Dear Paula,

I forgive your apparent error and not being sure where you had read  and
what you read .the difference is 9-12 weeks  ot development which might
or might not lead to a different outcome..

Regarding intelligent design vs. evolution, your stating that evolution
is not scientific is as ridiculous  as saying that Newton's LAWS OF
MOTION is just a theory and therefore if I drop an apple sometimes it
might fall up instead of down. The quotes that you give us are  at the
latest from the 1980's ,  The quotes do nor support creationism or
intelligent design. They attack  the methodology of evolutionary science
and questions the validity of the theory in the same way that using the
scientific method all hypotheses should be retested and refined   The
last time the theories invoked in in creationism design were internally
challenged was probably by Moses' . Also where is it written who created
the Creator .

And how come there are so many creation myths that differ  depending on
the culture that they come from.. Shouldn't  they be more appropriately
studied in comparative religion courses.?

Regarding Bush ,  His cronyism  and apparent lack of knowledge about
science coupled with his self interest in pushing his political agenda
colors his judgment to such an extent that he ignores large bodies of
evidence which costs lives and billions of dollars-  like the Reports of
the army corps of engineers on the New Orleans levee system which was
predicted to fail years before  it did (followed by   his appointment
of  "Brownie"  which compounded the error a hundred fold),

On PD I hope and pray that  FSR is successful,  In the meantime I put my
life time and money  in  DBS which I had 6 years ago  (and was quite
helpful even with slow progression of my PD.)

 Charlie

Charles T Meyer,  M.D..



Paula Nixon wrote:

> Dear Mr. Meyer,
> I may indeed have made a mistake referring to fetal cell instead of
> embryonic cells or vice versa.  It was late the night I wrote it, and
> I don't remember just where I read it, but it had stuck a point in my
> head at the time.  I didn't know I had to have footnotes for my comments.
>
> The point of President Bush's not being unscientific, I stand by my
> words.  Evolution isn't scientific any more than Intelligent Design is.
>
>  "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost
> all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their
> observations to fit with it"  H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics,
> University of Manchester, UK), "A physicist looks at evolution'.
> Physics Bulletin, vol.31, 1980,p.138
>
> "It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to
> another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by
> natural selection.  But such stories are not part of science, for
> there is no way of putting them to the test."  Dr. Colin Patterson,
> Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in
> London, in a personal letter quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D.
> Sunderland, Master Books, San Diego, 1984, p.89
>
> "Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed
> to test the theory of evolution.  It is not testable.  They may happen
> to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its
> predictions.  These facts will invariably be ignored and their
> discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research
> grants."  Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of
> Melbourn, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week address.
>
> "Facts do not 'speak for themselves'; they are read in the light of
> theory.  Creative thought, in science as much as in the arts, is the
> motor of changing opinion.  Science is a quintessentially human
> activity, not a mechanized, robot-like accumulation of objective
> information, leading by laws of logic to inescapable interpretation."
> Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard
> University), 'The validation of continental drift' in his book Ever
> Since Darwin, Burnett Books, 1978 pp.161-162
>
> "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are
> great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax
> ever.  In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact."  Dr.
> T.N. Tahmisian (Atomic Energy Commission, USA) in 'The Fresno Bee'
> Aug.29, 1959.
>
> These are all, or were at least, evolutionists.  I can go on, but I
> don't think I should take up the space.  What President Bush would
> like is to have both theories taught side by side.  He's not trying to
> stop teaching evolution.  Actually the Bible doesn't teach the sun
> goes around the earth.  The Catholic Church believed that, but they
> made it up thinking that it should be that way. Its not in the Bible
> though.
>
>
> Now to recovering from PD, there was an Email from this list by Nancy
> Sue Hano that tells of her beginning treatment with FSR, (which is the
> method they use in pdrecovery.org,).and the recovery begun in another
> PDer who had to have a friend do the treatment because she didn't find
> a trained person to do it.  If the pdrecovery people were trying to
> make money on this, I'd be more skeptical. Personally, I'd rather
> think there is a system that might help, esp. when it is so simple.
> No holes drilled in the skull.
> Paula
>
> Charles Meyer <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>     Paula,
>
>     I would like the references for each of the claims you have
>     made..  I think you have confused  the studies.  I participated in
>     a study that used  fetal cells rather than stem  cells and some of
>     the subjects developed a  run away dyskinesia possibly because of
>     poor placement.  As far as I know the cells did not develop into
>     other ectodermal  tissue .
>
>     Regarding Bush being anti science,  his support  of teaching "
>     intelligent design"  in science classes is akin to teaching that
>     some people believe that  the sun goes around the earth in
>     astronomy class.  He appoints cronies who agree with him in spite
>     of their poor qualifications and ignores reports that he disagrees
>     with like global warming.  Yes there is money  in grants for
>     certain lines of research but other ! less popular (AND LESS
>     LIKELY TO  develop into positive knowledge) gets less money but
>     science goes on and it works .  Likely it will be found  that the
>     dopamine from the substantia nigra is not the only
>     neurotransmitter which is operative in PD. But this is no reason
>     to not study the sunbstantia nigra  and dopamine..
>
>     Unfortunately PD is incurable at the current time.. in spite of
>     claims to the contrary stem cell research both types (adult and
>     embryonic), have potential to develop into such a cure. and the
>     ban on funding
>     ESCR while  it is admittedly a long shot ,  gives me and others
>     hope that we will survive long enough  to take advantage of it..
>

>     Charles T. Meyer, MD
>
>     Paula Nixon wrote:
>
>>The funny thing about stem cell treatment, the placebo patients in one experiment that had the surgeries, but nothing was implanted, had very good results.  Their PD symptoms were greatly reduced for over a year!  However, many of the people that received the implants had ghastly side effects: violent movements like dyskinesia, the implanted cell developed into teeth and optic tissue.  The Parkinson's researchers feel that stem-cells will not yield good results.  If a body is determined to induce dormancy in its own dopamine cells, it would eventually extinguish it in other introduced cells unless those cells are growing out of control, causing violent symptoms of dopamine excess.  The younger researchers acknowledge many PD symptoms are not dopamine related.
>>
>>As to Bush accepting anti-science, the scientific community is extremely tight.  If anyone, even one of their own comes up with a differing theory, they are not listened to.  The grants and money are where it is.  In this case it is that dopamine is the answer, whether it is or not. They will let the PDs live or die by their decision. So anyone that goes against their plan, is anti-science, even if the anti-science is very scientific, done by PhDs, Mds and whatever.
>>Paula
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
>>
>>
>>
>>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn