Also, look at what percent of the worlds trees got killed in the last decade. It's rather scary. They fly over the 3rd largest Island in the world (Borneo) in g.maps and just look at it. The trees are all gone. Borneo was 95% unexplored 15 years ago. They just go the worst ecological disaster of the year award, but the sad reality is you can find this anywhere you look.
Look at a globe. Water is blue, the land is green except for the brown bits. That's where man evolved. Wherever we go we kill all the trees and now it's getting critical and these morons are looking in the wrong place. CO2 is rising because we took out the things that eat it. And despite CO2 rising, warming has slowed down. This is explained by the other hypothesis the IPCC actively suppressed. That's why Climategate happened . No, they weren't "cleared", well they were in the sense they were cleared by the guys that also "cleared" Jerry Sandusky, twice, of all wrongful doing, you know,Sandusky - the guy that was found guilty of 53 counts of buggering young boys? That's how thorough they are. It was shown they suppressed papers and data that was inconsistent with their model. (not illegal, it turns out, definitely unethical, this puts them in Pons and Fleischman territory) Just to refresh your memory, real scientific papers list the pros and cons to the argument. Kids these days, I swear...
"Well no, they likely won't say something absurd and false."
OHRLY?
Check out their list of predictions. Not one came true. Ever. Show me the one that did.
Did you miss this?
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
"The draft report said, "There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent."
"The IPCC projects warming will likely be above 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) and very likely below 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit (6 degrees Celsius.) This is a rollback from 2007, when the likely low end of the warming range was pinned at 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius)"
"The IPCC also acknowledges a slowdown in warming in the past 15 years, which climate change skeptics say is evidence of a global cooling trend. There's no global cooling, according to the report."
"But even with this variability, the past 30 years were the warmest in several centuries, the report said. (A study published April 21, 2013, in the journal Nature Geoscience confirms this trend — the last three decades were the warmest in 1,400 years.)" - ok work with me here. So, it was warmer 1401 years ago? The Danish tree ring data (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html) shows it was much hotter in Roman times than even way off the end of the hockey stick graph, so the "unprecedented" claim has been falsified.
"The pace of melting glaciers is rising, the report concludes. The Arctic ice pack is shrinking. As mentioned above, the massive Antarctic ice cap is also starting to show signs of responding to global warming by increasing its melting. The Greenland Ice Sheet lost about six times more ice from 2002 to 2011 than from 1992 to 2001 — an average of 177 billion tons a year versus 7 billion tons a year, respectively. "
Polar bears rebounded spectacularly when we stopped hunting them. They went from 5000 to 15,000 very quickly... in a climate that's supposed to be killing them off. Nobody actually checked though.
None of these claims hold water and it's all built on a house of cards. There's a reason NASA and CERN have moved passed the failed AGW hypothesis and fired Hansen.
Here it is. You go ahead and invest the hour then tell me which one you think is more likely to be the reason for the climate, ok? None of this "No, it's wrong! I didn't need to watch it to know that!" Crap I've been seeing.
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
so i was already feeling stoked about finally getting around to finding a matched pair of the fastest cpus that I can put into this board that's been sitting in a box for SIX YEARS, they boot and now I read this./me - does the peacock strut happy dance thing.
i was always a fan of AMD going back to the 8x300 bit slice stuff. they're clever boys.
We worked really hard in the 70s on so you wouldn't need books. Everything I did was documented with roff/runoff. This begat, in a roundabout way SCRIBE which begat SGML which begat HTML.
I've programmed C since 1974 and still do, daily. I've bought K&R, twice (and have touched a mimeographed copy dmr made pencil notes in belonging to Jim Fleming) and the O'Reily MySql book to get a fucking update statement right in 1997. Fifty bucks for one page. Other than that I just haven't found a need for them. And I've done pretty much everything.
In the post-Internet era what is it exactly you can't learn about computers without a book. I don't even want to hear it's "easier". I'm used to not doing it and fins it much less efficient, especially for this kind of stuff where I'm one click away from a local file as opposed to go find the book, find the page...
Read K&R, Read Knuth. The rest you can easily live without. (Skip the TeX stuff though, he went insane at some point)
This sounds rather nebulous. That is, it's possible to interpret what you've said as either a bug or a feature.
Given the recent IPCC leak, if this is about the failed co2 hypothesis and nothing more, then they deserve it.
If they're pointing out pollution is bad and getting way worse, then they're in the right. But if this is the case, this is actionable.
The fact they're keeping quiet in all their PR about what these issues are tells me they're hiding something. And this is not the first time they've made noise about being muzzled but not what it is they can't say. Even if it's totally legit they've managed to make it smell fishy as hell.
CFC's re replaced with HCFC's. They're not as bad for the ozone layer. They're only 98% as bad.
DuPont got paid to: 1) Recycle all the freon. 2) Make machines to do 1) 3) Make all the HFCF's 4) Make all the machines fo use 3)
A former Dupont exec I met in first class once said they'd pretty much made it all up. Notice we cut back, not eliminated CFCs? Hows the ozone layer doing 30 years later now ?
It's easy to spot a manufactured crisis for commercial gain after the fact.
"but the primary causes of cancer aren't your damn food."
No, just the phytoalexins required to reverse tumors. You are wrong and should read more.
Cancer is caused by a number of things. Cosmic rays can do it. It's quite natural and nearly all the time the body takes care of it' cancerous cells can be fond at all times in all living things, they're just cells that didn't divide properly for whatever reason. You cam never stop that not do you need to. What needs to be addressed is the inability of some people under some conditions to have their immune system destroy these defective copies. This turns out to be because of a nutritional deficiency caused by industrial tampering in our food supply. See my comments near the top to see the actual molecular biodynamics involved.
The poor grow their own food. That's why. I don't have much sympathy for whites complaining in areas notorious for systematic oppression of blacks. Move if you can't take the karmic payback.
Bingo. There's a huge lag in the discovery and acceptance of new ideas.
In the 1600s Jaques Cartier sailed from France to Canada and a planned return to France in the fall was delayed and they were forced to stay on the ship in a Montreal winter (notorious for being extra cold; you always want to buy a winter coat made in Montreal, not Toronto). They of course began getting ill from scurvy and when close to death the natives were finally asked for help. One them went to look at the men, shook his head, scraped some bark off a pine tree, boiled it in tea an the next day they were all better.
They get back to France and tell of this wonderful cure for the scourge of the seas (thought to come from "foul vapors" from the bottom of the ship) and what was the reaction of the "medical establishement" in Europe? "We have nothing to learn from savages" and the discovery of vitamin C was put back a while.
Modern medicine is utterly brilliant at surgery - we can fix nearly anything now. But chronic disease? Check for yourself, there's been no appreciable progress in what... 50? 100 years?
What it always comes down to in the end is a fundamental choice of therapeutic modalities, do you: 1) create synthetic drugs to manage the symptom or 2) identify the biochemical fault and correct it.
that is, it's always better to work with the body and fix the broken bits (it's been said all non-infectious chronic disease is a nutrient deficiency of some sort) then to introduce synthetics to manage a particular symptom the additional complication being when the body sees a molecule it recognizes it knows what to do with it, but synthetics - since they're foreign to human biochemistry there are without exception side effects. In the US alone there are > 100,000 deaths every year from prescription "medicine", currently the third leading cause of death after heart and cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis
"In the United States, figures suggest estimated deaths per year of: [1][18] [19][20] 12,000 due to unnecessary surgery 7,000 due to medication errors in hospitals 20,000 due to other errors in hospitals 80,000 due to nosocomial infections in hospitals 106,000 due to non-error, negative effects of drugs Based on these figures, iatrogenesis may cause 225,000 deaths per year in the United States (excluding recognizable error). An earlier Institute of Medicine report estimated 230,000 to 284,000 iatrogenic deaths annually.[1] The large gap separating these estimates from annual deaths from cerebrovascular disease suggests that iatrogenic illness constitutes the third-leading cause of death in the United States; after heart disease and cancer.[1]"
ASA controls inflammation which is often the source of mutagenesis.
Like all NASIDS they impede the formation of E2 series prostaglandins which control inflammation, so there's a short-term/long-term component to think about.
ASA hasn't been shown to do much here afaik, cite 'em if ya got 'em.
I'd point out it works, and your team has no clue. At this point the number of cancer cures from intravenous C exceeds those cured by radiation and chemo combined[1] - which often cause more cancer than they cure.
If you're trying to suggest it doesn't work (without actually knowing what it does) you have the problem of explaining what it is than that reversed the cancer in the 11 people in those three clinical trials.
"I don't have time to debunk your misunderstanding about science" Translation: "I haven't read anything you're talking about but I know it's wrong" - the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. It's a shame you didn't even notice the refernces and pointers given, let alone actually read them.
There's a chance P53 doesn't work the way you think it does.
Here's an easier to digest synopsis for those short of time:
The Cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP1B1 [1] only occurs in cancer cells [2]. When certain phytoallexins such as reservetol and salvestrol are ingested these phytoallexins are converted by the P450 enzyme into picetannol [3], which is fatal to cancer cells but not human cells [4].
You need to read medical history. Cancer was virtually unseen prior to 1900. But it has been known for 7000 years at least.
The first notice of work/toxin related cancers were chimney sweeps in the late 1800s. Enough of them got testicular cancer that a causative link was established. This was the first of the industrial cancers. Come 1900 and radical modernization of industry and the rate just starts shooting up culminating with the post-WWII idea that without antifungals (which turn out to be the thing that's doing the bees in) chemical fertilizers and pesticides we can't grow enough food to feed the boomers.
No go back 50 years prior to and read a gardening book from that era, say "Garden magic". The number of times they advise to spray "lead arsenate" in that book is phenomenal. Try doing that today. Point is that seemed quite reasonable in the day.
It's not our ability to detect it that's changed, it's how soon we can detect it that's changed. That's why people are living longer with cancer. They're not really, we can just identify it sooner. The cure rate has not changed since 1900; thats why Potter's stuff is so exciting, we've actually figured out what part of the body failed and why.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, yeah.
Wendy was a voice of reason during that debacle; everybody else just glared at Texas and shook their heads.
Texas: what a country.
You just have bad software.
If you had decent software, you'd be eager and happy to have a home server. Your problem after all isn't a hardware issue now is it?
So... what's the six things you'd need for you to consider this easy?
Also, look at what percent of the worlds trees got killed in the last decade. It's rather scary. They fly over the 3rd largest Island in the world (Borneo) in g.maps and just look at it. The trees are all gone. Borneo was 95% unexplored 15 years ago. They just go the worst ecological disaster of the year award, but the sad reality is you can find this anywhere you look.
Look at a globe. Water is blue, the land is green except for the brown bits. That's where man evolved. Wherever we go we kill all the trees and now it's getting critical and these morons are looking in the wrong place. CO2 is rising because we took out the things that eat it. And despite CO2 rising, warming has slowed down. This is explained by the other hypothesis the IPCC actively suppressed. That's why Climategate happened . No, they weren't "cleared", well they were in the sense they were cleared by the guys that also "cleared" Jerry Sandusky, twice, of all wrongful doing, you know,Sandusky - the guy that was found guilty of 53 counts of buggering young boys? That's how thorough they are. It was shown they suppressed papers and data that was inconsistent with their model. (not illegal, it turns out, definitely unethical, this puts them in Pons and Fleischman territory) Just to refresh your memory, real scientific papers list the pros and cons to the argument. Kids these days, I swear...
"Well no, they likely won't say something absurd and false."
OHRLY?
Check out their list of predictions. Not one came true. Ever. Show me the one that did.
Did you miss this?
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/james-lovelock-the-earth-is-about-to-catch-a-morbid-fever-that-may-last-as-long-as-100000-years-523161.html
http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
And wtf do you suppose this means?
http://news.yahoo.com/best-ipcc-climate-report-leaks-122437372.html
"The draft report said, "There is low confidence in the scientific understanding of the small observed increase in Antarctic sea ice extent."
"The IPCC projects warming will likely be above 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) and very likely below 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit (6 degrees Celsius.) This is a rollback from 2007, when the likely low end of the warming range was pinned at 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius)"
"The IPCC also acknowledges a slowdown in warming in the past 15 years, which climate change skeptics say is evidence of a global cooling trend. There's no global cooling, according to the report."
"But even with this variability, the past 30 years were the warmest in several centuries, the report said. (A study published April 21, 2013, in the journal Nature Geoscience confirms this trend — the last three decades were the warmest in 1,400 years.)" - ok work with me here. So, it was warmer 1401 years ago? The Danish tree ring data (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1589.html) shows it was much hotter in Roman times than even way off the end of the hockey stick graph, so the "unprecedented" claim has been falsified.
"The pace of melting glaciers is rising, the report concludes. The Arctic ice pack is shrinking. As mentioned above, the massive Antarctic ice cap is also starting to show signs of responding to global warming by increasing its melting. The Greenland Ice Sheet lost about six times more ice from 2002 to 2011 than from 1992 to 2001 — an average of 177 billion tons a year versus 7 billion tons a year, respectively. "
Oh crap, that sounds serious. What does NASA say?
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/greenland-melt.html
"Ice cores from
Polar bears rebounded spectacularly when we stopped hunting them. They went from 5000 to 15,000 very quickly... in a climate that's supposed to be killing them off. Nobody actually checked though.
None of these claims hold water and it's all built on a house of cards. There's a reason NASA and CERN have moved passed the failed AGW hypothesis and fired Hansen.
Here it is. You go ahead and invest the hour then tell me which one you think is more likely to be the reason for the climate, ok? None of this "No, it's wrong! I didn't need to watch it to know that!" Crap I've been seeing.
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/
You'd need to falsify this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrI03ts--9I
And explain this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/08/new_model_doubled_co2_sub_2_degrees_warming/
And this:
http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/climate/poles/
Go!
(otherwise, it would appear to be bullshit.)
Also, why did Lovelock say this:
"James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."
Also don't you think this is more likely?
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/08/ff_apocalypsenot/all
Given the leaked IPCC report agreed with Lovelock and they admit they exaggerated and don't know what's gong on, why do you think they do?
It turned out Gore funneled money to (at least) one of them. One of Gores companies funded his initial work.
Follow the money.
so i was already feeling stoked about finally getting around to finding a matched pair of the fastest cpus that I can put into this board that's been sitting in a box for SIX YEARS, they boot and now I read this. /me - does the peacock strut happy dance thing.
i was always a fan of AMD going back to the 8x300 bit slice stuff. they're clever boys.
We worked really hard in the 70s on so you wouldn't need books. Everything I did was documented with roff/runoff. This begat, in a roundabout way SCRIBE which begat SGML which begat HTML.
I've programmed C since 1974 and still do, daily. I've bought K&R, twice (and have touched a mimeographed copy dmr made pencil notes in belonging to Jim Fleming) and the O'Reily MySql book to get a fucking update statement right in 1997. Fifty bucks for one page. Other than that I just haven't found a need for them. And I've done pretty much everything.
In the post-Internet era what is it exactly you can't learn about computers without a book. I don't even want to hear it's "easier". I'm used to not doing it and fins it much less efficient, especially for this kind of stuff where I'm one click away from a local file as opposed to go find the book, find the page...
Read K&R, Read Knuth. The rest you can easily live without.
(Skip the TeX stuff though, he went insane at some point)
Miss the leaked IPCC report did we?
But, to extoll the virtues of fracking in the absence of any proof CO2 is doing anything, well, that takes a special kind of hubris.
Also, NASA pointed this out to them in 2010.
You might want to peruse the leaked IPCC report. They admit they were way wrong. It came out 2 days ago.
when you put it in a fruit salad, call me.
if this example from 1983 is the best you can do.... it's weak.
kudos for being the only non-anon reply (at least so far) though. wtf is up with that?
This sounds rather nebulous. That is, it's possible to interpret what you've said as either a bug or a feature.
Given the recent IPCC leak, if this is about the failed co2 hypothesis and nothing more, then they deserve it.
If they're pointing out pollution is bad and getting way worse, then they're in the right. But if this is the case, this is actionable.
The fact they're keeping quiet in all their PR about what these issues are tells me they're hiding something. And this is not the first time they've made noise about being muzzled but not what it is they can't say. Even if it's totally legit they've managed to make it smell fishy as hell.
what is this muzzled science? Why isn't that obvious let alone seemingly never mentioned.
getting the word out in this day and age isn't exactly the problem it was 20 years ago.
god knows I'm not sticking up for that cretin harper, but seriously, what's the deal?
http://vimeo.com/18279777
http://cr.yp.to/talks/2010.12.28/slides.pdf
(Bernstein on Elliptical curve cryptography.)
Do you actually know what happened there?
CFC's re replaced with HCFC's. They're not as bad for the ozone layer. They're only 98% as bad.
DuPont got paid to:
1) Recycle all the freon.
2) Make machines to do 1)
3) Make all the HFCF's
4) Make all the machines fo use 3)
A former Dupont exec I met in first class once said they'd pretty much made it all up. Notice we cut back, not eliminated CFCs? Hows the ozone layer doing 30 years later now ?
It's easy to spot a manufactured crisis for commercial gain after the fact.
This argument was addressed in this paper - from 1928.
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/jcanres/12/1/9.full.pdf
"but the primary causes of cancer aren't your damn food."
No, just the phytoalexins required to reverse tumors. You are wrong and should read more.
Cancer is caused by a number of things. Cosmic rays can do it. It's quite natural and nearly all the time the body takes care of it' cancerous cells can be fond at all times in all living things, they're just cells that didn't divide properly for whatever reason. You cam never stop that not do you need to. What needs to be addressed is the inability of some people under some conditions to have their immune system destroy these defective copies. This turns out to be because of a nutritional deficiency caused by industrial tampering in our food supply. See my comments near the top to see the actual molecular biodynamics involved.
The poor grow their own food. That's why. I don't have much sympathy for whites complaining in areas notorious for systematic oppression of blacks. Move if you can't take the karmic payback.
Bingo. There's a huge lag in the discovery and acceptance of new ideas.
In the 1600s Jaques Cartier sailed from France to Canada and a planned return to France in the fall was delayed and they were forced to stay on the ship in a Montreal winter (notorious for being extra cold; you always want to buy a winter coat made in Montreal, not Toronto). They of course began getting ill from scurvy and when close to death the natives were finally asked for help. One them went to look at the men, shook his head, scraped some bark off a pine tree, boiled it in tea an the next day they were all better.
They get back to France and tell of this wonderful cure for the scourge of the seas (thought to come from "foul vapors" from the bottom of the ship) and what was the reaction of the "medical establishement" in Europe? "We have nothing to learn from savages" and the discovery of vitamin C was put back a while.
Modern medicine is utterly brilliant at surgery - we can fix nearly anything now. But chronic disease? Check for yourself, there's been no appreciable progress in what... 50? 100 years?
What it always comes down to in the end is a fundamental choice of therapeutic modalities, do you:
1) create synthetic drugs to manage the symptom
or
2) identify the biochemical fault and correct it.
that is, it's always better to work with the body and fix the broken bits (it's been said all non-infectious chronic disease is a nutrient deficiency of some sort) then to introduce synthetics to manage a particular symptom the additional complication being when the body sees a molecule it recognizes it knows what to do with it, but synthetics - since they're foreign to human biochemistry there are without exception side effects. In the US alone there are > 100,000 deaths every year from prescription "medicine", currently the third leading cause of death after heart and cancer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iatrogenesis
"In the United States, figures suggest estimated deaths per year of: [1][18] [19][20]
12,000 due to unnecessary surgery
7,000 due to medication errors in hospitals
20,000 due to other errors in hospitals
80,000 due to nosocomial infections in hospitals
106,000 due to non-error, negative effects of drugs
Based on these figures, iatrogenesis may cause 225,000 deaths per year in the United States (excluding recognizable error). An earlier Institute of Medicine report estimated 230,000 to 284,000 iatrogenic deaths annually.[1]
The large gap separating these estimates from annual deaths from cerebrovascular disease suggests that iatrogenic illness constitutes the third-leading cause of death in the United States; after heart disease and cancer.[1]"
ASA controls inflammation which is often the source of mutagenesis.
Like all NASIDS they impede the formation of E2 series prostaglandins which control inflammation, so there's a short-term/long-term component to think about.
ASA hasn't been shown to do much here afaik, cite 'em if ya got 'em.
I'd point out it works, and your team has no clue. At this point the number of cancer cures from intravenous C exceeds those cured by radiation and chemo combined[1] - which often cause more cancer than they cure.
Enjoy your high salary while you can.
[1] Brian Sparkes, pers. comms. 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Sparkes
If you're trying to suggest it doesn't work (without actually knowing what it does) you have the problem of explaining what it is than that reversed the cancer in the 11 people in those three clinical trials.
And you also need to explain this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2012%2F06%2F02%2FMNI11ORI84.DTL
"I don't have time to debunk your misunderstanding about science"
Translation: "I haven't read anything you're talking about but I know it's wrong" - the logical fallacy of the argument from ignorance. It's a shame you didn't even notice the refernces and pointers given, let alone actually read them.
There's a chance P53 doesn't work the way you think it does.
Here's an easier to digest synopsis for those short of time:
The Cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP1B1 [1] only occurs in cancer cells [2]. When certain phytoallexins such as reservetol and salvestrol are ingested these phytoallexins are converted by the P450 enzyme into picetannol [3], which is fatal to cancer cells but not human cells [4].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CYP1B1
[2] http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/57/14/3026.short
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piceatannol
[4] http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v86/n5/abs/6600197a.html
This is old and there are newer references now but this should at least explain how the idea works and gives you some explicit papes to go chase down.
At this point chemo and radiation are total dead ends and should be stopped immediately.
Also curious is Potter had convinced the British government to give this stuff to everyone, big pharma talked them out of it.
You need to read medical history. Cancer was virtually unseen prior to 1900. But it has been known for 7000 years at least.
The first notice of work/toxin related cancers were chimney sweeps in the late 1800s. Enough of them got testicular cancer that a causative link was established. This was the first of the industrial cancers. Come 1900 and radical modernization of industry and the rate just starts shooting up culminating with the post-WWII idea that without antifungals (which turn out to be the thing that's doing the bees in) chemical fertilizers and pesticides we can't grow enough food to feed the boomers.
No go back 50 years prior to and read a gardening book from that era, say "Garden magic". The number of times they advise to spray "lead arsenate" in that book is phenomenal. Try doing that today. Point is that seemed quite reasonable in the day.
It's not our ability to detect it that's changed, it's how soon we can detect it that's changed. That's why people are living longer with cancer. They're not really, we can just identify it sooner. The cure rate has not changed since 1900; thats why Potter's stuff is so exciting, we've actually figured out what part of the body failed and why.