BBC rigging Scottish independence referendum with lies and propaganda

The man in the BBC “How to vote in the Scottish referendum” video, to be fair and unbiased should say “If you want Scotland to stay in THE UNITED KINGDOM you put an ‘X’ in the box next to the word ‘NO'”

But the BBC video is not fair, it is biased and so instead the man says “If you want Scotland to stay in BRITAIN you put an ‘X’ in the box next to the word ‘NO'”.

Firstly, geographically, Scotland will stay in Britain, the British Isles, come what may. The Republic of Ireland is still part of the British Isles though that greater part of Ireland left UK political control years ago.

The political choice for Scots is whether we wish to be independent of the United Kingdom or not.

The BBC video conflates geography with politics. They are not the same.

Secondly, even for those Scots with a British political identity, like myself, there are far better political options and futures than maintaining the United Kingdom as is – which better futures the BBC video ignores because the BBC is institutionally biased in favour of the monarchy and kingdom.

Consider a future Britain which was not royalist nor a kingdom but rather democratic and republican. Such a future Britain would become a real possibility for all Britons with the establishment of an independent Scottish republic.

But the BBC, as UK royalist lackeys, ignore the non-UK British future options and always present a royalist, biased and bigoted view of Scotland and Britain and hide the real political choices for Scots and Britons alike.

In addition, this BBC video promotes a SNP peacenik video which DISCREDITS a “YES” vote by misrepresenting all “YES” campaigners as smearing Scots Iraq war heroes as “criminals”. Presumably that’s why the BBC chose this video promote – to wreck chances of a “YES” vote.

The fact that the SNP tolerate this peacenik video being promoted by the BBC as representative of the YES campaign shows that the SNP high command have more interest in keeping hold of their peacenik base than winning support from braveheart Scots & Britons for a YES vote.

Once again we can see the SNP are combining with BBC and UK royalists to sabotage any prospect of real Scottish national independence.

The BBC video is part of the BBC RIGGING the independence referendum, brainwashing pro-British Scots to vote “NO” when actually “YES” is the best choice of vote for anyone who wants the best for Britons in Scotland and in due course for Britons in the rest of Britain too.

I’m strongly pro-British, a British nationalist and THEREFORE I am for Scottish independence and for leaving the UK but staying loyal to my fellow Britons in the process.

British politics like mine is ignored and treated with contempt by the BBC video.

This video is typical of BBC royalist, anti-British TREACHERY which disguises imposing the enemy Windsor monarchy & kingdom upon all Scots and Britons as some kind of “national” process when it is rather an act of treason against the nations which denies Scots and all British home nations even the rights of sovereign nations to elect our own head of state.

It was to be expected that the United Kingdom would act to rig this referendum and this video is an example of how they are rigging it.

Scots therefore should refuse to accept any “No” result of a BBC RIGGED independence referendum that brainwashes Scots-Britons to vote “No” by spreading royalist lies and propaganda.

Loyal Britons should chop the Queen’s head off and send it to the smiling bastard in this BBC video with a note telling him that the Scots-Britons are staying with Britain by the best way possible – by LEAVING the United Kingdom.

Links

The Scottish National Standard Bearer website

Visit the Scotland category of forums in the For Freedom Forums

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The AfPak Mission war on terror strategy blog

I’ve created a new blog with the address “afpakmission.wordpress.com” to match the other AfPak Mission content I have across the web.

So check there for anything new in the category of “Afghanistan” because this will be the last blog entry in the “Afghanistan” category which is posted on the “peterdow.wordpress.com” blog.

Leave a comment

December 21, 2013 · 7:15 pm

My “Eureka” moment. A cure for cancer.

Suggesting a scientific approach and method for the medical treatment of tumorous cancer.

Abstract

A new 2-phase treatment to cure cancer is proposed.

Phase 1 would use a live bio-agent paired with a moderating anti-bio-agent drug to target and kill hypoxic cancer tumour cores.

Phase 2 would employ 2 drug types – firstly a mixture of drugs of the growth factor inhibitor type, some (perhaps most) yet to be developed, would be required to halt selectively all normal cell division but not halt the characteristically aberrant cancer cell division and secondly, conventional chemotherapy drugs would be used to target and kill only the dividing cancer cells.

