 |
DarwinTalk.com
Evolution Debate and Public Discussion Forum
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Coragyps
Moderator
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 497
Location: West Texas, USA
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:12 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | As far as syphillus and tuberculoses patients I do not recall any discussions with about these individuals in relation to Dr. Macht phytopharmicalogical methods of determining toxicity. |
Ah, my mistake - I thought that data was on what skiddum posted. Table I from the 1930 Science paper contains data as follows - though I'll just use one line per entry rather than try to please everyone's browser:
Table I
Comparative Table of Blood Sera
{in each line I list Macht's "Kind of blood serum"; "average of no. of cases" (sic); "phytotoxic index". He also includes comments on effects of ultraviolet light which are peripheral to this discussion.
Normal human; 100; 72
Menstrual; 50; 51
Pernicious anemia; 48; 44
Pemphigus; 18; 54
Leprosy; 22; 47
Tuberculosis; 27; 78
Syphilis; 20; 81
Higher numbers are "lass toxic," and seem to correspond to percent germination. Note that TB and syph are "better" for seeds than healthy folks' serum.
| Quote: | | [it yielded the "first quantifiable demonstration of the presence such a menstrual poison" though] |
And this "poison" has been further characterized in the 75 years since, I presume? We'll need some citations here, too, MB.
Another quote from the 1930 paper:
"Thus it has been found that nicotine, atropine, morphine, aconitin, gelsemine, homatropine, lobelin, scopalamin, and ouabain, all very powerful poisons for animals, are very little toxic indeed for living seedlings of Lupinus albus. On the other hand studies made with the poisons of toads, scorpions, spiders, and other animals were found to be extremely toxic for such living seedlings."
So we're gonna decide what's good and bad for us on this basis? Not me, pal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
skiddum
Pit Bull
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 374
Location: FL
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | So a summary of 1-3 is that overall phytopharmocology is just as reliable if not more so. Of course, there may be some exceptions which alkaloid cocaine demonstrates. But exceptions do not invalidate general principles and I will offer a demonstration. For example, normally I do not pull over to the side of the road for cars behind me. However, if it has a red flashing light and a police siren I do. |
What I think you are missing here is that the method may be more sensitive in the sense that if you have a known toxin for animals, and it requires 2%, then in plants it may only require 0.007% (the specific example he gave was sodium benzoate). If you can isolate the toxin and test in both, you can show a correlation. Cocaine, morphine, all the other toxins used...they all have the same story--some affect animals greatly and plants little, and some vice versa. if you made a plot (which I often do) and you tried to show a correlation between animal and plant toxicity of each and every substance in a "muscle juice concoction", you would find that there is no regression value to support any direct correlation. Therefore, you need to isolate the toxins (which he did not do) and test them against both animals and plants (which he did not do).
Phytopharmacology is NOT "more reliable", MB. Plant seedlings are MORE SENSITIVE to CERTAIN TOXINS than animals. That is the point. He found a method to test for the presence of certain toxins that may not be in sufficient concentration to find using in vivo animal models, but are used instead with in vivo seedling growth. Animals are "more reliable" at detecting ephedrine that plants. Do you get it? And all the work that is involved in this kind of method (to draw correlation by establishing the particular toxin and its effect in both animals and plants) is simply not the best method to use. That is why not one single person in 75 years has cited any of the papers using his method. People use other methods because they draw direct correlations.
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | 2. The blood was toxic for people with anemia, leprosy, trachoma (eye disease), pemphigus (severe dermotosis disease that is fatal) , and various types of psychosis. |
medical science has not to this day found any specific toxins in the blood of each of these people which separate them from the general public...in a few of these cases the obvious bacteria responsible likely emit the same response that e coli or any other infection would in vivo. And we all know what types of immunoresponse they induce. And none of them have diddly-squat-poop to do with a particular "toxin"...it is simply that your antibodies and antigens work in the traditional way that is well documented and you can learn about in any immunology course. These "toxins" are pieces or the whole pathogens themselves. Any other "toxins" are from your own cell's lysing and apoptotic responses. Nothing in any of these issues is related to inherent "toxicity" in a rabbit that is not in a cow (or whatever, I'm not familiar with kosher diets). The point is, cow muscle juice concoction, against camel, against rabbit, against blah blah blah...the differences in their "toxins" in this context, relating to toxicity, must be established using the particular compounds (aside from antigenic proteins) and testing them against a plant, then showing that animals (humans, the best test, even some zoopharmacology must be species-specific) are sensitive to the toxin too.
