Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardioretinometry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cardioretinometry will soon, by invitation, be published in a peer reviewed journal. In the meantime as the originator of the science I should merely like to point out that (1) I was sorry to read of the illness of Antaeus Feldspar. It would almost certainly have been scurvy related. (2) It appears to me that by Antaeus Feldspar’s interpretation of WikiPedia rules, the original work of James Lind identifying the antiscorbutic factor in oranges to cure his sailors dying of scurvy, would have been deemed inappropriate for inclusion in WikiPedia and he would have been adversely criticised (puff) for reporting his findings, thus leading to more deaths.. (3) Alter Ipse's blunt 'silly' riposte to my comments on conspiracy need an answer, even more positive than the one he has chosen to completely ignore.

(a) Of 7 'official' medical database diseases defined as part of over fifty diseases in the scurvy syndrome by Merck and Mayo (and profitable) all inspiring 1.277 million papers, where we would properly expect 1.277 million mentions of scurvy we get 191. Where we would reasonably expect 1.277 million mentions of vitamin C we get 1,700. (b) Where we get 3.300 papers mentioning the occult forms of the seven diseases we get no mention of occult scurvy, the parent disease. (c) Of the entire 15,000,000 papers in the entire 50 years database there is not one paper on the occult form of scurvy the parent diseases of every occult member of its syndrome, e.g.haematuria, oligaturia, diabetes, hypertension, shock in infants, haemorrhage and aneurysm,

Of course it is not expected that people will readily believe in conspiracy against vitamin C or scurvy, but consider further...

15 million papers on all diseases virtually all being related to scurvy and vitamin C directly or indirectly (Cheraskin, Ringsdorf and Sisley jointly state this in effect as regards 10,000 pathologies with which I agree) 40,000 papers on vitamin C , 1,784 papers mentioning scurvy, 13 papers mentioning sub-clinical scurvy and NONE mentioning occult scurvy.

Furthermore it appears undeniable that the vast majority of people have the following ten firm beliefs implanted in their minds by physicians that (a) Scurvy was a disease of the ancients. FALSE. (b Scurvy is a disease like pregnancy with no intermediate degrees. FALSE. There must be a thousand degrees varying throughout the day. (c) That they have not heard of anybody ever having scurvy who they know or have read of in this century. (d) That they know nobody who has ever needed to be prescribed vitamin C. (e) That nobody needs to be tested for vitamin C deficiency. FALSE (e) That ‘too much’ vitamin C might cause cancer. FALSE too little can cause breast and probably other cancers. (f) That ‘too much’ vitamin C might cause anaemia. FALSE too little probably causes cancer. (g) That ‘too much’ vitamin C might cause kidney stones. FALSE too little probably causes kidney stones.

(h) That ‘too much’ vitamin C leads to “the most expensive urine I the street.”Better than cancer or even more expensive antibiotics.

(i) That ‘too much’ vitamin C is signified by vitamin C in the urine. Total rubbish.

All these are medical lies. I know because I was taught them in medical school.

If this is the case (1) Why are there over 40,000 papers in the database mentioning vitamin C? (2) What was the point of the research as regards human value? (3) How much did the research cost.? (4) Why did it lead to no prescriptions for vitamin C ? (my sampled optometrist colleagues too have never noted vitamin C in a prescription list from a medical practitioner which it is their duty to inspect.. (5) What did all this research lead to except incomes for researchers and to improve the image of physicians making them appear to be at least interested in the subject on behalf of their patients?

Good answers the above will convince everybody that there is no conspiracy against vitamin C or scurvy. Sydney J Bush DOpt. PhD.