Summary

A scientific approach and method for the medical treatment and cure for tumorous cancer disease is suggested and described.

The desired performance characteristics of suitable types of biological agents and pharmaceutical drugs and an appropriate method of employing those agents and drugs for the treatment and cure of cancer is described.

Caution

Neither the selection of specific agents and drugs, nor the determination of the optimal treatment regimes are described herein because the details for how best to implement the author’s general approach and method to cure cancer still require further research by the scientific and medical community which it is hoped this scientific paper will inform and inspire.

So the reader should be cautioned that the author does not herein publish detailed suggestions for oncologists to prescribe for their cancer patients which pills to pop when. The author is a scientist who is trying to find a cure for everyone one day, not a doctor who can cure someone today.

Invitation to informed discussion

This is claimed to be a realistic scientific paper, not a snake-oil-style cure-all claim. This may not be obvious to everyone because I am an amateur independent scientist, neither employed as a scientist, nor published in traditional scientific journals.

I have published widely on the internet on mostly non-scientific topics and I am accustomed to debating my ideas on-line and so I’m quite comfortable inviting replies perhaps as helpful comments and criticisms from fellow scientists and I can also take questions from any cancer specialists, doctors or other informed parties who take an educated interest in such matters.

Approach and method

One type of biological agent and 3 types of drugs are utilised in 2 distinct treatment phases, perhaps with an intermission between phase 1 and phase 2 of the treatment to review that the goals of phase 1 treatment have been reached before moving on to phase 2.

Treatment Phase 1

It is proposed that phase 1 use a mild anaerobic biological agent (with the suggestion that this is mostly likely to be a selection of a mild, treatable, non-drug-resistant anaerobic bacteria, sourced from a well-characterised laboratory specimen) with which the cancer patient is purposefully infected and 1 type of drug, matched to be a known effective treatment capable in high doses of eliminating the selected bio-agent from the body or in small doses to moderate the intensity of the infection.

During phase 1 treatment, after purposeful infection with the known mild anaerobic bio-agent, the anti-bio-agent drug is administered but only sufficiently to moderate and limit the intensity and systemic effects of the intended mild infection on the patient yet not overly administered to the point that the bio-agent is destroyed in-vivo before it has it has completed the designed treatment objectives of phase 1 treatment.

In phase 1 of treatment, the expectation would be that the patient’s own immune response will be fighting the bio-agent and so the course of the infection must be monitored and bio-agent and drug doses continuously adjusted to maintain a mild infection.

The objectives of phase 1 treatment

The bio-agent is selected with intention that the infection should establish itself in any anaerobic cores of cancer tumours and be supervised there while the infection attacks and in due course kills those cancerous body cells in any and all anaerobic tumour cores in the patient’s body.

The mild anaerobic bio-agent is selected and managed in-vivo so that it cannot be active, only dormant, in most of the aerobic environments of the body which are routinely supplied with oxygen via the blood, and so an appropriate selection and controlled bio-agent should not harm typical body cells so long as the infection is constrained to be mild with limited systemic effects on the body.

The selected bio-agent is not intended to harm those cancer cells which are growing and dividing in an aerobic environment whether in peripheral parts of all tumours or in aerobic tumour cores which are have grown their own blood supply vessels.

The dangers of a failed phase 1 treatment

Too much bio-agent

Inappropriate selection of a drug-resistant bio-agent, neglecting to moderate the intensity of the infection with sufficient drugs or a patient’s weak immune system failing to eliminate the infection at the conclusion of phase 1 of treatment could lead to a run-away infection causing serious and life-threatening infection or death.

Too little bio-agent

Administering insufficient bio-agent, over-use of drugs or a particularly active immune system could lead to the bio-agent failing to establish itself in all anaerobic tumour cores and a failed attempted phase 1 treatment leaving viable anaerobic tumour cores which would inevitably wreck the hopes for a successful outcome to any attempted phase 2 treatment.

Treatment phase 2

It is proposed that two types of pharmaceutical drug are employed in phase 2 treatment and let’s call them type H drugs (“H” for “Halt cell division!” ) and Type K drugs (“K” for “Kill diving cells”).

Type H drugs – Halt cell division!

Type H drugs are the author’s own name for a class of drugs examples of which are used in medicine and biological science and commonly referred to variously as “growth factor blockers”, “growth factor receptor blockers”, “growth factor inhibitors” or “growth factor receptor inhibitors” and possibly other names as well.

Those drugs are designed to target cell growth factor receptors and interfere with growth factors activating growth factor receptors to prompt growth in cells.

A traditional approach in oncology is to attempt to use those drugs directly against cancer cells to try to modify their aberrant excessive growth behaviour. That is not the new approach explained here which is rather to use those growth factor blocker drugs against the growth behaviour of normal cells.

Type H drugs (“H” stands for for “Halt cell division!”) utilise and are intended temporarily to saturate the normal cell-signalling pathways which instruct normal cells not to divide. Normal cells with the exception of cancer cells pay heed to such cell to cell signals and it is one of the defining characteristic of many cancers that cancer cells ignore such signals not to divide and keep on dividing regardless.

The purpose of administering type H drugs is temporarily to overload the normal signals and order an artificial system-wide cessation of all normal cell division in the body. Accordingly, normal cells which frequently divide – skin cells, intestinal wall cells, immune response cells, bone marrow cells, reproductive organ cells etc are tricked into stopping dividing temporarily, so long as the type H drug is administered.

Type H drugs operate in a pharmaceutically reversible way and when the type H drugs clear from the body then the normal body cells which have dutifully followed the artificial signals and temporarily ceased dividing then go back to their normal operation without any permanent damage to the cell.

Clearly, the administration of type H drugs weakens the body systematically which depends on routine cell division and for so long as type H remains in-vivo then harm to the body’s health will accumulate.

Type H drugs don’t do the body any good on their own. Not only that, but for the purpose of treating cancer, type H drugs aren’t intended to do anything significant directly to those cancer cells which are pretty much oblivious to the cell signalling pathways which type H drugs are designed to stimulate.

Mechanism of action of type H drugs

Specifically the mechanisms behind the cessation of general cell division which the type H drugs must target are those which usually control cellular division of cells.

The type H drugs work by interfering with the control mechanisms which the body uses to stimulate or start cell division at certain times and under certain conditions and to suppress or stop cell division at other times and that interference would be designed to jam the control mechanism so as to stop cell division so long as the drug is in the body.

Many types of cancer cells divide regardless of the body’s control mechanisms – such cancer cell division isn’t started selectively so it can’t be stopped either naturally by the body’s control mechanisms and sometimes even artificially by pharmaceutical drugs

Growth factor mechanisms would be suitable targets for targeting by the type H drugs.

So for example, typical normal cells will wait for the appropriate growth factor to attach itself to the corresponding growth factor receptor on the cell’s surface before initiating cell division.

Many types of cancer have cancer cells which will divide regardless of whether there is the appropriate growth factor attached to the cancer cell’s corresponding growth factor receptor or not.

One obvious approach the drug developer could take would be to design a type H drug which mimics a growth factor receptor’s shape and thus will selectively bind to the corresponding growth factor. If there is a lot more of the type H drug in the extra cellular fluid than there are cell growth factor receptors then the growth factor would be mopped up and leave none free in the extra cellular fluid to be available to bind to the cells’ growth factor receptors, thus preventing normal cell growth from being initiated.

A similar approach to date more commonly adopted with blocker-type drugs would be to design a growth factor receptor blocker / inhibitor drug which partially binds to target cell growth factor receptors, not bound accurately enough to activate the cell growth factor receptor function, but sufficiently bound to block growth factor binding to the growth factor receptors.

Whatever the precise mechanism of interference of the type H drug with the growth factor mechanism we can name such type H drugs as “growth factor blockers” or “growth factor inhibitors“.

Type K drugs – Kill dividing cells

In order to understand the utility of type H drugs one has to consider their medical use in conjunction with type K (K stands for “Kill dividing cells”) drugs.

Type K drugs are the author’s name for a class of drugs which are well known to medical science. They are the traditional chemotherapy drugs which have long been used to try to treat cancer by killing dividing cancer cells but the problem with those old drugs is that they tend to kill all dividing cells, not just cancer cells and so have very severe side-effects which can make the patient very ill, very quickly.

