But that is still ambiguous. Please can you make a clear, unambiguous statement. I assume from the above that you have a BSc in Biological Sciences? If not, please can you spell it out - what does it say on your degree certificate?

Mu qualifications are hardly relevant since, unlike you, I have never relied on them to back up my arguments, but I have no problem with you knowing. I have an ordinary diploma in pure and applied garbage collection. Satisfied? :)
 
To PJ:

I will have to do somehting about these unsupported value judgements:
e.g. the latest effort:

"Yet no defence of your carcinogenesis theory, the holes are simply too big to patch, you are wrong".

So I have designed and built a Coghill Skeptometer in our lab. This instrument is loaded now with 100 points. Everytime a post appears on this thread containing an unsupported value judgement (a "UVJ") 1 point will be deducted by the meter. The count down begins with the next UVJ.
 
MRC_Hans said:
Pragmatist: Very good work! The remark earlier: "When in a hole, stop digging" becomes very pertinent indeed. Mr. Coghill is certainly in over his head in more than one sense.

And to Roger:

It is evident that you are accostumed to being able to impress the peasants with your fancy titles and your pseudolearned technobabble. In a place like this, however, such bluff is bound to be called. Not only that, but here people care enough about the truth to bother with blasting through your repeated diversions and smoke-screens.

Sir, your case has been scredded. You have been exposed as a liar and a swindler. You are not a scientist: You do not have the qualifications needed to design, conduct, or evaluate research in the area of bioelectromagnetics. How can you claim to measure electric fields and make conclusions on your data when you do not understand the physics of electrical fields on even the most basic level?

I do not doubt that the traumatic experience of your little son being almost a victim of SID has been an important impetous for your crusade, but the ends do not justify the means. You do not fight possible injustice with lies and fraud.

Hans
Click to expand...

Thanks Hans, I couldn't have put it better myself.
 
Cambridge did not award BSc degrees when I was there, since all the first degrees are BA, whether natural sciences or arts. I seem to remember having been awarded an M. Phil from Surrey University too, but I never took it up.

Skeptometer now reads 99 points.
 
cogreslab said:
*sniip*
Against this background your tortured attempts to deny the results and dispute them are quite frankly ludicrous, and yet another example of a biased mindset.
Click to expand...
Since you are unable to define what an endogenous field is and how it is measured, you cannot make your conclusion. I'm not going to nitpick the details with you, so let's assume that your experiment showed that the samples were indeed better off carried by the donor than some other person. This means that you have provided evidence for a correlation between carrier and donor, which is indeed quite interesting (provided the result can be replicated, that is), but to claim that a putative endogenous field is the cause of result is not warrented.

You have not shown the existence of an endogenous field that is characteristic to the individual, and indeed such a field is not known to science. Thus, to claim a putative phenomenon as the cause of the observation is ridiculous. That is what we call an ad hoc hypothesis.

And it does not stop there; even if additional expriments should actually show the hypothesis to be right, your conclusions about the effct of ELF fields do not follow at all.

---Which reminds me of a self-contradiction of yours: Since you claim that ELF fields have an importan impact on human physiogy by overriding or masking our endogenous fields, it follows logically that it must also be strongly suspected to have a similar effect on the samples in your experiment. Thus we have another confounding factor that you should have taken onto acount for the sake of internal logic, namely the exposure of the test subjects to ELF fields.

Hans

Edited for more clarity.
 
To Hans:

You said:

You have not shown the existence of an endogenous field that is characteristic to the individual, and indeed such a field is not known to science.

Can I point you to

a) Bioelectromagnetic Bioinformation, Urban and Schwarzenberg, Munich, 1989 (Popp, Warnke et al, eds.) Prof Ulrich Warnke is at the University of the Saarland, which some would claim is a scientific institution of repute.

b) the forthcoming Gordon Confernce on endogenous fields at Boston, 20 July 2004. May be you should visit it?.

Skeptometer now reads 98 points.
 
The point you don''t seem to grasp (though I have said it elsewhere on this thread) is that cells respond to events by up/down regulation of gene expression, not the other way around.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with this, its not a problem. However if the genes they are expressing have mutations in them, then the proteins produced will be abnormal if produced at all.

Futhermore you still do not address how the cancerous cells produce cancerous daughter cells

caused the correction just as the carcinogen may have been instrumental in causing the up/down regulation responsible for the faulty metabolism in the first place
Click to expand...

Well first you say the carcinogens interact with ATP production, now they interfere with up/down regulation. Which is it ? Both are wrong. It has been shown conclusively that cancer is caused by muations.