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | Lastly, I am guessing that science may have developed better technologies for detecting toxins than phytopharmocological methods but this does not invalidate Dr. Macht's study. That would be like saying that policemen who saw cars moving at 150 miles per hour before radar guns do not offer good testimony when they say that cars were speeding. |
Well if the policemen said they determined the car was speeding using a stick and sundial, and when asked to demonstrate could not reproduce results, and the whole method was later seen to be flawed as more understanding of basic physics arrived...then their testimony that the car was measured at 150 is about as solid as Macht's testimony.
The method of determination is flawed inherently, MB. Go find another study. You HAVE to isolate the toxins...you HAVE to establish there is a positive (whether direct or inverse) correlation between animal and plant pharmacology for the SPECIFIC toxin. THEN you can use the method all you want to detect the particular toxin...but the thing is, in a "muscle juice concoction", you'd better isolate off all the OTHER candidates for toxicity.
Do you see? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coragyps
Moderator
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 497
Location: West Texas, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, and it occurs to me, MB, that you might be able to offer a little illumination on a puzzling Bible bit:
God allegedly sent Peter a vision in which all animals - reptiles included, and presumably even camels and swine - were henceforth to be "clean." Why would the Big Guy do that aboutface? He would have known, you'd think, that all those formerly unclean critters were bad for us! Your assertion back on page 1 of this thread kinda depends on that, and your claim is that Macht's papers prove they're still "toxic." Was Peter out to make us all sick with his tales of visions, or did he really see that and the blame belongs higher?
And, continuing this line of thought, why didn't YHWH warn all those poor Hebrews off toxic plants? We have "nicotine, atropine, morphine, aconitin, gelsemine, homatropine, lobelin, scopalamin, and ouabain," to name a few that Macht looked at, and nary a word in Holy Writ prohibiting the chosen from eating poppies or jimson weed. Why should that be? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moses's_bulldog
Labrador
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 312
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
TO: Coragyps
I made SUBSTANTIAL revisions to my last posts as I found some excellent material to greatly buttess Dr. Macht's kosher/non-kosher/toxin study. I should have waited to post. My apologies.
HERE IS THE NEW MATERIAL:
I read the Science and "Botanical Club" Macht articles.
They are cited here:
http://www.geocities.com/jg167/macht/8-medium.gif
Summary of Macht, D.I. , Science 1930, 71 :302:
1. Dr. Macht says the results of phytopharmocology (using plants/seed for toxicology) method aforementioned in this thread "are certainly just as reliable as those gathered from animal test subjects, if not more so".
2. Here is a key quote: "....While poisons elaborated or produced by animals or zoologic poisons, are commonly much more toxic for living plant protoplasm than for living plant tissues."
Here is something I read:
It seems to me as if this is a key point. Dr. Macht is a leading expert in a branch of zoological toxins. The Dr. Macht kosher/non-kosher/meat/fish/ toxin study is attempting to study zoological toxins. Phytopharmocological (plant based) methods appear to be more sensitive to zoological toxins at least at the time of Dr. Macht's study according to Dr. Macht a leading expert on cobra snake venom which is a zoological toxin.
3. It apppears as if Dr. Macht's phytopharmalogical methodology is not as good as zoological based methods for detecting plant based toxins (nicotine atropine, morphine, etc ) and it seems to be in general or at the very least in many cases. For example, alkaloid cocaine is toxic for animals but not the seed growth. However, Dr. Macht was not testing plant based toxins in the Dr. Macht kosher/non-kosher study he was studying meat and fish! Of course this is somewhat of a negative in regards to Dr. Macht's study of kosher and non-kosher food showing divine intelligence but I think this would be like looking at one dandelion on a golf course and saying because of a exception (the one dandelion) the golf course was a total mess especially since Dr. Macht's method seemed to be good for detecting zoological toxins. I am guessing there may be some exceptions but exceptions do not invalidate general principles. BUT one of the byproducts of cocaine hydrolysis is far more sensitive to the seed growth than to animal tissue and which suggest phytopharmocology can be used to detect poisons that ordinary zoopharmicological methods are not readily able to detect.
4. Dr. Macht said phytopharmocology is still in its infancy but in the Dr. Macht kosher versus non-kosher meat study he said he had been using phytopharmocology to detect toxins for 30 years.
So a summary of 1-4 is that overall phytopharmocology is just as reliable if not more so for the toxins that would likely be most relevant in the Dr. Macht kosher/non-kosher/toxin study . Of course, there may be some exceptions in some zoological toxins for diseased people/animals , however, both kosher and non-kosher animals have disease. But exceptions do not invalidate general principles and I will offer a demonstration. For example, normally I do not pull over to the side of the road for cars behind me. However, if it has a red flashing light and a police siren I do. I would encourage people to read the actual article to see some of the details.
Summary of: "Bulletin of the Torrey Botannical Club , Vol. 76. No.4 (July-Aug. , 1949 ), 235-243
1. The blood of normal human beings was non-toxic with "only a few exceptions" - specifically, menstruating women [it yielded the "first quantifiable demonstration of the presence such a menstrual poison" though]
2. The blood was toxic for people with anemia, leprosy, trachoma (eye disease), pemphigus (severe dermotosis disease that is fatal) , and various types of psychosis. Macht's test does not appear to be a good test for detecting disease produced toxins in general. However, both kosher and non-kosher animals get disease. I don't see how this would invalidate Dr. Macht's results.
3. Dr. Macht says phytopharmocology techniques show that "living plants responded very differently to drug and chemical agents from the way the same drugs and chemicals affected living animals" (If I am not mistaken and I am reading Dr. Macht correctly, Dr. Macht explains this statement and offers more elaboration by indicating they are very sensitive to certain toxins and you can differentiate toxins better ) . So again if I am understanding Dr. Macht correctly he seems to think that phytopharmocology is superior because it is a more sensitive test that is able to discriminate various types of toxins better. I would encourage readers to read the text themselves to see if my interpretation of this statement made on page 236-237 is representative of what Dr. Macht is saying.
The rest of the material is not really conduscive to me summarizing. I would suggest reading this journal article so you can gain better context:
TOTAL SUMMARY OF THE ABOVE
The weight of the total evidence so far points to Dr. Macht's phytopharmocology method being reliable and it seems to be more superior where it counts for the kosher/non-kosher food issue where zoological toxins would likely be more relevant (though in some cases it is probably inferior like for various plant based toxins for example) . I can live with exceptions though because I believe in looking at the total evidence and not excluding evidence arbitrarily. And again, in Dr. Macht's study the correlation between less toxicity and kosher and more toxicty and non-kosher in phytopharmocological studies is a very impressive statistically since it was 100%!
I am looking forward to looking at this citation in the future:
Macht, D.I. and Macht, M.B. : Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 1941, 26: 597
Lastly, I am guessing that science may have developed better technologies for detecting toxins than phytopharmocological methods but this does not invalidate Dr. Macht's study. That would be like saying that policemen who saw cars moving at 150 miles per hour before radar guns do not offer good testimony when they said that cars were speeding.
RE: Christians not being under the food laws.
I discussed that already and I believe I adequately covered this but each reader will have to decide for themselves. I have no further comment as it would be reiteration. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arthwollipot
Moderator
Joined: 26 Feb 2003
Posts: 1009
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd just like to mention that this has turned into quite a fascinating debate, and I'm pleased to note that it is almost entirely without rancor. With my limited understanding of biochemistry and pharmacology, I am unable to contribute significantly to the discussion, but I am learning a fair bit. Please, continue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skiddum
Pit Bull
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 374
Location: FL
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | 1. Dr. Macht says the results of phytopharmocology (using plants/seed for toxicology) method aforementioned in this thread "are certainly just as reliable as those gathered from animal test subjects, if not more so". |
For what? Showing toxicity IN ANIMALS? That is, on its face, outright ridiculous. He is trying to point out that the test can be used for KNOWN toxins in animals to see their effect upon the seedlings. SOME toxins are more potent to the seedlings (sodium benzoate) while not potent at the same concentration in animals, so the test is useful for these particular toxins (which MUST BE KNOWN)
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | 2. Here is a key quote: "....While poisons elaborated or produced by animals or zoologic poisons, are commonly much more toxic for living plant protoplasm than for living plant tissues." |
Understand something, MB, that is related to biochemistry/physiology here--the reason this is true is because of the fact that anything foreign to a system is almost always more toxic than a native substance. Think of the cocaine example. The seedlings aren't the coca bush, but they are more closely related (evolutionary or whatever you like to think), and so have inherent mechanisms and systems LIKE the coca bush. Now, by the same reasoning, animal toxins are more well tolerated by other animals, right? So what does this prove about the specific toxins in non-kosher animals to other animals? That the more closely related a system you have to what you eat, the less likely the food's native proteins and "toxins" will affect your system. The problem is, a direct correlation CANNOT exist for different animals to one plant. The only thing that can be true is something like, "NaBz is present in animals X, Y, Z. NaBz is known highly toxic to this plant. therefore, the most inhibited seedlings are under the influence of the most NaBz...making the animals the most toxic, right?" A small problem with this--what about ALL THE OTHER proteins and small molcules (like NaBz) present in Y that aren't in X? And present in Z that aren't in Y? Isn't it possible that these substances, which may be entirely inocuous towards X, Y, AND Z, are also highly toxic to the plants?
Are you still not getting it? He had "concoctions" of squished up muscle juices. He did not attempt to identify or isolate toxins. Because of the disparity between plant and animal sensitivies, it is impossible to draw meaningful conclusions about the effect of unknown mixutres on plants, and correlate it back to animals.
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | Phytopharmocological (plant based) methods appear to be more sensitive to zoological toxins at least at the time of Dr. Macht's study according to Dr. Macht a leading expert on cobra snake venom which is a zoological toxin. |
And what would you call ephedra? morphine? cocaine? Look MB, most of the substances that are terribly toxic are ENTIRELY FOREIGN to our systems. All the above mentioned substances are native to plants, and so they don't affect them much, but animals are terribly sensitive to them, so that makes them a zoological toxin...not in ORIGIN, but in EFFECT. Anything derived from an animal will of course affect a plant more greatly than an animal...but no necessary correlation can be drawn. For instance, if, let's say, venom of 4 snakes is taken against seedlings, and let's say (A,B,C,D) that C is the worst for the plant. Then do the same series against humans/pigs/goats, you may see C affect goats, B humans, A pigs, etc, the most. You cannot say that certain (non-kosher) animals are more toxic to humans just b/c they are to plants.
We have repeated this key point many times now.
His test is good for showing the presence of zoological toxins, but not in relating their toxicity to humans...thus no citation and no follow-up of the work for 75 years.
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | 3. It apppears as if Dr. Macht's phytopharmalogical methodology is not as good as zoological based methods for detecting plant based toxins (nicotine atropine, morphine, etc ) and it seems to be in general or at the very least in many cases. |
Whoops I should have read ahead...this is what I just said.
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | For example, alkaloid cocaine is toxic for animals but not the seed growth. However, Dr. Macht was not testing plant based toxins in the Dr. Macht kosher/non-kosher study he was studying meat and fish! Of course this is somewhat of a negative in regards to Dr. Macht's study of kosher and non-kosher food showing divine intelligence but I think this would be like looking at one dandelion on a golf course and saying because of a exception (the one dandelion) the golf course was a total mess especially since Dr. Macht's method seemed to be good for detecting zoological toxins. |
Again, a zoological toxin is not a general zoological toxin. Specific proteins in animals may induce an immunoresponse in other animals when eaten, and specific diseases may only live in avian or swine that may or may not be transferrable to certain animals. The same is true of phytological toxins. If Macht had used a battery of seedling types, this test would have been even more demonstrable of a general toxicity. My wife eats pounds of chocolate (a modified phytological toxin) but if my dog eats an ounce, she would probably die.
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | I am guessing there may be some exceptions but exceptions do not invalidate general principles. BUT one of the byproducts of cocaine hydrolysis is far more sensitive to the seed growth than to animal tissue and which suggest phytopharmocology can be used to detect poisons that ordinary zoopharmicological methods are not readily able to detect. |
One thing you need to understand about chemistry is that changing the properties of a molecule in such a way as hydrolyzing cocaine into sodium benzoate and ecgnoin (or whatever) changes the properties ENTIRELY and thus any physiological effects are not expected to correlate at all. If you ingest both derivatives, versus the whole constituent, there may be no correlation whatsoever to the toxicity effect. The parts do not sum to the whole.
Aside from that issue, I grant to you that any foreign toxins will make the plant test more sensitive. To the sum of the matter, though, those same toxins that are entirely toxic in ONE PLANT may or more not be in other plants, and may or may not be in animals among different species.
MB, "easy" tests like this should raise your suspicions. High-throughput screening methods for building drug libraries these days rely upon expensive methodologies, not upon seedlings...why?
Proteins can be modified at ONE RESIDUE in the active site and it changes ENTIRELY their toxicity and function in the body. As we move from animal to animal, it is obvious that evolution has preserved certain homologous sequences (conservation of function, usually) in certain proteins, but MANY novel proteins exist as you move from ancestor to descendent. Macht et al knew VERY LITTLE about protein chemistry in these days. They would not have known that more often than not, it isn't the small molecules that really differ between animals and induce immunoresponses (rejection of foreign antigens), but the proteins. The concentrations of specific toxins amongst kosher v non-kosher animals I would LOVE to see. Whether plant based in nature (see, this is still relevant, b/c most animals EAT PLANTS and so accumulte their toxins, rem the pigeon example with the berries?) or zoological in origin, I would LOVE to see a table comparing various native substances in animals and plants and their effect amongst each species. Now THAT would prove something. Macht proved NOTHING about human toxicity, MB.
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | And again, in Dr. Macht's study the correlation between less toxicity and kosher and more toxicty and non-kosher in phytopharmocological studies is a very impressive statistically since it was 100%! |
And again, I'll tell you that anything that has a 100% correlation has a monkeyed method of data analysis. This is not mere speculation. It is a consequence of data analysis, measurement, etc. R-squared values reaching 100% make me nervous, and make me want to question the integrity of the investigator, regardless of the test or his credentials.
BTW, do you realize that he standardized this test for blood sera? Normal people's blood was not un-toxic while diseased/menstrating people's were. He had to standardize the amount of inhibition from "normal" blood (around 75% was the fraction he gave for Z/N or whatever, from memory, correct me if you want to look it up). Now think about this for a moment: how many of these "normal" people had various genetic disorders? Late-stage life illnesses? Do you really think this test could prove anything by a general survey of "healthy" people versus those with specific illnesses? Do you know how people cannot give each other their own blood without first checking the blood type? That means that as close as we are evolutionarily, we are still too distant to share blood. What do you think that means for plants? Don't you think the difference between my (healthy) blood and yours (healthy) would induce differences in reaction in the plants which may or may not represent "toxins"? (blood typing isn't based on "toxins", just specific protein antigens)
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | Lastly, I am guessing that science may have developed better technologies for detecting toxins than phytopharmocological methods but this does not invalidate Dr. Macht's study. That would be like saying that policemen who saw cars moving at 150 miles per hour before radar guns do not offer good testimony when they said that cars were speeding. |
Sorry MB, there is no way to correlate his study to humans. It would be like using a sundial to measure the speed of the car. If the method is on its face flawed, there is no way to arrive at a meaningful conclusion using it. The officer's testimony about the speed of the car is thrown out if he didn't use a method that determined it AT ALL, not just determined it IMPRECISELY. If the officers said, "I used a method to determine the speed of the car by measuring the speed of the insect impacting the windshield then measuring the radius of splatter on the car"...but neglected to take into account the weight of the bug, the size of the bug, the angle of impact, etc....then it would look like Macht's attempt to draw a correlation while ignoring crucial, integral pieces of information.
Macht did not show ANY correlation to animals, or specifically us (rem the chocolate for dogs v humans?), it is not just that a "more precise" method is available now, but methods that give a definitive correlation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moses's_bulldog
Labrador
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 312
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
TO: ALL
I am looking forward to looking at this citation in the future and if anyone want to dig it up and put it here it would be welcome:
Macht, D.I. and Macht, M.B. : Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine 1941, 26: 597
Also, my time on the net is going to be going drastically down in the short term in all likelihood.
TO: Skiddum
Your behavior has improved and I will not necessarily completely blow by your posts if I am looking at your post although I am still cautious.
With that in mind, you wrote:
| Quote: | | Aside from that issue, I grant to you that any foreign toxins will make the plant test more sensitive. To the sum of the matter, though, those same toxins that are entirely toxic in ONE PLANT may or more not be in other plants, and may or may not be in animals among different species. |
Dr. Macht was apparently recognized as being a expert in field of phytopharmacology. This is not surprising. John Hopkins is one of the premier medical science institutions in the world. Dr. Macht had been experimenting with the seedlings for 30 years at the time of the kosher/non-kosher study. I do not find it surprising he was published by Science, Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, etc and that the NY Times apparently portrayed him as a leading snake venom expert. I therefore conclude the type of seedlings/plants/test he used was likely appropriate.
Secondly, you wrote:
| Quote: | | And again, I'll tell you that anything that has a 100% correlation has a monkeyed method of data analysis. |
I find this a canard. If I drop stones for example I am guessing I will get a 100% correlation that the drop to the ground. I am guessing a John Hopkins researcher like Dr. Macht would do careful lab work.
Lastly, why don't you offer me a single study which shows that a particular kind of kosher animal is more toxic than a non-kosher animal. I have offered the Lancet article regarding pork plus a work by the John Hopkins researcher Dr. Macht that was published in a John Hopkins publication.
Last edited by moses's_bulldog on Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skiddum
Pit Bull
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 374
Location: FL
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | ... why don't you offer me a single study which shows that a particular kind of kosher animal is more toxic than a non-kosher animal. I have offered the Lancet article regarding pork plus a work by the John Hopkins researcher Dr. Macht that was published in a John Hopkins publication. |
"the burden of proof is on the claimant"...you like to say.
your proof didn't amount to much. i don't have to prove anything, just show your "proof of divine intelligence" as nothing but mere conjecture and an attempt at "with this, therefore because of this" logical fallacy.
japanese cultures (as well, i'm sure, as many others) and any other culture who shows longevity do not substantiate some divine intelligence. neither do the hebrews. people who diet in any way and cook their food well will probably live longer than people who do not...so? Moses may have borrowed from some learned person in Pharoah's palace, but I don't think the Big Guy in the Sky had anything to do with this "divine diet". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moses's_bulldog
Labrador
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 312
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
TO: Skiddum
You wrote:
| Quote: | | Moses may have borrowed from some learned person in Pharoah's palace... |
At the time of Moses, the Egyptians has a high number of deleterious medical practices.
That is why I wrote in my initial post:
| Quote: | | At the time of Moses we must remember that the Egyptians were putting dung on wounds. |
I also cite:
| Quote: | Dung of various animals and even insects was a common theme in Egyptian medicine. Body parts of various creatures were also called for. The resulting germs would have quickly infected and killed a great many patients.
taken from: http://www.pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/signature-05.html
|
I also cite:
| Quote: | In 1862, an American adventurer and antiquities dealer named Edwin Smith purchased an ancient Egyptian medical book in Luxor. Ten years later, Egyptologist George Ebers purchased and helped translated it. It is now known as the Papyrus Ebers. It was written in Egypt about 1552 B.C. (around the time Moses was born). Since Egypt occupied the dominant position in the ancient medical world, the Papyrus is of great importance as a record of the medical knowledge of that day. When it was translated, it was really humorous as to what they believed. For example, this book said the following things.
To prevent hair from turning gray, anoint it with the blood of a black calf which has been boiled in the fat of a rattlesnake.
To prevent balding mix together the fat of a horse, a hippopotamus, a crocodile, a cat, a snake and an ibex. Then mix in the tooth of a donkey crushed in honey.....
Splinters are to be treated with a mixture of worm blood and donkey dung.
To stop bleeding, rub donkey dung on a cut.
To remove wrinkles, split a toad in half and apply to wrinkled area.
The ancient Egyptians believed that our planet was supported by five great pillars, that the earth was flat, that blood contained evil spirits and that there was spontaneous generation of life.
Again, scholars have dated Papyrus Ebers back to the time of Moses.
Where did Moses grow up? Acts 7:22 tells us that Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.
taken from: http://38.114.12.136/readTopic.asp?PostingId=1675825
|
Here is what another website states:
Yet not one of these harmful practices were in the Mosaic law. In fact, Mosaic law said to bury human waste so the Mosaic law did far better when it came to "dung". 
In short, I still agree with Dr. Macht.
| Quote: | "Every word of the Hebrew Scriptures is well chosen and carries valuable knowledge and deep signficance."
- Dr. Macht, John Hopkins researcher
Macht, D. M.D., (1953). “An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Levitcus XI and Deuteronomy XIV,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine. 27. 444-450 |
Last edited by moses's_bulldog on Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:43 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moses's_bulldog
Labrador
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 312
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
TO: skiddum
I revised my last post and made additions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coragyps
Moderator
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 497
Location: West Texas, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | At the time of Moses, the Egyptians has a high number of deleterious medical practices. |
And even quite a while after the time of Moses, the Hebrews were trying to cure skin diseases that may or may not have been leprosy by killing pigeons over running water - though there was some involvement of earthern vessels.
Macht never showed a lick of correlation between his seedling test and any measure whatever of toxicity to any animal, let alone humans. If you think that the blood serum of folks with syphilis is safer than that of healthy people, that's fine. But your thinking so is very tenuously grounded in anything like reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moses's_bulldog
Labrador
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 312
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Coragyps,
You wrote:
| Quote: | | And even quite a while after the time of Moses, the Hebrews were trying to cure skin diseases that may or may not have been leprosy by killing pigeons over running water - |
Remember, the burden of proof is upon the claimant.
Did it say cure? Did it say leprosy?
Alleged Bible Contradictions And Bible Exegesis
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=466 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
skiddum
Pit Bull
Joined: 25 Jan 2005
Posts: 374
Location: FL
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | skiddum wrote: | | And again, I'll tell you that anything that has a 100% correlation has a monkeyed method of data analysis. |
I find this a canard. If I drop stones for example I am guessing I will get a 100% correlation that the drop to the ground. I am guessing a John Hopkins researcher like Dr. Macht would do careful lab work. |
You don't understand...careful means nothing.
If you want to determine the velocities of those rocks, MB, you cross from an observational "true/false" to a MEASUREMENT. That is where error creeps in and statistically you CANNOT keep it out. That is why an R-squared = 1, or 100% correlation...is noxious and represents a serious goof somewhere if measurements are made.
| moses's_bulldog wrote: | | Lastly, why don't you offer me a single study which shows that a particular kind of kosher animal is more toxic than a non-kosher animal. I have offered the Lancet article regarding pork plus a work by the John Hopkins researcher Dr. Macht that was published in a John Hopkins publication. |
Guess you didn't read what I wrote above:
| skiddum wrote: | | The concentrations of specific toxins amongst kosher v non-kosher animals I would LOVE to see. Whether plant based in nature (see, this is still relevant, b/c most animals EAT PLANTS and so accumulte their toxins, rem the pigeon example with the berries?) or zoological in origin, I would LOVE to see a table comparing various native substances in animals and plants and their effect amongst each species. Now THAT would prove something. Macht proved NOTHING about human toxicity, MB. |
I would love to see it. And if it is right in line with the Mosaic law...THEN maybe I will consider some divine intervention. Until then, your assertion of divine intelligence is as flat as Macht's ruler used to measure the seedling sprouts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moses's_bulldog
Labrador
Joined: 08 Jun 2005
Posts: 312
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A Summary of the thread:
Divine inspiration side of the ledger regarding the Torah
1. Jewish medical/sanitation practices superior to all at the time in the ancient Near East (see:
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=579 )
2. Lancet medical journal /pork eating (see:
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=579 )
3. Macht study (see:
http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=579 )
4. Benefits of burying dung as per Mosaic law/Castiglioni (see: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=579 and Alan Hayward's book God's truth, Chapter 8, A Law ahead of its time at: http://www.godstruth.org/chap08 ).
5. quarantine laws advanced (see comments by David Riesman, Professor of the History of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania at: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=579 and A law ahead of its time which is a chapter of scientist Alan Hayward's book God's Truth at: http://www.godstruth.org/chap08 )
6. Do not eat the fat as per the Torah (see:
7. Running water provisions (see: http://www.pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/signature-05.html ).
8. Cecil Roth/Jews healthier in history (see: http://www.godstruth.org/chap08 ).
9. Number of stars shows scientific foreknowledge (see: http://www.bible.org/qa.asp?topic_id=53&qa_id=141 )
10. Best evidence pointing to the benefits of circumcision
11. Conservation laws in the Torah (fallow land, fruit trees, birds (see: http://www.godstruth.org/chap08 ).
12. Benefits of day of rest each week/medical historian, Karl Sudhoff (see: http://www.godstruth.org/chap08 )
13. Jewish slaughtering laws producing healthier meat (see: Medical Leaves 1940; 3:174-184 )
14. Harmful harmful physiological effects of meat and milk combinations (see: Medical Leaves 1940; 3:174-184 )
15. Torah commanding literacy and benefitting Jews greatly (see: http://www.godstruth.org/chap08 ) .
16. Broken pottery and germs (see: http://www.pytlik.com/observe/deliverus/signature-05.html )
17. Jewish law more fair than Hammurabi Code (see: http://www.theology.edu/egypt3.htm )
18. Handling dead bodies/Dr. Semmelweis (see: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=579 )
Now did skiddum/Coragyps practice the exlusion fallacy (see: http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/exclus.htm ) in their discussion and not attempt to truly address the above in their discussion?  Did I make reasonable comments about the Dr. Macht study? Does the Dr. Macht kosher non-kosher study match what we see in the other 17 points above?
Skiddum/Coragyps comments about the Torah versus the Torah can be likened to Bambi versus Godzilla!
| Quote: | Come now, and let us reason together, says the Lord. Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool"
- Isaiah 1:18 |
Last edited by moses's_bulldog on Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:52 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coragyps
Moderator
Joined: 31 Dec 2003
Posts: 497
Location: West Texas, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Skiddum/Coragyps comments about the Torah versus the Torah can be likened to Godzilla versus Bambi! |
Quoted here in case of editorial changes in MB's post above.
We won, Skiddum! You and I are likened unto Godzilla! Hurray!
But was Bambi kosher? Do deer chew the cud like rabbits do?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