OK, well the smarter reader will see by now where we are going with type H drugs. After administration of type H drugs which hopefully succeed in suspending normal cell division without significantly affecting cancer cell division, the administration of the type K drugs is now “a no-brainer”! That is to say, the remaining task for type K drugs becomes a relatively trivial task to accomplish with no undesirable side-effects.

The dividing cancer cells alone should get killed by the type K drugs. The normally dividing cells don’t get killed by the type K drugs because they are no longer dividing thanks to the administration of the type H drugs.

After the dividing cancer cells have died all that remains to be done is to clear the type K drugs from the body while the type H drugs are still in operation. Then later it is safe to discontinue the type H drugs at which point the body will resume normal cell division, free from cancer!

Limitations of phase 2 treatments

One limitation of the simple approach in phase 2 of shutting down all normal cell division in the body would be with those cancer types which are cancerous not so much because the cancer cells divide abnormally but because the cancer cells don’t die or undergo programmed cell death called “apoptosis” normally and are abnormally immortal.

Such normally dividing but abnormally immortal cells would cease dividing if an all-body-tissue type H drugs dose was given and so such cancers wouldn’t be killed by the type K drugs and such a broad-brush approach wouldn’t achieve the cure in phase 2, only the benefits of the treatment in phase 1.

However, it has recently occurred to me that there is still a prospect for a more customised version of my approach offering an admittedly less-than-ideal phase 2 treatment option even against many such normally-dividing abnormally-immortal cancers where the type H drugs comprise of a mixture of different type H drugs, one such type H drug for each tissue type of cell growth factor which needs to be blocked.

To beat the cancer of cells from tissue type X in a normally-dividing abnormally-immortal cell cancers, you’d omit the specific type H drug for the tissue type X growth factor from the type H drugs dose given to that patient and simply intend to kill all dividing cells of tissue type X, which would certainly cause major damage to tissue of type X but maybe in some cases that is a price worth paying to beat the cancer? It’s more of a useful treatment option where medicine can offer an artificial or transplant option to replace damaged tissue of type X, or restore the lost function, as required.

For those remaining stubbornly phase-2-insenstive or intractable cancers, a phase 1 only approach can partially treat tumours while never managing permanently to cure the patient and so a series of phase 1 treatments could be used to achieve a series of remissions of the disease.

With a phase-1-only approach it may be observed in some cases that a permanent cure is fortuitously happened upon because the patient’s immune system is alerted by a phase 1 treatment to learn to identify the cancer cells and to eliminate them naturally in future.

The dangers of a failed phase 2 treatment

The patient will be rendered vulnerable to infectious disease because of the predictable effect of the Type H drug which will prevent parts of the immune system from responding to infections. Worse case of course is that an opportunist infection may kill the patient.

If the Type H drug is not as effective as intended, if the dose is too low, if it is too quickly cleared from the body then the Type K drug will kill normally dividing body cells as well which cripple multiple body functions which depend on dividing cells and worst case kill the patient.

Without a successful phase 1 treatment which has previously killed anaerobic tumour cores, phase 2 treatment will only kill cancer cells dividing in aerobic environments leaving any and all remaining viable anaerobic tumour cores to provide an inexhaustible supply of cancer cells into the aerobic parts of the body. Phase 2 on its own cannot cure cancer; only after a successful phase 1 can it do that.

Conclusion

Sourcing all the type H drugs required for this approach is the biggest unknown at this point but I’d be hopeful that this approach could treat a very large number of cancers indeed, though I would never claim to be able to cure “all” cancers with this approach.

Conceptually, this would seem to be an excellent scientific approach and method for the cure of tumorous cancers.

Credits

Thank you to all those from whom I have learned so much.

Dedication

This cure for cancer paper is dedicated to my mother who lives still and to the memory of all my friends and relatives who have died from cancer for whom this cure is too little and too late.

This cure for cancer paper is also dedicated to Condoleezza Rice who has inspired me to understand that I may not be able to control my circumstances as a scientist without employment as such but I can control how I react to my circumstances. Condi’s mother also died from cancer and she has participated in Race for the Cure events.

Condoleezza Rice speaking at a “Race for the cure” event.