You admitted that cancerous cells have mutated DNA earlier. Where does this come from? Why is it not this, which code for regulatory proteins that causes the cancer? What about the Rous Sarcoma Virus experiments - where the put an oncogene from the virus into healthy cells and caused transformation. Direct evidence that it was the change in DNA that leads to transformation.

In the absence of a carcinogen the same effect has been acheived by O2 intermittency,
Click to expand...

Yes you said this before, which effectivly means reduced 02 availability is carcinogenic. If this is so however why doesn't this happen in vivo ?
 
cogreslab said:
To PJ:

I will have to do somehting about these unsupported value judgements:
e.g. the latest effort:

"Yet no defence of your carcinogenesis theory, the holes are simply too big to patch, you are wrong".

So I have designed and built a Coghill Skeptometer in our lab. This instrument is loaded now with 100 points. Everytime a post appears on this thread containing an unsupported value judgement (a "UVJ") 1 point will be deducted by the meter. The count down begins with the next UVJ.
Click to expand...


Its not unsupported, your carcinogenesis theory is however How many references do you require from me, 1 or 2 hundred ? More?
 
cogreslab said:
Pragger’s "Scientific Rebuttals".

Do you really want me to take you through the physics of how a charged particle in one place will affect another nearby? Or to dispute that electrons are negatively charged particles ? Or that like charges repel?
Click to expand...


Sure, go ahead, I enjoy a good laugh! :)


cogreslab said:
P7:

(Fact: there is no relation between the electric and the magnetic component at ELF frequencies, so no magnetic field study can say anything about the electric component).

My statement is perfectly correct: in the radiating near field no plane wave has yet emerged. And no calculable relationship between the two components (electric and magnetic) can be derived. All that can be said is that they are both present, but that is of little use in any argument trying to deny that ELF magnetic fields say nothing about the character of the electric component there. Not only are the facts but also the conclusions of my statement correct, and Prag is the only physicist I have yet come across who tries to deny this. The point of making my statement is that the power utilities and others with vested interests have carefully concentrated on the ELF magnetic component and have avoided research into the ELF electric component, knowing full well that it is the electric component which is the important bio-effector.

The NRPB describe it thus (Docs 3(1), 1993, page 9-10:

"The description of electromagnetic radiation given above where the electric and magnetic fields are in phase and are at right angles to the direction of propagation is known as the far field or plane wave, which describes the approximate nature at a distance of several wavelengths from a source. In these circumstances it is possible to relate E, H, and S in a simple way (S= E2/377 = 377H2).

…At closer distances and well within a wavelength a region called the reactive near field exists where non-radiating field components may be dominant. In both cases, i.e. the radiating and reactive near fields, the electric and magnetic fields need to be assessed separately". This is what I am arguing too. What is wrong with the NRPB’s physics, Prag, since they obviously agree with my view?

I will carry on with P8 onwards in a separate post, since other business now calls me away.
Click to expand...

Roger this is nonsense pure and simple. Bluster all you like, but you don't know what you are talking about.

Has it ever occurred to you that it might be worthwhile to invest all the energy you put into bluster, lying, distraction, evasion, backtracking, cherry picking and plain BS generation, into actually LEARNING some real science? No?

Hans said it perfectly, the phrase "assessed separately" cannot reasonably be interpreted as "no relation" - except it seems by someone who doesn't understand any of the basic science involved.
 
Cleopatra said:
Wow. Thanks to Bill Hoyt for setting up the list of questions, to Mr. Coghill for responding to the questions and to Pragmatist for debunking the claims and summing up the whole issue.
Click to expand...

You're welcome!
 
To PJ:

Well first you say the carcinogens interact with ATP production, now they interfere with up/down regulation. Which is it ? Both are wrong. It has been shown conclusively that cancer is caused by mutations.


There is no mutual exclusivity in the two: The event sequence is that first the cell is placed in stress by the binding of the carcinogen to block the ox phos pathway. Its mechanism for changing to glycolysis is via up/down regulation of gene exporession to produce the agents necessary for the new mode of ATP synthesis. This is quite a fast process, and was well characterised (in bacteria at least) way back in the sixties. We have inour library an excellent little symposium proceedings (to honour the retirement of Hans Krebs, actually) whcih set out the science quite well.

I have offered to send to you by post a complete set of the molecular biology and biochemistry of the reaction sequences, but you don't seem to want to part with your anonymity. They are too long and laborious to type into these threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom