text:
Six things a new Bigfoot researcher should think about
by Steve Hyde
I want to state right up front that I don't consider myself a particularly smart
person or a very experienced researcher. I do however try to learn from observation and
the successes and failures of others. If you're new to the field of Bigfoot research it's
vitally important that you learn to develop this ability. You can learn a lot from watching
what other people in the so-called "Bigfoot community" do, from what brings them good
results and also what gets them into trouble. What follows are a few of the things that I
have observed and learned over the years, and that you need to consider if you are new to
this field. I hope that you will find them helpful.
It may seem an odd question, but now is the time to ask it. Just why do you
want to go look for Bigfoot? Your answer may be that you simply want to satisfy your
own curiosity, that you want to see it for yourself. That's fine. Or you may want to prove
that it exists. That's fine too. But you need to ask this of yourself, because your answer
will greatly affect how you go about the quest.
If you only want to satisfy yourself, then congratulations! You're the one that will
probably have the most fun doing this. Only you know what your standard of proof is and
it can be as high or as low as you want. If you're out in the woods and see a strange
shadow or hear an odd noise or see that faint mark that just might be a track and it
makes your hair stand on end, maybe that's all that needs to happen for you to be
convinced. That's great and nobody should have a problem with that. But you need to
realize that your experiences are not going to matter to anyone but yourself.
If you're out to prove the existence of Bigfoot to someone other than yourself, I'm
afraid you have a much tougher journey ahead of you. It's no longer your own standard of
proof that must be met, you must now meet the standard of proof of whomever you're
trying to convince. Even if that other person believes in Bigfoot's existence in the same
manner as you, he or she may not interpret your evidence or experience the same way
you do.
If you're going to prove the existence of Bigfoot to the world at large, you'll have to
meet the standards of proof of the world at large, and the world looks to the mainstream
scientific community to set those standards. And science demands concrete physical
proof. If you claim to have discovered a previously unknown species of animal, you will
have to produce substantial physical proof sufficient to be able to describe and classify it
with scientific rigor. The only proof that will accomplish this is a body or a substantial
piece of a body. Mainstream science has always demanded this, and it always will. You
might as well get used to that fact now because it won't change, no matter how badly you
may wish it to be otherwise and no matter how frustrated you may get at not being able to
find it. Your only available options are to kill or capture one or look for one that died of
other causes. Nothing else will do; not pictures, not casts, not hair, not trace DNA, not
tape recordings, not film and not stories. You will discover quite quickly that the Bigfoot
"community" is sharply divided between those who convey a willingness to obtain a
specimen by deadly force and those who object to harming the animals on moral grounds.
Although both sides can present good arguments to support their viewpoint, when it
comes to proving the animals exist the researchers willing to kill or capture a specimen
are the only ones who will have a reasonable chance of accomplishing their goal. Those
who object to this method are left with the option of chance discovery of remains, the
possibility of which is extremely remote.
This occurs in a number of ways. As with any group of people who interact with
each other, there are always the fusses, fights and squabbles, the making and breaking of
friendships and alliances. One thing you will learn is that the Bigfoot community is indeed
a microcosm of society in general. Human weaknesses abound in this field. You will
encounter the typical variety of ordinary folks, intellectuals, nut cases, pricks and morons.
But there are some individuals to whom you should be particularly wary. There exists in
the world a large group of people who think that anyone who believes in and/or spends
time researching Bigfoot (or UFOs or paranormal phenomena) is by definition an idiot.
There are a number of people within that group who decide to try and take advantage of the
"idiots" by jerking them around psychologically for their own amusement. Look at any of
the numerous Internet message boards and you'll see this happening. The most common
tactic used is to bait someone into an exchange of personal attacks. This will quickly draw
others into the fray, and any ongoing civil discussion degenerates hopelessly. The
instigators usually try to portray themselves as believers of some sort, but it becomes
apparent pretty quickly that they have little or no real knowledge of the subject. You will
also encounter "eyewitnesses" who do the same thing. They will contact you and report a
sighting or experience just to mess with you. The best policy is to blatantly ignore them.
When they don't succeed in baiting you they will disappear.
There are also a number of people who try to take advantage of the "idiots" by
making money off of them. These people generally take great pains to elevate themselves
in stature among the believers by constantly extolling their own virtues, exploits and
discoveries but never seem to have any evidence to back any of it up. When questioned
they become extremely defensive, almost to the point of hysterics in some cases. And
they always seem to be trying to sell you something, be it a book, a membership to their
organization, equipment, knowledge, merchandise, whatever. And cases of this are
becoming more prevalent. Again, ignoring them is the best policy.
As for the cynics (I differentiate them from mere skeptics), know that you will
always have the advantage over them. It's very easy to be cynical, especially about a
subject as elusive and complex as Bigfoot. Cynics think there is very little risk involved in
taking their position, but there is one great risk. It is impossible for them to prove that
Bigfoot does NOT exist; there is no practical way for them to do that. It is entirely
possible for you TO prove it if it DOES exist, if you find that elusive body. Then you can
pull the toilet handle and make them all swirl down into the septic tank of irrelevance, and
the last word would be all yours.
People's ideas about Bigfoot are much like people's ideas about God. Each
person has his or her own unique concept, and it will range from quite logical to seemingly
drug-induced. I'm quite sure you have your own opinions about Bigfoot, but if you're going
to be a good researcher you will need to consider your opinions in the light of theory and
not of belief. The reason is simple; if you consider your opinions to be a working theory,
then you can be flexible and modify or change your theory as necessary to fit the empirical
evidence you gather and analyze. If your opinions constitute a heart-felt emotional belief,
then you will tend to stick to that belief regardless of any evidence that would contradict it.
At present my own working theory of Bigfoot is that it is a quite normal animal, a
species of ape somewhat similar to the great apes we are familiar with. I call it a working
theory simply because I conduct my research using assumptions I have made based on
my theory. But I'm careful to keep an open mind and to try and be objective. If I were to
come across good evidence that Bigfoot is a hominid more closely related to humans
than the great apes or something else entirely, like the whole phenomenon is an
extraordinary human hoax or some type of mass hysteria, then I wouldn't have much
problem changing my working theory. But if I had a deep heart-felt emotional belief that
Bigfoot was (for example) a humanlike being with near-human intelligence and I acted
accordingly, my belief would constantly cloud my judgment and I could never be an
effective researcher, even if my belief in the end proved to be correct.
Remember that all theories and beliefs are based on assumptions, some more
valid than others. And it's important to question your basic assumptions occasionally.
Most researchers automatically assume that Bigfoot actually does exist and that is
always the first assumption in need of challenging, but there are others. For example,
there is a popular theory that Bigfoot is (or is a descendant of) the fossil ape species
Gigantopithecus Blacki. It's a perfectly logical theory; there is in fact a documented fossil
species of large ape that is thought to have lived between 1 million to 300,000 years ago,
and scientists have inferred from the fossils certain characteristics that match closely with
the more consistent descriptions of Bigfoot. But there are some shaky assumptions
involved. G. Blacki is the only fossil species of large ape we know about, but that doesn't
mean it was the only species that ever existed. And we only have G. Blacki's jaws and
teeth. No cranium or other remains have been found to date. In fact, the only thing we
know for sure about G. Blacki is that it was apelike and had big jaws. There is also a
popular theory that Bigfoot is a relic animal, an ancient species that somehow managed
to survive the Pleistocene epoch and remain in its primitive form. This may indeed be the
case, but on the other hand Bigfoot may be a species that has undergone as much or
even more evolution in the last million years than we have. It may actually be a form quite
advanced from its prehistoric ancestors. We simply don't know. But it shows that we must
be mindful of the assumptions we make.
We all get excited whenever we find evidence, especially if we think it's
compelling or of high quality. You must realize that unless your find consists of a body,
your evidence will be considered circumstantial. That is, the interpretation of the evidence
depends a great deal on the circumstances of its acquisition; where it was found, how it was
found, who found it, etc. and the predisposition of the interpreter to accept or reject it. We
also have to be realistic about the possible impact the different types of evidence can have
regardless of its quality.
Footprint casts. These are probably the most famous pieces of Bigfoot evidence.
This type of evidence tends to have very little effect in trying to prove anything because of
the possibility of misinterpretation and of forgery. The ones with dermal evidence aren't
really much better, since they can only further demonstrate what DIDN"T make the print.
You can demonstrate that a human foot or a known ape foot DIDN'T make the impression
by noting dermal or anatomical characteristics that are different from those feet, but you
cannot adequately describe what DID make it. I personally don't think that footprint casts
by themselves really matter much anymore, and I quit casting tracks some time ago. To me
tracks are more valuable in context. I'm more concerned now with what they can tell me
about where, when and why the animal goes on its travels. As you go in the field, don't be
real concerned about bringing plaster with you. Except in very extraordinary circumstances
casting tracks is a waste of time. You're better off learning how to study them in the
Photographs and film. Some very well known (to us, anyway) pieces of evidence
fall into this category. They also tend to be the most controversial, and their actual value
as evidence is hotly debated. You have the same problems here as with footprints since
there is always the possibility of misinterpretation and forgery. As with casts, you can at
most demonstrate only the possibility that something was indeed recorded on film. The
Patterson film and the saga surrounding it should be an abject lesson to all those who
think that film evidence by itself can be demonstrable proof of the animal's existence. It's
valuable only if the person examining it is already predisposed to believe in the animal's
existence. It will never constitute evidence to those who are not. If you are predisposed
to accept it, film and video can be valuable. Much was learned about the animal's actual
appearance and movement from the Patterson film by those who chose to accept it as
genuine. So it is worthwhile to take a camera with you on your trips, just don't expect
any real recognition to come from it no matter how good your results may be. The most
you can hope for is to perhaps convince someone to pay closer attention to the
Hair and trace DNA. I lumped these two together because they are both
analyzed much the same way. They also have the same problems as the first two
categories. At most, you can only demonstrate what it is NOT. Hair and DNA can only
be tested by comparing them to known control samples. If they don't match to any
known samples, then the result will be inconclusive. Think about it. The only way you
could positively identify a hair or DNA sample as coming from a Bigfoot is if you had a
known, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt sample of Bigfoot hair or DNA to compare it to. If
you had such a substantial sample that it was known beyond all doubt to be Bigfoot then
you wouldn't have to resort to the DNA analysis. The mystery would already have been
solved by conventional means at that point. I always have to shake my head whenever I
see or hear of someone chasing the unmatchable trace DNA in bits of hair and feces and
the like trying to use it as proof, always to no avail. But I wouldn't tell you not to bother
collecting this type of evidence, since it's as close as most of us will ever come to
actually holding in our hands a bit of the unknown. If you're the sort who is into UFOs,
it's sort of like going to Roswell and finding a sliver of metal in the side of that hill. There's
no real way of knowing, but it could be. And that's personally satisfying for a lot of people.
Anecdotal evidence. This includes eyewitness accounts and the second-hand
stories that you always hear. Keep in mind that human eyewitnesses are notoriously
unreliable, and no two people will describe anything, much less a Bigfoot, in exactly the
same way. And since you weren't there when it happened, you not only have to deal with
whatever facts the witness can give you but also the witness' own interpretation of those
facts. Was it really a Bigfoot he heard screaming, was it really a panther, or was there
really even a scream at all? Ultimately the witness might seem pretty sure, but you can
never be. Two people may see the same animal at the same range at the same time.
One will see a dark-colored animal with prominent ears; one may see a light-colored
animal with no visible ears. The difference? Perhaps just the angle of the head and the
angle of the ambient light on the hair with respect to each witness, which could be very
different. The veracity, abilities and motives of the witness come into play too. For these
reasons and many others, eyewitness testimonies and anecdotes are intriguing but not
worth much in the way of solid evidence. They are often the only things you as a
researcher have to work with, but your interpretation of them is entirely subjective and you
alone have to decide how to act on them.
If there is one great thing about the Bigfoot mystery above all other great
mysteries, it's that it is within the reasonable capability of any ordinary person to
decisively solve it. All it takes is to be at the right place at the right time and to be
prepared. Think of all the other mysteries. Unless one crashed in my backyard, my
chances of scientifically proving that alien spacecraft are visiting the Earth are pretty slim.
I have absolutely no idea how I could go about scientifically proving the existence of a
ghost even if I thought I knew where one was. I would have to live close by a large lake
reputedly inhabited by a monster for it to be practical for me to try to find it, and even then
the cost of the equipment necessary to make a realistic effort would be prohibitive. The
sea serpent would be many times worse. I'm pretty sure some people will make the trip
to Mars in my lifetime and I'm just as sure I won't be one of them, so I can't research the
"structures" on Mars. Most all of the other natural and man-made mysteries always
seem to be in exotic far-flung locales that I can't afford to go to, and the paranormal
subjects are by their nature not scientifically approachable.
But Bigfoot is different. Bigfoot is the only mystery for which there does exist
some objective evidence to support it. That evidence indicates the presence of the
phenomenon in places as far apart as Washington State and Georgia. If for the sake of
argument we accept that evidence, then it stands to reason that it could be found in at
least some areas in between. That means that the mystery is potentially accessible to a
great many ordinary people. All they would need to do is think, study and plan logically,
and occasionally visit an area that they think could be a viable habitat and be prepared for
a possible encounter or to find evidence. Having a camera, tape recorder, sample bags
and tweezers along with the normal camping and safety gear would be the only real
Keep this in mind. There are people who have been actively in the field after
Bigfoot for decades working in the best possible areas. What do they have? A few
pieces of plaster, a hair or two, a few pictures and a lot of stories. Most of them still
haven't seen one. I've been an active field researcher for about seven years. What do I
have? A few pieces of plaster, a hair or two, a few pictures and a lot of stories. I do think
I've seen one a couple of times, but I'm not really sure. Most all of the witnesses who
have encountered Bigfoot weren't even looking for it. They were just out and about one
day and there it was. So don't let all this "have to spend a lot of time in the woods and
know all the secret knowledge and tricks" nonsense bother you. The real truth is that all
that is factually known or reasonably speculated about Bigfoot to date can be learned in a
few hours' reading. I don't know exactly what things it takes to find a Bigfoot, but one
thing is obvious: sheer time spent in the field and lots of trivial knowledge certainly doesn't
seem to be among them. It doesn't matter how long you have or haven't been looking for
Bigfoot; whenever you do go out there, know that you're on the same level as any of us.
But above all, you should behave as if you always expect success. That way you will
always be prepared.
Six things a new Bigfoot researcher should think about
Forum rules
This forum will sometimes contain copyrighted information, however, it is placed here under Title 17
Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
This forum will sometimes contain copyrighted information, however, it is placed here under Title 17
Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
- MABRC Chief Forum Administrator, MABRC Executive Director
- Posts: 2741
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:34 am
Six things a new Bigfoot researcher should think about
- Chat Center
- You do not have permission to post in chat.
admin « Tue 1:35 am »
yankeesearch « Tue 12:56 am »
yankeesearch « Tue 12:55 am »
yankeesearch « Tue 12:54 am »
yankeesearch « Tue 12:53 am »
yankeesearch « Tue 12:53 am »
yankeesearch « Tue 12:52 am »
yankeesearch « Tue 12:51 am »
yankeesearch « Tue 12:50 am »
yankeesearch « Tue 12:50 am »
yankeesearch « Tue 12:49 am »
yankeesearch « Tue 12:46 am »
BrianDriver « Sat 12:59 pm »
admin « Thu 9:09 pm »


text:
This was first published on November 15, 2010, and again on 30 July 2011, but it needs to be aired again, and again, and again..... I've uploaded the medical articles and embedded them, and updated it. This updation is inspired by the wet-behind-the-ears July 2011 announcement from Wellington experts, that paracetamol shouldn't be used in the treatment of fever during influenza, as well as the ignorance displayed on the Sunday's facebook page.. Why do the Wellington experts only discuss "influenza"? Have they not read the decades of medical literature which shows this applies to NOT ONLY all infections, but after vaccines as well? There is also a whole raft of medical articles I have on the use of paracetamol in pregnancy and childhood infections and it's active role in the development of asthma and allergies.
Over a decade ago, Auckland AUT invited me to talk about vaccines at a day seminar. I didn't end up doing that, because I was so disgusted at the nurse's presentation, prior to mine. about how wonderful paracetamol was, and how it could be used safely for just about everything, that come my turn, I stepped up to the white board and detailed the medical literature showing the opposite. If looks could have killed, I would have been dead before I had started. I was, and continue to be seriously disturbed at the INABILITY of nurses and doctors to do the research required, to understand these crucial, fundamental issues. Instead, when we parents call them on it, they ask US... for proof. The articles embedded here, are a fraction of the total proof that exists. So any nurses and doctors directed to this blog, download the medical articles provided here. This should be sufficient for you to then do a much more thorough pubmed search and google scholar search, and download a huge comprehensive database.
Then ask yourself the question, "WHY wasn't I taught this?"
And also ask yourself whether or not your "service" to "clients" has been safe. After all, your primary responsibility is to "first do no harm". Ignorance is no excuse. And please stop making derogatory comments about those of us, who do actually possess, and know the medical literature, on many more topics thatnyou appear to have even a fundamental grasp of.
To me, it makes perfect sense that if you reduce the innate immune system's ability to function on a broad front regularly, there will be a price to pay. People ignore the benefits of fever at their peril. See also Skitski. People should realise that normal therapeutic doses of paracetamol can cause liver damage, and that the use of paracetamol accounts for over 400 liver transplants a year in the USA. Furthermore, there are serious questions being raised about it, given that 65% of pregnant women use paracetamol regularly.
The mechanism of fever is pretty clear. For a start,PGE2 is crucial in making sure a fever is effective, and paracetamol shuts off PGE2. The very mechanism which deals with pathogens is suppressed by paracetamol. the pathways that paracetamol suppresses are diverse. That fever improves survival from disease has been in the medical literature since 1976. It's also important to know why infection causes the body to sleep and why sleep is so important.Blatteis also addressed this in 2003, so it's not a new issue.
NOV 15, 2010: Today, we are told that fever is good for you! Now where might you have heard that before? Oh yeah. Here of course. And you'll find a chapter called "Fever Pitch" in the book we wrote in 2006. And then there's the chapter called "Bringing chickenpox to the boil" in our second book, published in 2008, which detailed some of the dramas created by Pfizer in 2004, who didn't like IAS and myself telling the nasty little truth about their darling little product called PAMOL. ... about how using it during infections had the potential to kill. The question is, does the New Zealand team responsible for this article, deserve a bouquet, or brickbats? After all, there's a lot of people who have felt that they have been hitting their heads against a brick wall about the use of Paracetamol in pregnancy, and for infectious fevers, for a very long time.
With the decades of medical literature on fever and antipyretics, this argument should have been dead and buried thirty years ago.
And if not then, at least they could have buried it when the WHO wrote an advisory nearly ten years ago, stating that using acetaminophen during infections was dangerous and unwarranted.
For those who don't know the 2004 Pfizer saga, here's a sequence of documents for you to read:
First Letter from Pfizer to IAS. Second letter from Pfizer to IAS, which expanded on the complaint to include accurate detailed fully referenced information I'd written, which necessitated me helping to draft a reply. This is IAS's very detailed reply which describes the literature I have in great detail. Here is Pfizer's reply to IAS's reply. And in case you're wondering about the fact that Michael Baker authored the press release, about an article he wrote..., here is Michael Baker's article.
In my opinion, I have never misrepresented what was in that article and you can read it yourself, and you be the judge. Furthermore, there is plenty in the medical literature to show that not only does paracetamol increase the duration of the flu, and the likelihood of dying, it does the same for when it comes to ALL infections INCLUDING meningitis.
Here for the record is another email I wrote in 2009, to some medical "bigwigs" attempting to get someone to look at the issues surrounding anti-febriles:
From: Hilary Butler [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 3 November 2009 9:09 PM
To: 'firstname.lastname@example.com'; 'email@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.com'
Subject: Vaccines and paracetamol, Lancet October 17, 2009.
Dear Dr Chen and Dr Prymula,
(I have copied in the editors of the Lancet, and the Lancet Infectious Diseases, because to me, this is, and has been, a very important issue, and it is time it was dealt with properly.)
Dr Chen: Your article in the 17 October 2009 Lancet says that the findings of Prymula that paracetamol significantly reduces the antibodies formed after some vaccines given to children, are surprising, and that he's the first to examine the issue. Yes in humans, but not in animals or in a broader context.
Please find attached Ryan et al, 2006 (labelled HPV vax paracetamol) in which it was shown that paracetamol suppresses antibodies from Gardasil in mice. Please also find attached Yamaura et al 2002 (labelled p supp antib mice) which shows that the effect of paracetamol extends to mitogens as well as antibody suppression.
Please find Australian Prescriber in which Dr Shand discusses the effect of paracetamol on disease, and Shalabi's two articles explaining how paracetamol down regulates the immune system in terms of disease.
Please find attached the WHO bulletins which comment on how paracetamol increases disease severity and death, and should not be used during infection.
Please access for yourself Plaisance 2000 ARCH INTERN MED/VOL 160, FEB 28, 2000 et al, discussing how the use of paracetamol with influenza increases the duration of the disease in humans by several days: clearly a function of immune suppression. I have attached a news media article about Plaisance 2000 Pharmacotherapy about the same topic (Which also begs the question as to why paracetamol is STILL routinely prescribed for the flu, particularly those for whom a longer duration could lead to serious complications).
The medical literature for over a decade now, has clearly described paracetamol as a potential immune suppressant, and it is probably this action which is behind the association between the use of paracetamol and the subsequently much greater risk of some babies getting asthma later in life. Paracetamol may suppress the way "tolerance" for normal antigens is developed in the neonate, in a similar way to derailing the immune system during infection and at vaccination times.
It is a surprise (to me) that paracetamol has not been banned for use where there is an infection, because of it's known effects on the immune system. If you were sick with the swine flu and had asthma or other conditions which could place you at risk, wouldn't you want your immune system to work as well as possible??! Knowing that paracetamol derails the immune system, would you be happy if you knew (that your doctor didn't know that) paracetamol might increase the severity of the flu and also your chances of dying? Why is paracetamol always the first line medication for infections and the flu?
You talk about paracetamol's importance in relation to other vaccines. Given that vaccines can interact, and antibody levels can drop for some diseases, when combined with other multiple vaccines, without paracetamol, it would seem that there are two issues intertwined issues here. The already known effects of paracetamol on the adaptive immune system in BOTH disease and vaccines, and the known interaction of vaccines, which can also drop antibodies. Both are separate, but relevant. As you add more vaccines, even without paracetamol, interactions can cause the same effect.
Dr Prymula: While you are the first to look at this issue in humans (Dr Chen, why did it take so long?) I was surprised that your paper did not contain any of the papers I have attached, since they add considerably to the immunological rationale.
In the light of Shalabi's 92 and 96 articles and others medical literature proving that paracetamol has a fundamental effect on the immune system (there are several older papers which show that the use of paracetamol in bacterial infections and meningitis, increases severity and mortality), and that paracetamol suppresses antibodies in mice… and after Gardasil, can either of you explain to me why paracetamol's affect on the immune system came as a surprise to you, and why it is that you appear to be hesitant to describe the research on the mechanisms already uncovered?
I realise that that might broaden the issue out more to include infections as well, but perhaps it's time for that to be done.
Hilary Butler.
Dr Chen's reply was:
From: Chen, Robert (Bob) (CDC/CCID/NCHHSTP) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 4 November 2009 9:11 AM
To: Hilary Butler; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.com
Subject: RE: Vaccines and paracetamol, Lancet October 17, 2009.
Dear Ms. Butler,
Thank you for your email bringing this literature to my attention. Unfortunately results in animals are not always predictive of results in humans. Our commentary explained "why it took so long". A previous study of acetaminophen with whole cell pertussis vaccine showed there was no impact. So it was assumed that the same would be true of acellular pertussis (and other) vaccines. This may seem obvious in hindsight, but given limited resources, one has to prioritize which wheels you choose to reinvent given slight changes in understanding.
I suggest you make the case for your hypothesis on paracetamol's impact on the immune system in a peer reviewed journal.
Best regards,
My reply was:
From: Hilary Butler [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 4 November 2009 5:02 PM
To: 'Chen, Robert (Bob) (CDC/CCID/NCHHSTP)'; 'firstname.lastname@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.com'; 'firstname.lastname@example.com'
Subject: RE: Vaccines and paracetamol, Lancet October 17, 2009.
Dear Dr Chen,
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. Your effort is much appreciated. My reply will perhaps read strongly and passionately. Please do not take this as a personal criticism of you.
Unfortunately results in animals are not always predictive of results in humans. Our commentary explained "why it took so long".
Certainly, animals are not predictive of humans. Vaccines and drugs are first of all tested on animal models, because there is a reason for that. Why, when it suits, does the rationale change? Why are findings seemingly dismissed as "not being relevant in this case", because it is in 'animals'? Even if animal tests are clear, "it" could be devastating in humans. Absence of human evidence is no reason to not ask the obvious questions from animal studies… After all, it may be that the wrong questions have been asked. Existence of animal evidence is reason to pursue it further.
America was largely spared the devastation of thalidomide because of the "gut instinct" of the then female head of FDA, who refused to licence it, in the absence of an animal model. At the time, everyone else was scathing of her refusal.
Why is it such a novel concept to also ask the questions, "What is the purpose of fever? If a drug reduces a fever, how does it affect the functioning of the immune system in the broader picture?" Then when that is known, the questions needing to be asked are, " Is that actually a good idea? What could be the consequences to the person by doing that? If fever gives an adaptive advantage to the bacteria's host, to help fight the bacteria (or whatever) why would you want to take away a "trump card" like that?"
Same with adults and influenza.
The possible immunosuppressive potential of paracetamol is clearly shown in a stack of medical literature going back 30+ years which addresses these issues, and it's not unraveling the human genome. It's 'inate' immunological logics 101.
A previous study of acetaminophen with whole cell pertussis vaccine showed there was no impact. So it was assumed that the same would be true of acellular pertussis (and other) vaccines.
Making assumptions which blind the generic 'you' to the immunologically obvious, is a constant issue in medicine.
Had the literature I attached to you, been read at the time, wouldn't the "obvious" questions have simply leapt off the paper at you? If not, why not?
This may seem obvious in hindsight, but given limited resources, one has to prioritize which wheels you choose to reinvent given slight changes in understanding.
Reinvent? Slight changes of understanding? This makes no sense, because Shalabi had elucidated the mechanisms others had similarly discussed …., and those articles should have sent warning bells through everyone's heads. The changes in understanding are major, with reverberations in all directions.
Most doctors today, still shrug and hold to the old idea that paracetamol is benign, safe, and that fever must be extinguished at all costs. You ask them why, and they blink at you like rabbits in headlights.
You said this was the "first" time this was done in humans, but with the vaccine schedule being so different, that's not "reinventing". And without a "first time" in humans, wouldn't you still be dismissing the evidence because it was animal based, and therefore possibly not relevant? You know that in this case, what applies to the animals applies to humans.
Perhaps the important word in your answer is the word "assumption":
I suggest you make the case for your hypothesis on paracetamol's impact on the immune system in a peer reviewed journal.
I have tried to make a case for the immunosuppressive impact of paracetamol in peer reviewed journals for many years. I wonder if it gets past the receptionist's desk actually.
I am a mother, Dr Chen. Publication of mother's thoughts appear to be hampered by editors who look first, at a person's qualifications and standing, and whether or not the hypothesis purveyed by a mere mother, might support the status quo, particular relating to various brands of golden geese, which lay multi-million-dollar golden eggs. (And if it did say the same as all the experts, why bother? If it doesn't, then which medical school did she go to?)
I am reminded of Pillemer and others who have been treated in similar fashion. Medical history has legions of qualified people who have been ignored, or pilloried. And they had more letters after their name than I have. What hope do you think a mother has of being listened to on an issue as important as this? Perhaps someone like Dr Robert Good had the esteem and reputation to get away with thinking out loud. Not so a mere trenchwoman.
More importantly, I fail to see why presenting you with substantive medical literature suggests to you a hypothesis. There's enough in the 30+ years of acetaminophen medical literature to show any thinking person, that consequent immunosuppression on a broad front, is a bio-immunological reality that is not desirable.
If WHO says (in a mild way) that paracetamol or any related type of drug, should never be used for fever, because it suppresses the immune system; masks serious disease and if you put those two things together, you can have a recipe for disaster, why do you think paracetamol's effect on the immune system in either infection, or relating to vaccination, is a hypothesis?
Why does it need me to re-collate and present, yet again, that same "wheel" which WHO and others have discussed in the medical literature for some time, to a medical journal, ….. about something which is as immunologically obvious as the nose on your face?
This is something that bugs me when I read medical literature on any specific topic. I have to wade through thousands of pages whereby people repeat all that went before, every single time, just to get to the "new speck of sand"… so if you feel the same, then it's little wonder, if you didn't have the incentive to read the literature I sent you.
Banging my head on the brick wall again, isn't my idea of useful time allocation. That's why I'm trying the open letter this time. If I try to "talk" to all of you, will THAT make any difference? If not, I won't die wondering.
Besides which, "you" would want to prove whether or not paracetamol is actually as dangerous as your own literature infers, right? Can you ever see a day when large scale, proper studies are designed on the "assumption" that paracetamol is highly dangerous when it comes to both infection, and to a lesser degree, vaccines, with a possible end point that perhaps paracetamol should NEVER be used during any infectious disease processes of any sort?
Who would provide the funding for something which could be the author of the commercial suicide for a whole class of very profitable drugs, routinely handed out by most medical doctors in hospital and private practice, and are exceedingly profitable, OTC?
There is a joke in this country that while a dog is a man's best friend, pamol is a mother's best friend. I am horrified at how often and for what reasons, mothers use paracetamol products. Parents should be told why they should not use paracetamol during infections, or to use it to quieten a whinging child etc. The current usage as primary child manager is drug abuse.
Moving on to adults, how many liver transplants are required every year due to damage done by paracetamol? It's a phenomenal number. Why are adults totally ignorant of the dangers of paracetamol? Why do adults automatically pop in a paracetamol at the first sign of fever, or the pain of the flu? Because that's what doctors tell them to do. Because doctors no longer know any other way to deal with it. Besides, to explain the old ways takes time and effort, but writing out a prescription comes at the click of a mouse.
Doctors should be at the forefront of a move to stop this (ab)use of paracetamol, by every day, thumping their fists on the table and saying, "For the sake of our children, adults and future generations, this drug abuse has to stop".
It's no good mothers being expected to "convince" doctors.
What I hear, is resounding silence. It's not good enough.
I got no reply to that one, nor did I expect one.
But here's the real deal, and it's not a conspiracy. It's simply a commercial reality.
The REASON nothing was done about this up until now, was because medical KOPS (Key Opinion People) or KOLS as they are sometimes called (Key Opinion Leaders) were right in the back pocket of the pharmaceutical companies when it came to anti-febriles.
Some still are. And guess what? The proof of that, is in a medical article from some time back, which is quoted from, in the letter to Pfizer.
And on that note, WHY did Pfizer chose to attack IAS on the comments made? You have to wonder if Pfizer actually ... didn't know ... the depth of information in the medical literature about just how dangerous acetaminophen is during infections. Because after it was presented to them, while there

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The Southeast Archeological Center
The Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC or The Center) is a support operation of the National Park Service's Southeast Region. The Center conducts and shares high-quality anthropological research based on multi-disciplinary methods and cutting-edge science, providing the best archeological and collections management assistance possible to national parks and our partners.
In assisting parks with their cultural resource management needs, SEAC facilitates the long-term production of archeological resources, compiling, utilizing, and disseminating the archeological information obtained from them. SEAC maintains impeccable ethical standards by reporting timely research findings to park, public, and professional audiences. In addition to annually generating numerous archeological reports as mandated by federal law and park operations, the Center is the repository for over eight million artifacts that make up the Southeast Region's research collections and cultural database.
Contact Us, visit the What We Do page, or click the links below for more information about the SEAC's programs and services.


text:
Cookie Policy
What is a Cookie?
Cookies are small text files, created by the website visited, that contain data. They are stored on the visitor's computer to give the user access to various functions. Both session cookies and non-session cookies are used on this website (www.csl.org). A session cookie is temporarily stored in the computer memory while the visitor is browsing the website. This cookie is erased when the user closes their web browser or after a certain time has passed (meaning that the session expires). A non-session cookie remains on the visitor's computer until it is deleted.
Why do we use Cookies?
We use cookies to learn more about the way visitors interact with our content and help us to improve the experience when visiting our Site.
Site Functionality
For some of the functions within our Site we use third party suppliers, for example, when you visit a page with videos embedded from or links to YouTube. These videos or links (and any other content from third party suppliers) may contain third party cookies and you may wish to consult the policies of these third party websites for information regarding their use of cookies.
Cookies we Use:
This Site uses Google Analytics which uses cookies. At the aggregate level, cookies store information on how visitors use the Site, including the number of pages displayed, where the visitor comes from, and the number of visits, to improve the website and ensure a good user experience. If you do not accept cookies, no information is stored.
Click on this link to go to the install page to optout from tracking by Google Analytics. https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout?hl=en
How to reject Cookies?
We will not use cookies to collect personally identifiable information about a visitor.
However you can choose to reject or block the cookies set by www.csl.org, or third party cookies. by changing your browser settings – see the "Help function" within your browser for further details. Please note that most browsers automatically accept cookies so if you do not wish cookies to be used, you may need to actively delete or block the cookies.
Below are links to pages that provide instructions on how to block cookies in 6 different major browsers:
1 – https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95647?hl=en (Chrome);
2 – https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enable-and-disable-cookies-website-preferences (Firefox);
3 – http://www.opera.com/help/tutorials/security/cookies/ (Opera);
4 – https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/help/17442/windows-internet-explorer-delete-manage-cookies (Internet Explorer);
5 – https://support.apple.com/kb/PH21411 (Safari).
6 – https://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-10-microsoft-edge-and-privacy (Edge).
Blocking all cookies may have a negative impact upon the usability of many websites. if you block cookies, you may not be able to use all the features on our website.
For information on the use of cookies in mobile phone browsers and for details on how to reject or delete such cookies, please refer to your mobile phone manual.
Contact Us
For any questions or requests pertaining to your data privacy, contact our Data Protection Officer at firstname.lastname@example.com.
Read our Privacy Policy for more information.


text:
'Cobra Kai' Arrives On Netflix With New Trailer
We're about to get an interesting test of Netflix's power and influence. Cobra Kai, the TV series spinoff of The Karate Kid, got great reviews when it premiered in 2018. Still, the show never really took off despite the fact that it was based on one of the most beloved films of the 1980s and featured its original stars, William Zabka and Ralph Macchio. The main issue was Cobra Kai was only available on YouTube Red, the site's premium streaming service. After YouTube Red flopped and shut down, Netflix acquired the rights to the first two seasons of Cobra Kai, along with the upcoming third season.
Season 3 won't arrive until 2021, but the first two seasons debut on Netflix later this week. To hype up the premiere, Netflix just released a new trailer covering the events of the first two seasons of the show. Watch:
Ah, the sweet sounds of "You're the Best" by Joe Esposito. Nothing better than that. Here's the show's official synopsis:
Picking up 30 years after the 1984 All Valley Karate Tournament, the half-hour series finds Daniel and Johnny at different places in their lives. Whereas Daniel is living his best life as a family man and proud owner of the No. 1 car dealership in the Valley, Johnny has fallen a long way since the '80s and is now a heavy drinking, short-fused antihero living in Reseda, doing odd jobs to make ends meet. However, their rivalry is reignited when they re-enter each other's lives, which drives Johnny to rediscover his Cobra Kai roots and reopen the infamous karate dojo.
So will the show become a huge breakout hit now that millions of new viewers will have access to it? We'll find out after Cobra Kai seasons 1 and 2 premiere on Netflix on August 28.
Gallery — Our Favorite Recent TV Revivals:


text:
No products in the cart.
Return to shop
The last order for bread is 8:00 p.m. each business day for collection the following day. Any bread orders submitted after 8:00 p.m. on each business day will be ready for collection within the next 2 days. All other products except custom made cakes require 48 hours notice for collection.
Dear Customers, as we are entering into a Jewish holiday called Passover, there will be some changes for a few weeks to the production at Glazed Unfortunately, bread, scroll and pastry production will be paused from the 9th of March until the 5th of April. This means that your last day to purchase these items will be the 7th of March.
During this time we highly recommend to pre order your items, this can be done by talking to our friendly staff in store or on our online site.
30th March till 2nd April – we are open, Passover menu available4th April – we will be closed6th April – Bread and normal menu are back
NOTE: All available products will require at least 48 hours notice.
Vegan, gluten free, soy free and nut free
SpEcial offers, events, new products and More!
Join Glazed's mailing list and be the first to know.
Be sure to check your email to confirm
Username or email address *
Password *
Remember me Log in
Lost your password?
Email address *
A link to set a new password will be sent to your email address.
Subscribe to our newsletter