Prizes.

I do not want the Nobel Prize for Medicine or indeed any Nobel prize so long as Sweden remains governed as a kingdom. I want nothing from the Swedish King nor from any King nor Queen.

I am a republican and only wish to receive prizes, awards or recognition while living or posthumously from republics or at least from non “royal” institutions which find themselves in the unfortunate circumstance of operating as I do inside a country currently governed as a kingdom.

Author’s glossary

Anti-bio-agent drug – an antibiotic drug selected to be used to moderate or to kill a particular bio-agent as and when desired

Bio-agent – a live micro-organism used as an agent to achieve some useful purpose

Type H drug – a growth factor receptor inhibitor drug used in a dose sufficient only to HALT the growth of normal cells but no more, with the intent of allowing cancer cell growth not to be inhibited preparatory to the use of a type K drug

Type K drug – a cytotoxic antineoplastic chemotherapy drug used to KILL dividing cells especially dividing cancer cells while a type H drug inhibits normal cells from dividing

Some relevant links on Wikipedia

Management of cancer

Clostridium novyi-NT – Potential Therapeutic Uses in Cancers

Obligate anaerobe

Antimicrobial

Hormonal therapy (oncology)

Growth factor receptor inhibitor

Chemotherapy

Targeted therapy

The restriction point in cancer

Synergy

My approach offers a better cure by using various drugs and methods in a synergistic way, each making up for the short-fall of the other.

I’d like to review the drawbacks of existing anti-cancer methods and drugs in a simple way and identify how my approach gets around that drawback

Bacterial treatments

Drawback when used in isolation – bacterial treatments cannot be relied upon to kill oxygenated, active cancer cells

Solution in my approach – the phase 2 treatment kills those oxygenated active cancer cells

Traditional chemotherapy using cytotoxic antineoplastic drugs

Drawback when used in isolation – chemo doesn’t kill hypoxic tumour cores meaning that the cancer can come back later & they have serious side-effects and a long recovery period

Solution in my approach – phase 1 kills hypoxic tumour cores so the cancer cannot come back & the side-effects of these drugs used as type K drugs are diminished and the recovery period shorter thanks to the type H drugs

Growth factor inhibitors

Drawback when used in isolation – they only work on some cancers and even then, they don’t kill the cancer cells so the patient has to live life on that medication to stop the cancer growing

Solution in my approach – used as type H drugs, they can protect a tissue or cell type from being killed by chemotherapy; the more type H drugs we can source, the more tissue or cell types can be protected and the patient only needs to take them during the chemo session never after.

Comments

You are invited to informed discussion of my science paper in the For Freedom Forums, for bravehearted debate at this link – My “Eureka” moment. A cure for cancer

Note: Please don’t waste your time trying to comment in this preview blog, it won’t appear. The For Freedom Forums is the place to discuss this. See you there.

.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Afghanistan roadside bomb kills three Scottish soldiers

Future posts in the “Afghanistan” category will be posted in the AfPak Mission war on terror strategy blog at afpakmission.wordpress.com.

 

Road-side bombs again guys and it’s an attack that works for the Taliban just because we haven’t secured the few main highways we must use by building a secure perimeter around the road – barbed wire, guard posts, minefields – and thereby keeping the enemy far away from the road at all times.

Instead, our generals have for years stuck with the same old bad patrolling plan and so the enemy just watches the road and after one patrol has passed and before the next patrol arrives, the enemy times it correctly to sneak up to the road and lay their road-side bombs.

The enemy can sneak up to the road so easily because they don’t have to cross a minefield, they don’t have to penetrate barbed wire and there isn’t guard posts with guards with machine guns watching over the land either side of the road 24/7, defending the approaches to the road the whole length of the road.

Then the next patrol or some other vehicle later on comes along the road and gets blown up by the road-side bomb we failed to stop the enemy planting in the first place.

BBC: Afghanistan roadside bomb kills three British soldiers

Three British soldiers have died in Afghanistan after their armoured vehicle was hit by a roadside bomb in Helmand, the Ministry of Defence said.

The soldiers were from the Royal Highland Fusiliers, the 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland. Next of kin have been informed.

Six other soldiers were also injured after the bomb blast on Tuesday.

The soldiers were travelling in the heavily armoured Mastiff vehicle on a routine patrol in the district of Nahr-e Saraj when the blast happened.

Image

Here’s what my solution to create a secure perimeter for the supply roads might look like.

Image

Image

Can you see how that brings the road “inside the wire”? That’s a plan that could work to keep the main highways safe to use.

Mine is not a plan for the small side-roads far away from the highways. We don’t have to use these side-roads to supply our main bases. We should only have our main bases next to the main supply roads. We should not have isolated bases which are difficult to supply. We need to abandon those isolated bases in bandit territory and fight the enemy there using air-power, aerial bombing, drones, attack helicopters, airborne raids and so on. There’s no need to drive to those out-of-the-way hideouts the enemy has.

Read Peter Dow’s Secure supply routes plan in full in the topic Military strategy against the Taliban in Afghanistan & Pakistan in the Republican Intelligence forum.

Leave a comment

Filed under Afghanistan

The Qunt’s Referendum Shite in Scotland forum

Previewing the forum description of The Qunt’s Referendum Shite in Scotland forum 

Should Scotland be an independent country? Discuss the royalist SNP’s referendum, planned for September 18, 2014.

Salmond’s shite white paper of 2009 dictated that however Scots vote in this referendum, YES or NO, the abusive misrule of the judges and ministers of the Cunt Queen Elizabeth (the Qunt) is to carry on regardless.

The Queen’s YES-Scotland and Better-Together contemptible media campaigns both seek support for independent Queen’s kingdoms (Scotland or the UK) but with dependent, subjugated peoples.

Discuss how we can secure real national independence by establishing republics and electing presidents to replace the monarchy.

Click here to visit The Qunt’s Referendum Shite in Scotland forum 

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Malala Yousafzai & girls’ education VS the Taliban & other jihadi terrorists

2 videos, one from 3 months ago when Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head for defending the rights of girls’ education in Pakistan, the other from this week as British surgeons in Birmingham prepare to perform reconstructive surgery on Malala.

Malala Yousufzai – Free Pakistan – Kill the Taliban

Malala Yousafzai – getting better every day

The first part of this 2nd video is a Sky News report detailing the scheduled reconstructive surgery planned to be carried out on Malala Yousafzai at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, England.

A titanium plate is to be fitted to Malala’s skull and a cochlear implant to help her recover hearing in her left ear.

The second part of the video is news footage of Malala set to the music “It’s getting better” sung by Cass Elliot.

The video concludes with the following end message from me Peter Dow for my AfPakMission channel video as follows.

We love Malala.
We hate the Taliban.
We are the good people.
The Taliban are evil.

The good people of Pakistan and all the world wish Malala
to get better every day.
Our military should kill every Taliban and help the world
to get better every day.

First the victory prize by wiping out the Taliban.

Then there will be peace
and time for peace prizes.
We have a war to win first.

Malala Yousafzai Announces Malala Fund to Support Girls’ Access to Education

Support the Malala Fund | Vital Voices

Malala Yousafzai speaking after surgery in England

Malala Yousafzai speaking to her consultant after surgery to reconstruct her skull and to implant a hearing device.

Link to a topic in the Republican Intelligence forum in the For Freedom Forums –

Military strategy against the Taliban in Afghanistan & Pakistan

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Persecuted scientist Peter Dow at the British Science Festival, Aberdeen

I made an appearance around the “ENERGISING MINDS” British Science Festival, 2012, Aberdeen with my “persecuted scientist” board, seen here.

Image

The expanded polystyrene, which had been packing from a LCD monitor box, made a light stiff board to stick my paper on. The message was just hand-written but it seemed to do the job OK.

The board message just says –

PETER DOW
persecuted
scientist

FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER

@peterdow 

I couldn’t attend any of the British Science Festival events not being welcome on the university premises by the local powers-that-be but I was able to display my board on the public street around the University of Aberdeen, Old Aberdeen campus.

So it was very nice to speak to a few of my fellow scientists in person after being excluded from university all these years and left to rot in isolation without a second thought like the authorities were putting out the garbage or a stray dog.

I also invite people to register a username with my For Freedom Forums.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized