text:
Q: Why comparing is working this way? I have wrote my custom comparator:
     public static Comparator<String> compareEThenEverything(){
            return (s1, s2) -> {
                if(s1.toLowerCase().startsWith("e") && s2.toLowerCase().startsWith("e"))
                return 0;
                if(s1.toLowerCase().startsWith("e")) return 1;
                return -1;
            };
        }

And I want to sort my array that all strings that starts with 'e' will be first.
By why the current comparator is working reversed ? It seems like that the word with "e" at first character is greater than word with other char, because I returning 1 - not -1?
Why is this happens ?

A: 1 means that the first argument is greater than the second argument and since the default order is increasing then yes anything starting with e will come last, so what you need is to swap -1, 1:
public static Comparator<String> compareEThenEverything(){
    return (s1, s2) -> {
        if(s1.toLowerCase().startsWith("e"))
            return -1;
        if(s1.toLowerCase().startsWith("e") && s2.toLowerCase().startsWith("e"))
            return 0;
        return 1;
    };
}

A: As others have already pointed out, you see it "reversed" because Comparator contract works the opposite way:

Compares its two arguments for order. Returns a negative integer, zero, or a positive integer as the first argument is less than, equal to, or greater than the second.

I highly recommend you to read Comparator javadoc before going forward.

This comparator will make strings that start with 'e' always appear first.
private static final Comparator<String> E_FIRST = (s1, s2) -> {
    char s1c = s1.isEmpty() ? (char) Character.UNASSIGNED : Character.toLowerCase(s1.charAt(0));
    char s2c = s2.isEmpty() ? (char) Character.UNASSIGNED : Character.toLowerCase(s2.charAt(0));
    return s1c == 'e' ? (s1c == s2c ? 0 : -1) : s2c == 'e' ? 1 : 0;
};

Also, this implementation only checks the first character instead of converting the whole string into lowercase.
If you want other strings to be sorted as well, you can chain it with String. CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER:
E_FIRST.thenComparing(String.CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER)


The Budwig protocol is, simply, an attempt to cure all types of cancer by eating things like cottage cheese, flaxseed oil, and various fruits and vegetables. While a healthful diet is a wonderful thing, the Budwig protocol simply does not cure cancer. Thinking it will is adopting cancer quackery and turns curable cancer into an about certain death sentence.
Regrettably, I engaged in a discussion with a devoted Christian family (not people who regularly attend my church). This family had a member who had a probably curable (by scientific medicine) type of cancer, but the person with the cancer decided to reject scientific medicine and instead go with the Budwig protocol. These people then proceeded to claim that God led them to do this (He did nothing of the kind), that God had given them assurance that He was going to heal the person with the cancer, and that He had led them to embrace the Budwig protocol. They then started to explain how wonderful the Budwig method was and how it was working very well. Since I did not want other people to follow these devoted Christian people in their rejection of scientific medicine for quackery, I engaged in a written discussion over this subject. The family stated that they had been "led" by God to reject scientific medicine after watching "The Truth About Cancer," a series by a body-builder on YouTube that has received millions of views. This Youtube video series is absolutely filled with untruth about cancer and very, very little truth about cancer. The six-part series "Untruths About Cancer: 10 Common Lies Espoused by Many Unconventional "Medicine" Advocates on my website deals with many of the fallacies, lies, and distorted truths in the "Truth About Cancer" video. They eventually opted for the Budwig protocol as the unconventional "medicine" of choice to cure this precious Christian's cancer. They claimed that the Budwig protocol cured 90% of all types of cancer. The only "proof" given for this 90% figure was the incredibly unscientific video linked to here (warning: do not believe what this video says).
I hope that you have solid, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials proving that what you are doing cures cancer 90% of the time without side effects. It would be such incredibly good news. Some of the things stated give cause for concern, however. For example, the idea that the person who developed the Budwig protocol was nominated for a Nobel Prize and would have gotten it had he been willing to also use conventional scientific medicine. As far as I know, the discussions of the Nobel Committee are kept secret for 50 years, so nobody knows what they said, and anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Prize; I could nominate you for a Nobel Prize in physics if I wanted to. Are we sure that these statements about the Budwig Protocol are accurate? How did we get in on the secret discussions of the Nobel committee? Also, eating healthfully is a wonderful, wonderful thing to do, but is there a rational scientific basis for concluding that if we eat berries, cottage cheese, etc., that our bodies will start to identify cancer cells as foreign and kill them? Has this been tested the same way that conventional scientific medicine goes through rigorous testing and been found to be true? Has it been verified for the specific type of cancer that is in view here? I also wonder why non-profit organizations that would love to see cancer defeated like the American Cancer Society do not recognize that simply eating these types of food will cure 90% of cancer--if they really do.
Of course, with so much at stake in this--the very life of your dearly beloved other half--I would think that you have examined the medical journals, verified that placebo-controlled testing has taken place, looked at comprehensive reviews of multiple well-designed clinical trials, etc.
The only reasons that I am writing is because if these things are not factually accurate, other people who get cancer could, out of their great respect for you as a godly, sincere, and knowledgable Christian, conclude that they should forsake medicine scientifically proven to have the best chance of working, according to the vast majority of scientists. It would be a terrible thing if we unintentionally led others among God's people to an early death by promoting to them things that do not work. I know several people who have rejected conventional medicine for things that did not have proof, and they are all dead now, even if they had types of cancer that had a very high chance of cure through conventional science. I can think of one situation where the death of a godly woman now leaves a probably unsaved man raising their many children because of a rejection of scientific medicine. I, at least personally, do not know a single person who clearly had a proven type of cancer who lived significantly longer through unconventional medicine than what was plausible if that person had just done nothing at all / had a placebo effect.
The second reason of concern is that we have stated that God has convinced us that this cancer is going to be cured. If we haven't done the work to be sure that there are plausible, rational scientific explanations for why what we are doing cures cancer, and there isn't clear evidence of it based on unbiased clinical trials, then if we are doing something that does not work, and then something that is very sad for us takes place and your precious one with cancer goes to be with the Lord, then I am concerned about the honor of God's glorious name when we have said that this person was going to be healed.
I am sure that this is a very sensitive subject, and I cannot think of much else that could possibly touch closer to home. I thought that love for God, whose Name is at stake if we say that He is going to heal as we use means that we have said cure 90% of cancer, and love for the brethren, whose future lives may be at stake based on what we say, and love for you and your family, required me to write this letter, which I would much rather not have written.
I would be interested in seeing what you had put together in response to articles such as that one before you decided to go with Budwig, etc.
Perhaps I could be directed to the published scientific material on this that you examined, and the resources from published, independently verified trials are mentioned that you looked up and verified for yourself.
Obviously also, cancer cells are our own body's cells where the mechanism that causes the cells to stop dividing has failed. I would be interested in knowing the scientific explanation for how eating the types of food recommended in the Budwig protocol makes our body start recognizing the cancer cells and deciding to kill them instead of not recognizing them as dangerous because they are our own cells. I have taken some college biology, etc. so I think I would be able to understand the cellular explanation. Why does eating cottage cheese, when that substance is digested, make a macrophage or some other white blood cell recognize a cancer cell as foreign when it has all of our own body's identifying markers (as it is our own body's cell with certain non-replicative functions disabled)?
In relation to your ozone treatments, it is true, of course, that ozone in a high enough concentration will kill cancer cells, for ozone is a dangerous pollutant that will kill any cell in our body in a high enough concentration. Ozone in a high enough concentration in our blood stream to kill cancer cells would also kill the red blood cells and so on.
Anyway, the published clinical trials that are independently verified about the 90% cure rate would be of definite interest; I would also be interested in your response to the web article referenced above.
Thanks again for sending the video on the Budwig protocol. I had the following thoughts.
1.) The video is filled with bad, incorrect grammar, painfully so, throughout the entire work. We are supposed to believe that this video provides proof of a cure for all types of cancer, although it provides no substantiation for its claims. It is so sloppy that it cannot even take the time to learn how to avoid basic grammar mistakes that a well-trained middle school student at a Christian school would notice. Should we trust it with our lives?
2.) It claimed a "90% documented success rate," but did not define "success," nor provide any real medical evidence. This is why we should never trust YouTube with anything as important as our lives or the lives of those whom we love. Why not cite real evidence from peer-reviewed scientific journals such as at PubMed?
3.) It also provided no documentation for the "7 times Nobel Prize Nominee" claim.
4.) It claimed the Budwig protocol was "effective in all type [sic] of cancer." There are many different types of diseases that go under the rubric of "cancer" with many different causes. There is no one cure for "all type [sic] of cancer." Are we supposed to trust the unsubstantiated claims of this video with our lives or the lives of loved ones when the video does not even contain proper English?
5.) The video is filled with egregious scientific errors and failures to understand science. It would take pages to describe them all. I believe that a discussion of this video with any family practitioner trained in scientific medicine, that is, with an M. D., would be able to point out huge numbers of errors. For example, 4 minutes in the video claims that Ms. Budwig discovered a "yellow green" substance in an (unspecified) number of patients in an (unspecified) location at an (unspecified) time. The video does not state what this substance is. Wouldn't that be kind of important? It then states that these (unspecified) patients began to improve after three months, and thus "Dr. Budwig had found her cure for cancer"! Anything can happen to someone for three months. Real science employs repeatable trials with much larger numbers of people over a much longer periods of time with much better documentation, rather than claiming a cure for all types of cancer based on what allegedly happened to unspecified people in an unrepeatable setting for three months based on an unspecified and mysterious "yellow green" substance. Another example—the video claims that sauerkraut is "full of enzymes" (7:55) that allegedly help to cure cancer, but the video does not mention the fact that our stomach digests and breaks down all enzymes that we eat and then our bodies make their own enzymes, so it does not matter if sauerkraut has enzymes. At 8:55, the video claims that Muesli has "high energy electrons" that "attract . . . healing photons from sun [sic]." That type of food has no more high energy electrons than any other type of food, and electrons do not attract photons, much less "healing photons from ["the" missing] sun," whatever "healing photons" supposedly are. A single class in undergraduate chemistry or physics would make this claim clearly appear to be nonsense. Furthermore, "sugar is absolutely forbidden" (16:45), but then honey and various other things that have exactly the same chemical compounds as table sugar are permitted.
6.) 8 minutes in the video claims that clinical studies have regularly confirmed this allegedly 90% cure rate for all types of cancer by eating cottage cheese, being in the sun, and so on. Why doesn't it cite even one of them, then?
7.) The statement of what allegedly causes the Budwig protocol to work at 15:23 is simply utter scientific nonsense. If she actually wrote it, then she also cannot even write simple English grammar, and the science of this affirmation is worse and far more dangerous than the grammar.
8.) At 15:58 the fact that Ms. Budwig "favors homeopathy" as a cure for disease should be a dead giveaway that her "cancer cure" is fraudulent. Homeopathy is drinking water—nothing but water, as it is so dilute that not a single molecule of anything else is in most homeopathic "treatments." See http://faithsaves.net/medicine/. Anyone who thinks homeopathy does a single positive thing has no understanding of science or medicine.
I am sorry that I have to draw this conclusion from the video. If we follow the recommendations of this video, we should conclude that we are not more likely to be cured of cancer than if we do nothing at all. God can heal against means, but 99%+ of the time He uses means. The recommendations of this video are a placebo "treatment" for cancer. The video is a clear example of why we must not trust YouTube instead of scientific medical professionals and scientifically validated and proven medicine to treat life-threatening disease. I would be very fearful to promote the "cure" for cancer mentioned in this video by Ms. Budwig to thousands of saints of God, knowing that out of love and respect for us they may adopt this placebo "treatment" when they are in a bad spot and could die instead of being cured of cancer.
I am sorry if my comments come across as harsh. That is not my intention. This is a matter of life or death, potentially for many of the people of God who can follow our example. Otherwise it would not be so important.
You also sent me a second Youtube video, "How Shannon beat Stage 4 breast cancer." Warning: do not believe what this video says. The following thoughts came to me in relation to this video.
1.) If what Shannon is saying is accurate, the hospital she went to had very poorly trained workers. Also, getting her medical records is a great idea, and I'm all for it.
2.) There is no way to know or verify what she is saying actually happened to her. She says in the video that she had extensive radiation treatment and also drank juices and so on. She says it was not the radiation that helped with the cancer but the juices and other unconventional remedies, but all we have is her unsubstantiated word on that.
3.) Before scientific medicine makes claims, it goes through rigorous testing, something like: "80% of patients with stage III breast cancer lived 10 years or more after receiving treatment X, while only 10% lived 10 years or more when they did not, while all other treatment features were the same, verified for 10,000 people over a 20 year study." What one person says happened to her is not a wise way to judge something that can put our life at stake. Before getting on an airplane, we would want to know that the engine prototype has been rigorously and extensively tested, that the plane wings have been rigorously tested, etc. We would not want one person to say, "Yep, I flew in it and it worked for me for a while." Why would we do this with cancer treatments when we don't do it with airplanes?
4.) She claims that it has been three years since she was allegedly cured by doing all the stuff she was doing. Cancer cure claims are not made for three year time periods--it is too short. How do we know she has no cancer?
5.) She seems like a nice lady, but anyone can put anything on Youtube. I can make a Youtube video where I interview my wife and we both say that we had stage 4 cancer and were cured by singing carols to the full moon. We don't even have verification that this lady had cancer. I'm not saying that she didn't, but that we can't base anything on Youtube.
6.) She does not appear to have her facts very straight; she claimed, for example that cancer in the lymph nodes is by definition stage III, when it could be stage II, not stage III. Do we know that she even can tell what the four stages are, and if not, can we trust her that she had stage four cancer?
7.) Among all the unconventional remedies she proposes, she does not push the Budwig protocol, which the other video claimed, without proof, to have a 90% cure rate. If the Budwig protocol really has a 90% cure rate, why push all these other things? Are they all better than 90%?
8.) She claims that cancer can be caused by things like having one's pet die and feeling sad. She said that she was robbed and that was a big part of why she got cancer. Is there evidence that people who have pets die and feel sad get cancer because of that? Does she have evidence that getting robbed and so on results in one getting cancer? The video even said people can get cancer because they get divorced. Divorce causes cancer? The video said feeling shame causes cancer. So listening to convicting preaching from the Bible that leads to people feeling ashamed of their sins causes cancer? Is there evidence for this? Is this real science or crazy quackery?
9.) She talked a lot about the immune system, but never specified how doing what she recommends makes the body identify cancer cells as foreign. For example, when we develop antibodies to, say, one strain of the common cold, the antibodies attach to the foreign cells and then the macrophages, etc. destroy them. Cancer cells are our own body's cells that have begun to multiply out of control. Our immune system does not recognize them as foreign because they are not foreign. Why doesn't she specify exactly how what she is recommending leads to our body recognizing cancer cells as foreign if it actually works?
after another Christian opted to reject scientific medicine and went to the Oasis of Hope unconventional medical clinic in Mexico. (The person is now dead, not having lived any longer than if nothing at all had been done, although the Mexican clinic now has the family's inheritance, not the heirs.) Based on the link above, should we trust clinics in Mexico?
The cancer "treatments" promoted in the video do not cure cancer.
14.) The video even said that doing what she did cures HIV as well as cancer. Does she really have evidence for this also? Why doesn't she do real clinical trials in countries where there are people dropping dead right and left from HIV? Couldn't the multi-billion dollar unconventional treatment industry fund a few well-designed clinical trials in, say, sub-Saharan Africa and prove that everyone is cured of HIV by drinking juice and so on?
15.) She claims that doctors know nothing about nutrition, but a survey of the 126 accredited medical schools in the USA revealed that the overwhelming majority did teach nutrition, although some did not do as much as could be desired. There is a huge difference between some doctors not taking as many courses in nutrition as would be ideal and saying that doctors receive no training in nutrition. The former is true, the latter totally false.
16.) Near the end of the video, horrible statements were made claiming that we cannot make our decisions based on statistics about cures from different types of scientific, verified studies. The affirmation was made that all of these were doctored and faked statistics. Does she have proof of this? There are actually strong safeguards in place to watch against what the video says is the case for all scientific cancer studies. We are allegedly, then, just to do what we feel will work and reject scientific studies of what works because all the science is allegedly corrupt. This rejection of scientific clinical trials is very dangerous and she should have very, very powerful evidence that thousands and thousands of trials, in thousands of places, with thousands and thousands of medical professionals, with all sorts of contradictory vested interests, in both for-profit settings, non-profit settings, and competing educational institutions, and so on, are all conspiring to corrupt all the trials that they are doing. Is this really possible? Why doesn't she produce proof of it instead of mere assertions?
d.) Contradictory ideas to the Budwig video, unless all the other ideas promoted in this video do better then 90% at curing all kinds of cancer. What is actually recommended here does not agree with what is actually recommended in the other video. The only thing they agree on is to reject scientific medical treatments. Could all these other ideas all be equally promoted as an alternative because all of them are no better or minimally better than a placebo, and none of them have any real evidence for them?
I'm sure we both agree that if we are commending treatments to thousands of God's saints, recognizing that they might adopt our recommendations when they get cancer, we should be very, very sure that we are promoting what is true, so that the people of God will live and not die early. We do not want people to die because they have received placebos when they forsook proven science and adopted unconventional remedies for cancer.
Unfortunately, the family to whom I sent these communications did not listen, but continued to promote the Budwig protocol to vast numbers of people and gave testimony about how great it was--at least for a little while, about as long as one would be OK having cancer and doing nothing at all or following a placebo "treatment." Then the precious and devoted Christian who had the type of cancer that was probably curable by scientific medicine died, not having lived any longer than one could live with nothing but a placebo.
The Budwig video's lie about curing 90% of all cancers remains on Youtube, of course, as do the other videos that these poor deluded Christians placed their trust in and promoted to many, many others. The death toll will, doubtless, continue to rise even higher among those who continue to trust YouTube videos with their lives and reject scientific medicine based on the Biblical scientific method (Genesis 1:26-28) in favor of quackery.
Whatever your state--whether you have cancer or not--please read Do You Know You Have Eternal Life? by clicking here.
And science has also 'proven' that global warming and evolution are facts. It is so sad to see you put so much weight on corrupt science, and big Pharma funded university studies. Chemo and radiation are a multi-billion dollar revenue for pharma. And they are killers for many many people. As a Christian, open your eyes to the desperate condition of the western world's health (caused by our food supply choices) and the devil's place in it. Here is a very simple statistic for you. If you get 6 CAT scans (radiation) in your lifetime, you are 6 times more likely to get cancer. You lambaste honest Christian folks for trying to go an alternate route than the big cancer machine. Have grace and let people decide what they want to do with their own lives.
Since we rejected the western diet, as a family, we realize how much better our minds function, and how much we were finding our satisfaction in food (processed food) instead of the Lord and family, etc. Eating wholesomely doesn't give the same fleshly satisfaction. I definitely see the devil's work in that regard.
All in all, they are just your own bias opinions. Not well researched, but simply your own opinion, just like the stupid judge that rerejectedTrump's executive order.
I trust that you have this evidence and that is why you said that my post is "just your own bias [sic] opinions."
I trust that you are also aware that CAT scans are not designed to get rid of cancer but to identify where it is in the body, and that medical science recognizes that one should not have unnecessary CAT scans--all of which is totally irrelevant to the Budwig Protocol.
KJB is illogical here. He's great with red herrings. This lady did not say or imply that she had evidence that Budwig is always good, but she did imply that TDR did not have evidence that it should never be used. It's his opinion - No one who's studied theory of knowledge could deny that.
Tell me, if in, say, 1750 one developed a malignancy, what should they have done for treatment? What does TDR think would have been Biblically allowed? If one heard of three herbs by hearsay that were purported to cure some similar cases would that be okay or must he try a risky surgery? How about 1760, 1770, etc.? When and why exactly did it become unequivocally wrong? When did modernism get such control that it become okay for those of us who've not faced a certain disease to dogmatically hold forth on what a sufferer's treatment options should be?
As another thread put it, with admittedly tortured grammar, "People is not cars."
In 1750--or 1850--a Christian mother could have given her baby cough syrup that was chock-full of heroin--yes, heroin--and it would not have been a sin since the mother did not realize what she was doing to her child, even if he was dead in the morning. Heroin was a common ingredient in cough syrup, and there was often a lot of it in there. Now that science has progressed, it is a sin for a mother to give her baby heroin to stop him from coughing. It is unequivocally wrong to give children heroin, and it became wrong as soon as the evidence was in that heroin is a bad treatment for the cough. In 2017 it is also very clear that eating cottage cheese doesn't cure cancer, so it is unequivocally wrong for a person to kill himself or herself in violation of the 6th commandment by refusing to get real medicine for treatable cancer while trusting in the Budwig Protocol instead. It violates the teaching of James 5 that requires getting the best medicine available (see the study of James 5 here: http://faithsaves.net/medicine/). Repeating "people is [sic] not cars, people is [sic] not cars" does not change the facts nor the violation of the sixth commandment's requirement that we seek to preserve life.
Please answer questions #1-6 above if you are going to justify using the Budwig protocol to cure any type of cancer at any time, or if you refuse to do this, please explain why you don't care if the Budwig protocol works, while you have said zero words condemning it as a cancer treatment, but numbers of words condemning me for exposing it as a fraud. Also, if you refuse to answer questions #1-6, please let me know how many more people need to be dead because they believed the lie of the Budwig Protocol before answering questions #1-6 begins to matter.
I trust that you will actually answer these questions, instead of ignoring the content of my post while attacking me as "illogical," "great with red herrings," etc. If you go after me more, or refuse to answer these questions but bring up other irrelevant things, it will be tell-tale.
Knowing next to nothing about Budwig (although her book is a few steps or one library nook from where I sit), I take no position thereon. Asking one who has taken no position on a subject these sorts of questions is absurd! Must we, no matter how uninformed (i'm not asserting this means you), have an opinion on everything? That's my reason for not answering.
If you know next to nothing about the Budwig protocol, then why are you criticizing me for exposing it as a fraud?
Please answer my questions in my previous comment.
i thought I had clearly written in reference to your questions that I do not know.
Congratulations! You've stumped me on this oddball "treatment"! Ergo, everything you write is absolute truth!
"Even if genetic modification succeeds in creating a strain of rice productive enough for poor farmers to grow successfully, it's unclear how much impact the rice will have on children's health.
Meanwhile, as the development of Golden Rice creeps along, the Philippines has managed to slash the incidence of Vitamin A deficiency by non-GMO methods, Stone said."
Much of what you wrote contradicts the research of Stone and Glover. You were wrong in two instances on health! Will you correct? Should you be trusted that Budwig never works? Let the reader judge!
So, to be clear, in a post on the Budwig Protocol you have provided not a cintilla of evidence that it does anything at all to stop cancer, but you have attacked me for saying that one should not use the Budwig Protocol to stop cancer, and you have refused to say that one should not use it to stop cancer. Instead, you have defended it in the best way someone who has no evidence at all that it works can--by attacking me, the messenger.
Instead of providing evidence for the Budwig Protocol, you have talked about other things that were not what the post was about--while saying I was the one doing this: "RED HERRING !!!!!"
By the way, I highly suspect that you did not read the actual study that the web link you provided summarized. Also, it does not look like you even read the webpage very carefully, as it said exactly nothing about golden rice being unsafe, much less that it should not be used. It said that rolling out the rice has not gone perfectly smoothly and research is still underway, which is something totally different. And yes, of course there are other ways to avoid malnutrition--if these people were as wealthy as people in the first world, then they could eat a balanced diet and be healthy, but they aren't in the first world. If people in the Philippines become more wealthy and can afford to buy more types of food, they will not be malnourished.
If you refuse to deal with the actual content of the post, I am not planning to reply again. So go ahead--write about something else, attack me some more, say that what I write is a "RED HERRING !!!!!" while you don't talk about what the post is actually about, and refuse to say how many more people need to die from the Budwig Protocol before you will oppose it. I probably won't reply, so here is your chance. Go ahead, attack me some more and try to stand up for the Budwig Protocol without giving any evidence for it. Just be aware that if anyone listens to you and goes with the Budwig Protocol you will have part of the responsibility for their death. Blood will be on your hands.
"Should you be trusted that Budwig never works? Let the reader judge!."
The idea that whether a medical treatment works or not is based on whether one trusts the person who puts a blog post together is total nonsense. It is as silly as watching YouTube videos to figure out what cancer treatments work. Whether I am as godly as John the Baptist or whether I am an ax murderer who is secretly working with the Taliban (or perhaps, to go with the conspiratorial mindset of so many people who reject scientific medicine, if I am part of the Big Pharma Conspiracy that somehow all the unconventional medical people know about but about which the hard evidence just does not materialize, and am making millions in bribes in order to make people not eat cottage cheese and so suppress their supposed "healing photons" and thus cause them to die of cancer) does not change the fact that there is no evidence that the Budwig Protocol works. Of course you should not trust me about whether or not the Budwig Protocol works. The fact simply is that there is no evidence--evidence--that it works, and that is what matters, not whether I am as godly as the Apostle John or as evil as Hitler. Trust the evidence. That's the scientific method that is a necessary consequence of the Dominion Mandate in Genesis 1.
There, Paul, I'm done. Go ahead and attack me some more. Put in some more all caps and exclamation points. I probably won't reply unless you present real, concrete evidence for the Budwig Protocol and actually answer my questions.
50 years ago, one in sixteen people got cancer. Currently one in three people will get cancer in their lifetime. Out of those that do get cancer, two out of three will be dead in 5 years or less. Our food is what gives us cancer, and our food can prevent and reverse cancer. Chemo drugs provide big Pharma 7 billion in revenue per year, while all cancer drugs together total 50 Billion in revenue. The AMA lobbied to make it a felony for a physician to prescribe anything other than pharmaceutical drugs. They have systematically outlawed most natural remedies used for centuries by traditional people groups, In the guise of 'protecting' the masses. Protecting their profits, more like it, as nature's (God's) remedies don't cost $70,000. So before you slash, burn, or poison yourself, do not be afraid to educate youself on remedies that many thousands have used and many hundreds have fought to try and keep them available. Get off the North American Cancer diet. You owe it to youself, your family, and to God to stay healthy as long as you can to preach the gospel. Cancer patients die by the droves. I just spoke with a 40 something man the other day. He had had lymphoma, which he said he was healed from through chemo. Unfortunately for him, he also said he got all the side effects from the chemo that they said he might get. Diabetes, high blood pressure, allergies, exzema, and overall ill health. Thank God we have options and information and folks willing to stand against such a lucrative killing machine. Budwig is a start and clearly there is FAR more to it than cottage cheese. Shame on you, Mr Brandenburg for being a part of the fear-mongering big pharma machine, and for trying to make honest folks feel stupid for trying to heal themselves naturally.
Your stats are not accurate, but it is true that in, say, 1900 fewer people as a percentage of the population died of cancer--they died of things like polio that we now have vaccines for (developed by pharmaceutical companies--what a blessing). When infant and child mortality was much higher people did not live long enough to die of cancer.
I trust that you have this evidence and that is why you said that my post is "just your own bias [sic] opinions" and now that I should be ashamed of warning people about the Budwig Protocol. Please answer these questions before talking about wild conspiracy theories. Thanks.
Sorry, can't see any initials in these posts.
Great, now someone has 1.8-2% better chance of surviving. Incredible pharma cures going on.
Shame on you Thomas Ross for being a part of the fear-mongering Big Pharma machine.
Look at the bottom of the post. TDR is Thomas D. Ross. I am KAB, Kent A. Brandenburg.
Last year was the first year that life expectancy went down in the U.S. since 1993. The biggest contributing factor IMO is poverty. However, it wasn't cancer mortality that caused life expectancy to go down. Cancer mortality is shrinking according to statistics.
An average of 2 percent per year for people ages 0 to 19.
Why are cancer rates going down?
There seems to be a reading comprehension issue here. This Paul typing this has never defended "Budwig". Never. Read it again. Not once!
Were you not the one who introduced the heroin? And I'm not allowed to point out that what you wrote is factually correct. You werent trustworthy on that subject (which,again, you introduced to this stream), yet you hold to it. So why should we believe you on "budwig"?
As to "That's the scientific method that is a necessary consequence of the Dominion Mandate in Genesis 1.", you provide no basis or foundation. Is this merely your opinion? Very dangerous idea here. Does ANY Pastor teach this? Sounds close to Bertrand Russell's positivism integrated with a Bible veneer. Maybe it's a good thing you're "done".
I have debated in my mind whether I should comment or not. I really feel compelled to comment, but after reading the other comments, I feel I may be wasting my time. Anyways, just a few of my thoughts.
I have read most of the anti-anything that isn't standard excepted medical practice articles that TDR has posted. If I didn't know better, I would conclude that modern medicine that fits his criteria is almost a god to him. I am also shocked at the callousness of his writing. I know he means well, but to confront people in this manner is more than likely not going to change the persons mind (my two cents). Where is the speech with grace that is seasoned with salt?
I have been doing some reading and research on the BUDWIG protocol. It is actually much more than just eating cottage cheese and flaxseed oil. That being said, I personally would not recommend anyone using that as their sole treatment for cancer. However, if they followed the protocol closely, they would probably see some good health benefits. This article: http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancers-in-general/cancer-questions/what-is-the-budwig-diet, concludes that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that the protocol works. Yet, if you read it closely, it does state that flaxseed alone has been proven to be beneficial in stopping some types of cancer cells in the lab! Unfortunately they have not been able to do more testing on humans yet.
TDR, the BUDWIG protocol could never go through all of the double blind, randomised tests that you are suggesting. It just wouldn't work. It is not a pill. It is not a synthesised material. ETC.
I personally recommend doing as much as one can handled with the professional medical field, but at the same time use the natural things that God has created to help heal and sustain our bodies. No matter how hard man tries, do you really believe they can improve through synthesising, the molecular structures of God's creation?
One more thing, I would really recommend refraining from making public judgment calls on people's salvation. What if that man, his family, or others read what you wrote? It could be very damaging to your credibility.
Is this some kind of pro-vaccine site? Is anyone going to say with a straight face that there is not link to the skyrocketing autism rates and vaccines?
It would actually be very easy to see if eating the Budwig Diet actually had a beneficial effect on cancer. All that would need to be done is to get, say, even 500 of the people who are trusting it with their lives to verify what stage of cancer they have, how faithfully they followed the diet, and how quickly they died (or didn't die if it works, which it does not).
In fact, if the people that prescribed it simply kept good medical records, one could get a lot of information.
The reason things like this aren't done is because the Budwig Protocol is based on a rejection of evidence. People will continue to die and be unable to serve the Lord as long as they continue to reject evidence in this manner. It is tragic.
By the way, if some people think I am horrible for writing this blog post, but even one person's life is saved by not dying of cancer, that is worthwhile.
Also, if one wants to eat a weird diet but actually does treatments for cancer that actually work, that is far better than rejecting cancer treatments that work and just eating a weird diet.
In my last comment, "factually correct" should read "factually incorrect" in that Thomas D. Ross was wrong about Mothers giving heroin to their children in 1750 or 1850.
What if one can't afford chemo? Is Budwig okay then? Dr. Ross?
Also, Dr. Ross criticizes me for all-caps ans exclamation points as if my use thereof was highlighting his red herring rather than my own. I am sorry for confusing him.
Should i also apologize for doing anything that hasn't been run through a published double-blind study? We wait for Mr. Ross.
PS If Mr. Ross has made a "public judgment call on (my) salvation", that's just sad. He should apologize. Maybe KAB should shut the comments down.
I do not think you're horrible. I believe you mean well and have "good intentions". I don't understand why you reacted like I was attacking you (i'm sorry if something i wrote led you to this. will you forgive me?) when I was just asking for evidence. You still haven't given any.
But I wonder, if there are not 500 people on Budwig, does it follow that 5 (or 3 or 1 for that matter) could not have been helped?
Why can medical science determine by objective testing that eating more dark green leafy vegetables and less red meat, and getting regular exercise, tends to reduce the onset of certain types of cancer (but does not cure cancer if one already has it), but whether or not the Budwig Protocol cures cancer is untestable? Please explain.
This site has just proven itself to be a complete and utter fraud. The pro-Big Pharma and the pro-Cancer-Industrial complex and the completely looney-tunes comments such as "vaccines don't cause autism" are just too much to even remotely take this site with a hint of credibility. But here's the rub, I don't think the owner of this site can claim to be as utterly naive as he looks. I find it hard to believe that anyone with a hint of honesty and intelligence could honesty believe this. I think this is an act. Was the owner of this site threatened in some way that he must not tell the truth about health on the site? Is it financial? Is he being paid to promote Big Pharma and the cancer-industrial complex? Anyone have any ideas?
I like some of the stuff on your site. We all know you are not below in intelligence. That's why it is such a mystery why you promote the lies you have on your site concerning vaccines being harmless and not causing autism and why you are pro big-pharma. We are sorry if someone has threatened your life if you tell the truth. Wouldn't you feel better if you didn't give in to fear and were honest with us instead? Can you at least give us a hint why you are trying to pull off this charade? It would help us better understand.
It appears you've hit the jackpot with this thread! Yikes . . .
" the BUDWIG protocol could never go through all of the double blind, randomised tests that you are suggesting. It just wouldn't work".
Maybe I can answer all your questions/replies in one post.
First, I thank Paul for his comment above. I never said that Budwig couldn't be tested. That is not what you have previously called for. It would be great if they could do some "approved" testing to see if Budwig would slow down or even cure cancer. However as one oncologist said, "There is no cure for terminal cancer."
Two, I do not think you are horrible for writing these kind of posts. Maybe overstepping your place when you tell somebody that you think they are breaking the sixth commandment by not following your approved method of treating cancer, but not horrible.
Three, you never named anyone specifically by name, but you did publicly state, "I can think of one situation where the death of a godly woman now leaves a probably unsaved man raising their many children because of a rejection of scientific medicine." That is a public judgment call on the man's salvation without any proof or evidence for making such a claim. Does the man claim to be born again?
Four, I find it ironic that you decry any anecdotal evidence, yet you say "I, at least personally, do not know a single person who clearly had a proven type of cancer who lived significantly longer through unconventional medicine than what was plausible if that person had just done nothing at all / had a placebo effect." I actually know a man who decided not to go with the recommended cure for what he was diagnosed with, because he was told it would only prolong his life for a very short time and that extended period of time would just be complete misery. He decided to go semi-alternative for awhile, only to find out that he had been misdiagnosed by the professionals originally. He then went back to "conventional" medicine once they properly diagnosed him. This is just anecdotal, so take it for what it is worth. However, play by the same rules. Just because you personally do not know of anyone that has been helped by what you call "unconventional" medicine, doesn't mean it hasn't happened.
Is anyone else 100% flummoxed by this post?? I don't have a clue what the Budwig protocol is, although from reading the comments, it must be a type of philosophy that says that man is responsible for his own health and can make other choices other than following the corrupt cancer-industrial complex. Is this post just a clever tactic to get us back to a theological topic and back to Calvinism? In other words, if we are sick, it's God's will, if we are well, it's God's will. We have no "choice" to "decide" to pursue or not to pursue any type of health care plan because we are all robots and man has no free will to think or do anything on his own? Is this the goal of this post? Maybe the point of this whole thread is that whether one supports the corrupt pharmaceutical-medical-complex or whether one believes in alternative philosophies, neither of them are right because everything is pre-determined ahead of time and we have no choice to do anything??? This whole thread is a mystery to me and that is just my guess.
Unfortunately, there are many things that can kill cancer cells in a test tube (e. g., gasoline, ammonia, salt, etc.) that don't turn out to make effective cancer cures.
Finally, if you believe that the way that I attempted to stop a precious saint of God from being deceived by the lie of the Budwig Protocol and tragically dying of the horrible disease of cancer was not gracious enough--and doubtless my indwelling sin affects all my words, actions, etc.--I hope that when you find out that your brother or sister in Christ is going to do something like this where his/her life is going to be thrown away, his/her ability to serve God on earth is going to be gone, and relatives and the body of Christ are going to be grieving over the person's tragic and needless death, that you do not say nothing, but attempt to stop that precious blood-bought one in a way that is better than the way I did. If that is so, that is wonderful, and I am glad.
I wrote the above before I read your last comment. In relation to that comment, I agree that if one will only live two weeks longer (probably) and have a horrible life, one doesn't necessarily have to do what will make one live the extra two weeks.
I also agree, of course, that anecdotes prove nothing--including my own.
I would prefer not to be specific about any particular individuals who one or both or neither of us may or may not know.
What are the Sins Forbidden in the Sixth Commandment?
Exposing the Budwig Protocol is also, therefore, obedience to the Sixth Commandment.
I think YOU are probably getting paid off by Big Pharma too--in fact, you are probably diverting my checks, since they haven't been coming to my house, and I have been waiting and waiting and waiting.
Fact-check: Did "Josh" say that "anecdotes prove nothing"?
"I would prefer not to be specific about any particular individuals who one or both or neither of us may or may not know."
Here is an easy way to do a double blind test of the Budwig Protocol. Take this stuff that people are supposed to eat with Budwig and put it into blenders. Then put something else in other blenders that looks the same and tastes the same but is simply healthy food that doesn't cure cancer. Give half the people in the clinical trial the one and half the people the other. If the people on the Budwig diet are cured of cancer 90% of the time, then it works. If they aren't, then it doesn't work. Why hasn't something like this been done? Because the Budwig Protocol doesn't cure cancer. Proponents don't even keep track of the dead bodies piling up.
How about instead of curing cancer, we try to promote nutrition and stop people from getting sick in the first place with all the junk in the modern diet? But even so, much of the ills of modern day life can actually be cured by non-conventional methods, but you would never be told this by Big Cancer. The industry wants you to live so they can bleed you dry financially with all sorts of their treatment methods, but they don't seem to have any vested interest in actual cures.
I don't think anyone method of treatment can necessarily offer a guaranty of a cure. But on the other hand, many of the proponents of non-traditional treatment methods actually want people to be cured. Big Cancer doesn't necessarily care so much about any cures as much as they do about bleeding people dry financially. The industry in general is so corrupt, that it just baffles me how people can totally defend it and at the same time belittle and denigrate alternative therapies. People are just too, too gullible and naive, in my opinion, to put their trust in this industry.
His blender idea won't test Budwig.
He should have paid attention to "Josh" who wrote:"I have been doing some reading and research on the BUDWIG protocol. It is actually much more than just eating cottage cheese and flaxseed oil."
we find written, "The Budwig Protocol is a complete nutritional approach, and more, which besides flaxseed oil/cottage cheese [or quark] includes a number of elements which some other celebrated protocols use as their main approach to better health. It includes a vegetarian diet, lacto-vegan diet (except that fish is allowed), flaxseeds, fruit juices, vegetable juices, sauerkraut, sunshine, emotional and spiritual peace and stress control."
Please don't retaliate by discussing the private affairs of you-know-who.
I applaud you for writing this article. The attacks against you, the numerous and varied logical fallacies and false equivalancies are astounding. It seems simple. There are treatments that have been demonstrated to be successful through rigorous methods, then there are those that provide anecdotal evidence and testimonials with no data to support the so-called treatment. Your patience with those attacking you is commendable.
Unfortunately the people challenging you are themselves the ones most likely to be harmed by these alternative therapies. They will do as so many have done before, use the alternative until the cancer progresses beyond any hope.
I never understood the claim that the entire medical community and the drug companies want to prevent real cures for cancer when these people and their loved ones would benefit from a cure. Making money is of no value if you die of cancer.
It is a sad state that we have come to. People with little or no scientific understanding promote themselves as de facto experts. They assign evil motives to those who spend their lives trying to treat and cure their patents, and they offer this as opposed to real evidence.
Again, I applaud you. I hope your message reaches someone and spares them an unnecessary and untimely death.
Thanks for the encouragement. I trust the article will indeed save lives; I think it may already have done so.
I followed 'natural cures' for four years and felt truly great - vegan, mostly raw, green juices, coffee enemas etc) - after having been diagnosed with Stage 2 Triple Negative breast cancer, grade 3/4 ie. aggressive, (why did I start to give the disease capitals? - because it's a name, not a measure of its importance, silly). Not the Budwig Protocol although I had read about it. No diagnostic tests after the first set other than ultrasounds - my choice. I thought the 'alkalise and oxigenate your body' approach made sense, certainly to a non-scientist like me, given that apparently cancer thrives in an acidic, anaerobic environment. Then I slipped on ice and crashed onto my upper back.
After four months of agony, I finally became paraplegic. Spinal cord surgery intervened and I slowly regained the use of my limbs. What had happened?
Cunning cancer had crept into my spine. It ate away 8 vertebrae (4 cervical, 4 thoracic, consecutive) and the fall finished off the job.
So! Now I was having radiation to kill the parts of the tumour they hadn't been able to remove. Then a year later, with cancer in my lungs and bones, I conceded to take chemotherapy tablets - not as a cure, but to try to slow down the speed of the progression and to reduce the pain. So now I've done all three - surgery, chemo and radiation.
So? Well the so is - would I have been better to have bitten the bullet and taken chemo right at the start? Only God knows. I don't regret, but I do wonder. But I think chemo could possibly have saved my life and I wonder what I would have done without the internet putting forth the 'natural philosophy' and those 'healed' by following the 'natural path - God's way'. It seems many have been cured, in fact. Just not me!
I lost so much weight I had to relinquish my green leaaves and eat 'dinners'! But it's fine. I'm still here, 5 years and 5 months later.
Thank you for sharing your story. I am so sorry that this has happened to you.
and find out how you can be 100% sure about this matter.


text:
DDXP31 ;SFISC/DPC-CREATE EXPORT TEMPLATE ;10/14/94  14:56
 ;;22.0;VA FileMan;;Mar 30, 1999;Build 1
 ;Per VHA Directive 10-93-142, this routine should not be modified.
XPT ;
 S DDXPOUT=0
 S DIR(0)="F^2:30",DIR("A")="Enter name for EXPORT Template"
 S DIR("?",1)="Enter the name of the Export Template to be produced.",DIR("?",2)="The name must be from 2 to 30 characters.",DIR("?")="The new Export Template cannot overwrite an existing Print Template file entry."
 D ^DIR K DIR
 I $D(DIRUT) S DDXPOUT=1 Q
 S DIC="^DIPT(",DIC(0)="XL",DLAYGO=0 W ! D ^DIC K DIC,DLAYGO
 I '$P(Y,U,3) W !,$C(7),$P(Y,U,2)_" entry in the Print Template file already exists.",!,"Please enter the name of a new template.",!! G XPT
 S DDXPXTNO=+Y
 Q
LENGTH ;
 W !!,"This template will produce fixed length records."
 W !,"Enter the length of each field below."
 W !,"The specified number should be the length in the TARGET file.",!!
 D GETOUT Q:DDXPOUT
 S DDXPTLEN=0
 S DIR(0)="N^1:255:0",DIR("?")="Enter a number from 1 to 255 as the length of this field in the TARGET file"
 F DDXPFLD=1:1:DDXPTOTF D  I DDXPOUT Q  G LENGTH
 . I DDXPNOUT(DDXPFLD) S DDXPFLEN(DDXPFLD)=0 Q
 . S DIR("A")=DDXPFCAP(DDXPFLD),DDXPOUT=0 D ^DIR
 . I $D(DIRUT) S DDXPOUT=1 Q
 . S DDXPFLEN(DDXPFLD)=Y,DDXPTLEN=DDXPTLEN+Y
 . Q
 K DIR,X,Y
 Q
FLDNAME ;
 W !!,"Enter the name of the fields below in the TARGET file."
 W !,"If you press <RET>, no name will be used.",!!
 D GETOUT Q:DDXPOUT
 S DIR(0)="FO^0:30"
 S DIR("?")="Enter up to 30 characters as the name of this field in the TARGET file"
 F DDXPFLD=1:1:DDXPTOTF D  I DDXPOUT=1 Q  G FLDNAME
 . I DDXPNOUT(DDXPFLD) Q
 . S DIR("A")=DDXPFCAP(DDXPFLD),DDXPOUT=0 D ^DIR
 . I $D(DTOUT)!$D(DUOUT) S DDXPOUT=1 Q
 . S DDXPFFNM(DDXPFLD)=Y
 . Q
 K DIR,X,Y
 Q
DTYPE ;
 W !!,"Enter the data types of the fields being exported below.",!!
 D GETOUT Q:DDXPOUT
 S DIR(0)=".42,1"
 F DDXPFLD=1:1:DDXPTOTF D  I DDXPOUT=1 Q  G DTYPE
 . I DDXPNOUT(DDXPFLD) Q
 . S DIR("A")=DDXPFCAP(DDXPFLD),DIR("B")=$P(^DI(.81,DDXPDT(DDXPFLD),0),U,1),DDXPOUT=0 D ^DIR
 . I $D(DIRUT) S DDXPOUT=1 Q
 . S DDXPDT(DDXPFLD)=+Y
 . Q
 K DIR,X,Y
 Q
IOM ;
 S DDXPOUT=0
 W !!,"Enter the maximum length of a physical record that can be exported.",!,"Enter '^' to stop the creation of an EXPORT template.",!
 I $D(DDXPTLEN) D
 . W "The default shown is based on the total lengths of the fields being exported.",!
 . S DIR("B")=DDXPTLEN+1
 . Q
RIOM S DIR(0)=".44,7" D ^DIR K DIR
 I $D(DTOUT)!$D(DUOUT) S DDXPOUT=1 Q
 I Y>255,$P(DDXPFMZO,U,6) W !!,$C(7),"The length cannot be greater than 255 when sending fixed length records.",! G RIOM
 S DDXPIOM=Y
 Q
ASKDELM ;
 S DDXPOUT=0
 W !!,"You can choose a delimiter to be placed between output fields.",!,"Enter <RET> to use no delimiter.",!,"Enter '^' to stop the creation of an EXPORT template.",!
 S DIR(0)=".44,1" D ^DIR K DIR
 I $D(DUOUT)!$D(DTOUT) S DDXPOUT=1 Q
 S:X="@" Y=X S DDXPDELM=Y
 Q
ASKRDLM ;
 S DDXPOUT=0
 W !!,"You can choose a delimiter to be placed between output records.",!,"Enter <RET> to use no delimiter",!,"Enter '^' to stop the creation of an EXPORT template.",!
 S DIR(0)=".44,2" D ^DIR K DIR
 I $D(DUOUT)!$D(DTOUT) S DDXPOUT=1 Q
 S:X="@" Y=X S DDXPRDLM=Y
 Q
GETOUT ;To see if user wants to continue.
 S DDXPOUT=0
 W "Do you want to continue?"
 S DIR(0)="Y",DIR("B")="YES"
 S DIR("?")="If you do not give this information, an EXPORT template will NOT be created."
 D ^DIR K DIR I $D(DIRUT)!'Y S DDXPOUT=1 Q
 W !!
 Q

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
— Mai 5, 2019
Trump Administration Outlines Its Case Against the ACA
The Trump administration has revealed its legal argument against the Affordable Care Act, claiming C...
As measles returns, USA states look to cut vaccine exemptions
The clarification comes as Alabama has its first case of measles: A 5-month old girl in Pell City is...
Four new measles cases in Allegheny County
Public health officials in Utah have put the state's citizens on notice. State legislatures in New...
IN residents now can obtain measles vaccine without Rx
Most of the affected had never been vaccinated. Since Sunday, a further six people have contracted...
Scientology cruise ship sets sail for Curacao after measles quarantine
A total of 318 passengers and crew are believed to be aboard the ship, a Panamanian-flagged cruise l...
Jeff Bezos' rocket company will launch another test of its tourism spaceship
The NASA-sponsored payloads include a 3D-printing experiment led by the University of Kentucky, whic...
Aetna revenue drives CVS Health's 1Q profits higher
For the current quarter CVS Corp (NYSE:CVS) has high EPS estimates of $1.63 in contradiction of low ...
New type of dementia identified
Particularly, they found patients who died of Alzheimer's at an average age of 40 had 32 times hig...
Curacao to quarantine Scientology cruise ship for measles case
Freewinds , a 440-foot ship reportedly owned by the Church of Scientology, and is set to dock early ...
Pakistan police arrest doctor after 90 infected by HIV syringe
According to the Deputy Commissioner Larkana, Noman Siddique, more than 45 people among them 25 chil...
Parents share video of medical staff dropping newborn baby, demand apology
Monique and Derrick Rodgers, who live in the Phoenix suburb of Chandler, told TV stations they poste...
Death toll tops 1,000 in Congo Ebola outbreak
The outbreak declared nearly nine months ago already had caused the most deaths behind the 2014-2016...
Ambien, Other Sleep Aids Get FDA's 'Black Box' Label, Its Strongest Warning
The new warnings apply to Lunesta, which is owned by Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co. and sold as a gen...
County urges adults to be aware of their vaccination history
In addition, at least 24 states, including some neighboring Utah, are experiencing measles outbreaks...
"Vampire Facials" Infect Two People With HIV At New Mexico Spa
New Mexico health officials say two people who received facial injections from the same spa are infe...
'Zero' risk of HIV transmission in gay men receiving treatment, study says
A European study of almost 1,000 gay male couples who had sex without using condoms - where one part...
Cruise ship quarantined for measles case heads to Curacao
No-one aboard was allowed to leave the ship at St Lucia. Dr Merlene Fredericks James said on Thu...
IHeartMedia, NAMI and Child Mind Institute Launch Mental Health Campaign
Each year, millions of Americans face the reality of living with a mental illness, yet many don't fe...
Drone Successfully Delivers Kidney For Organ Transplant In Historic Flight
Previous tests included the drone transporting saline, blood tubes and other materials and this fina...
CDC explains why you shouldn't wash raw chicken
Wanting to wash something that might be able to make you sick makes flawless sense on the surface, b...
Drug treatment stopped transmission of HIV in gay couples, study finds
She said this "powerful message" could help end the HIV pandemic by preventing the virus' transmissi...
State Health Order Facilitates Adult Measles Vaccine
The potential exposure comes as the number of confirmed cases in the United States continues to rise...
Fading sense of smell may show the risk of early death
Researchers at Michigan State University (MSU) reviewed data from the National Institute on Agin...
Measles Outbreak 2019: 'Avengers: Endgame' Moviegoers Possibly Exposed
The woman, whose name was not released, voluntarily quarantined herself at home, according to the HC...
Drinking low-calorie beverages may not help a child's weight, study says
A previous study by Sylvetsky and colleagues found that children and teens frequently consume low-ca...
USA Gymnastics backtracks on medical director hiring a day after announcement
USA Gymnastics is based in Indianapolis . The Indianapolis Star reports the suit alleges those ...
Oklahoma Man Suffers Major Stroke After Popping His Neck
Doctors say he will probably have some conditions for the rest of his life because of this. A 28-...
Did New Mexico Spa's Vampire Facials Give 2 People HIV?
The two positive tests increased the likelihood that the HIV infections resulted from the procedur...
" "L'Académie de médecine déplore une " défaite " sur l'alcool
Elle invite donc le gouvernement à revenir aux " principes initiaux " de la loi. "La responsabilit...
Trump administration rules health staff can refuse care for religious reasons
The new rule followed a 2011 conscience regulation that the Department described as "inadequate" b...
Two die from measles in Switzerland as cases rise
Symptoms include rash , high fever, cough and red, watery eyes. Measles can be serious, and there...
Starbucks rolls out summer drinks amid solid sales growth
The Dragon Drink debuts days after 12.02 million people tuned into HBO's Game of Thrones "Battle of...
Burger King To Sell Plant-Based 'Impossible Whopper' Nationwide This Year
Burger King initially launched the Impossible Whopper at 59 stores located in and near St. Loui...
Thousands gather at Queen's Park to protest against Ford government health cuts
Health Minister Christine Elliott says the government is committed to the public health-care system....
New form of dementia discovered
In the past, Alzheimer's and dementia were often considered to be the same. Now there is rising ...
Scientists find cocaine in United Kingdom shrimp
Scientists found cocaine in freshwater shrimps when testing rivers for chemicals, a study said. ...
'Avengers' moviegoers in Orange County may have been exposed to measles
A sixth case of the measles was reported Tuesday in Los Angeles County a week after health officials...
Cruise ship quarantined in St. Lucia after measles case confirmed
On the Freewinds cruise ship, there's one person now being kept in isolation with the measles-whil...
Congress Holds First 'Medicare for All' Hearing
Sens. Chris Murphy and Jeff Merkley at the introduction of their Medicare buy in bill a year ago. E...
Each pound of extra fat increases risk of disease and early death
West Bromwich East MP Mr Watson, who managed to reverse type 2 diabetes symptoms when he lost seve...
« Page précédente 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 Page suivante »

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
\section{Introduction}
\label{kpmsec:introd}

Newton\cite{Newton1760} formulated his dynamics subject to the
observational constraints from the Solar system, while Einstein
developed his general relativistic field equation\cite{Einstein16}
with the prerequisite that they reproduce Newton's work in the
classical, non-relativistic limit. General relativity has successfully
passed tests in the astronomically small-spatial-scale and strong
acceleration limit (Solar system and smaller in length scale and
stronger in acceleration scale).  The presently favoured understanding
of cosmological physics is based on assuming Einstein's field equation
to hold on galactic and larger scales and for very small accelerations
as are found in galactic systems (postulate 1). In addition, it is
assumed that all matter emerged in the Big Bang (postulate~2). The
first two postulates lead to an inhomogeneous and highly curved
cosmological model which is in disagreement with the observed
distribution of matter, unless inflation is additionally postulated to
drive the universe to near flatness and homogeneity briefly after the
Big Bang (postulate~3). The structures and their kinematics which
arise from this postulate again do not match the observed ones unless
cold or warm dark matter (DM) is postulated in addition to aid
gravitational clumping on galactic scales (postulate~4). This DM must,
as observations constrain, consist of non-relativistic particles which
only interact significantly through gravitation\cite{Blumenthal84}.
The so constructed model does not match the observed increase in the
rate of expansion unless it is additionally postulated that dark
energy drives an emerging new era of inflation (postulate~5). The
resulting five-postulate construction with its many parameters
determined using observational data\cite{Famaey12} is referred to as
the concordance cosmological model which is the currently generally
accepted cold or warm DM-based standard model of cosmology
(SMoC)\cite{FrenkWhite12, Silk12}.

The SMoC can be used to compute the distribution of matter on galactic
scales because it is based on Newtonian dynamics which is a linear and
thus, in principle, readily computable dynamics theory\cite{Kuhlen12,
  FrenkWhite12}. The complex processes of the baryons (heating,
cooling, star-formation, stellar and other feedback) are dealt with by
employing parametrised laws, but few rigorous convincing predictions
have come forth due to the tunability of the modelling, the lack of
adopted constraints from observed star formation processes, and due to
the haphazardness of the many mergers each DM halo
experiences\cite{Mutch12}. The statistical distribution of sub-halos
on the scales of many kpc around normal galaxies is among the rigorous
predictions of the SMoC.  The other rigorous prediction is that dwarf
galaxies formed from tidal material expelled during galaxy encounters
(see Sect. \ref{kpmsec:DDGT}) cannot contain substantial amounts of
DM.

The computations by many research groups have demonstrated that the
SMoC has significant problems, the number of which has been increasing
with improving computer power\cite{Kroupa12}.  While the greatest
problems (see below) are usually not discussed by DM advocates even
when they do discuss problems for the SMoC, e.g. in
Ref(\refcite{FrenkWhite12}), it is held by most dark-matter advocates
that virtually all problems mentioned by the respective authors can be
solved once modelling the baryonic processes is improved with larger
resolution\cite{Kuhlen12}. Thus, for example, one of the failures, the
missing satellite problem\cite{Klypin99,Moore99}, is deemed to have
been solved by now\cite{Brooks12}: according to the SMoC each DM halo
ought to contain a large number of satellite DM halos which are the
phase-space substructures that merge during the hierarchical formation
of larger structures\cite{Klypin11}. Milky Way and Andromeda class
galaxies ought to have many hundreds of satellite galaxies, each of
which are immersed in their own DM halos. The observed small number of
satellites (currently 24 are known for the Milky Way and a slightly
larger number is known for Andromeda) is then a result of the complex
and tunable baryonic processes cleaning out baryons from the vast
majority of satellite DM halos.  Some of the problems of the SMoC have
been used to investigate possible model extensions, for example by
invoking new dark forces between the DM particles which affect
structure growth on sub-kpc scales\cite{Cyr-Racine12}. These
additional postulates do not significantly affect the distribution of
sub-halos on scales of many kpc, as this is given by the hierarchical
infall of DM into larger structures.

The SMoC has been stated to be in agreement with the large-scale
distribution of matter (although the problems on the local 100~Mpc
and~16~Mpc scales undermine this statement,
Sec.~\ref{kpmsec:additionaltests}) and with the cosmic microwave
background (CMB) fluctuations\cite{FrenkWhite12}. But it can only
remain as a valid description of the real universe if every one of the
postulates individually pass observational tests.  In order to certify
the validity of the SMoC and its dark-sector variants {\it robustly}
against the observational data, tests must be developed which are
insensitive to the details of baryonic physics. Various such tests
have recently been devised\cite{Kroupa10}, and here the two most
important ones (Sec.~\ref{kpmsec:DDGT}, Sec.~\ref{kpmsec:phasespace})
with consistency checks (Sec.~\ref{kpmsec:additionaltests}) are
discussed. The observed correlation of kinematical properties of
galaxies over several orders of magnitude in acceleration
(Sec.~\ref{kpmsec:MDA}) convincingly demonstrates that a gravitational
theory which differs from Newton's is valid. The Modified Newtonian
Dynamics (MOND) theory\cite{Milgrom83} is in excellent agreement with
these data and provides an apparently correct description of dynamics
on galaxy scales (Sec~\ref{kpmsec:MOND}).

\section{The dual dwarf galaxy theorem}
\label{kpmsec:DDGT}

In any realistic cosmological theory two types of galaxies
emerge. Primordial (`type A') galaxies form directly after the Big
Bang from gravitational instabilities in the cooling baryonic
matter. Tidal dwarf galaxies (`type B') form from interacting,
rotationally-supported type A galaxies: from tidal arms, which
fragment and form dwarf galaxies as well as star clusters.  This is
evident in many observations of interacting
galaxies\cite{Duc94,Duc98,Bournaud10,Dabringhausen12} and in all
high-resolution simulations of interacting galaxies
\cite{Wetzstein07,Bournaud10,Fouquet12}.

Indeed, high-resolution simulations in the SMoC show that
type~A and type~B dwarfs have different dynamical and morphological
properties (see points~(i) and (ii) below). This comes about
because the formation of type~A dwarfs is dominated by the collapse
and mergers of dwarf DM halos in which the end products retain
  much of the DM. In the SMoC, a large number of these
sub-halos orbit as bound type~A sub-structures in the more massive
host halos,  {many more than are observed:} The missing
satellite problem therewith emerges (Sec.~\ref{kpmsec:introd}).
Type~B dwarfs, on the other hand, cannot capture significant amounts
of DM  {because they form from the `cold' parts of (disc)
  galaxies, which exclude the DM}.  In the SMoC so many tidal dwarf
galaxies are generated that  {to account for these,
  statistically,} most of  {the observed} dwarf elliptical (dE)
galaxies would  {have to} be type~B dwarfs\cite{Okazaki00}.

The SMoC thus predicts that two types of galaxies ought to be abundant
that have different dynamics: one showing DM, the other not. But in
fact of observation, rotating late-type dwarf galaxies as well as
faint dwarf-spheroidal galaxies show evidence for DM. A tidal dwarf
galaxy which is observed to have a DM component does not immediately
disprove the SMoC. DM may appear to be present in a tidal dwarf galaxy
if it is wrongly assumed to be in dynamical equilibrium when, in fact,
it is not, as it is being perturbed by a time varying tidal field from
the host galaxy\cite{Kroupa97,Casas12}.  And, a young tidal dwarf
galaxy may be accreting gas and may thus not be in rotational
equilibrium feigning a DM content.

All type~A galaxies which are rotationally supported are known to
precisely lie on the Baryonic-Tully-Fisher Relation
(BTFR)\cite{Famaey12} which therefore must be defined by the DM halo
if the SMoC is true. The physics responsible for the precise
conspiracy of the putative DM halo and galaxy luminosity to produce
the BTFR over many orders of magnitude in galaxy luminosity however
remains unknown.  Tidal dwarf galaxies that show evidence for DM
because they are out of equilibrium ought not to lie on the BTFR,
because the tidal perturbation of, or gas accretion onto, the dwarf
would not likely conspire to place a DM-free type~B galaxy onto the
BTFR of the type~A dwarfs.

The prediction made by the SMoC that there are two distinct classes of
dwarf galaxy (the 'dual dwarf galaxy' theorem) is falsified by
observations, as follows\cite{Kroupa12}:

(i) By invoking the BTFR of rotationally supported
galaxies\cite{Gentile07, mil07}: Type B dwarfs do not contain DM and
therefore cannot lie on the same BTFR of type~A galaxies in the SMoC.
But observations show them to lie on the same BTFR as type~A
galaxies. The rotational velocities of the type~A galaxies therefore
cannot be given by a DM halo.  Therewith, galactic DM halos cannot
exist and one of the major pillars of the SMoC (postulate~4) breaks
away such that the whole model is falsified.

(ii) By considering the radius--mass relation of pressure-supported
dwarf galaxies: dE galaxies are thought to be of type~A and thus to
form in putative DM halos. The final structural parameters of dE
galaxies and type B dwarfs therefore cannot agree. But observations
show type B dwarfs to be indistinguishable from dE
galaxies\cite{Dabringhausen12}. Thus, DM halos cannot play a role in
dwarf galaxies, leading to the same conclusion as under~(i) above.

\section{Significant anisotropic phase-space distribution of satellite
galaxies}
\label{kpmsec:phasespace}

The SMoC robustly predicts the primordial DM dominated (type~A)
satellite galaxies in a major halo to be distributed spheroidally
around the host galaxy. The infall of satellite galaxies from
filaments leads only to mild anisotropies\cite{Pawlowski12a}.

The Milky Way galaxy, being part of the universe, must conform to
these predictions. Instead the Galactic satellite system forms a vast
polar structure (VPOS) which is a disk-like
distribution\cite{Kroupa05} about 40~kpc thick and 400~kpc in diameter
containing all known satellite galaxies as well as all young halo
globular clusters and about half of all known stellar and gas
streams\cite{Pawlowski12b}.  The proper motion measurements of~10
satellite galaxies show~9 of the satellites to be orbiting within the
VPOS (one satellite is on a counter-rotating orbit in comparison to
the~8 others). One satellite, Sagittarius, orbits perpendicularly to
the VPOS and to the MW. To have~nine of ten type~A (DM sub-halo)
satellites with measured proper motions orbiting within the VPOS is
ruled out with very high confidence\cite{Libeskind09}.

Andromeda also has an anisotropic satellite system\cite{Metz07,Ibata12}, and a
few other galaxies are known which have satellite galaxies arranged in
highly correlated phase-space structures\cite{Kroupa12}.  The
prediction of the SMoC is therewith ruled out conclusively because the
Milky Way is not unique in this
property\cite{Kroupa10,Angus11a,Kroupa12}.

\section{Consistency tests}
\label{kpmsec:additionaltests}

The falsification\cite{Kroupa12} of the SMoC with the above argument
has deep implications. Can this  {argument} be erroneous?  A
number of auxiliary tests have been developed\cite{Kroupa10}, which
the SMoC again does not pass.  A visualisation of the results of the
comparison between many predictions and observational data is
presented in the theory confidence graph\cite{Kroupa12}.  If each of
the 22 listed failures were to be associated with a loss of confidence
of (only) 50~per cent that the SMoC accounts for a particular property
of the real universe, then according to the confidence graph, the
overall probability that the SMoC is a valid theory of the universe
would be $0.5$ raised to the power of $22$, corresponding to a
confidence of $2.3\times10^{-5}$~per cent.

Three examples of such problems are the cusp/core problem, the
downsizing and the missing-bright-satellites problem. These are
usually acknowledged as problems, but  {claimed to be (probably)
  solvable}\cite{FrenkWhite12,Brooks12,Kuhlen12,Bovill11,BK11}.  The
real problems for which no solution can be identified are usually not
mentioned in the DM literature: (a)~The dual dwarf galaxy theorem and
satellite anisotropy failures discussed above are catastrophic for the
SMoC. (b)~In the Local Volume with radius of 8~Mpc around the Sun, the
matter distribution in the Local Void and near the edges of the
filaments containing galaxies is incompatible with the expectations
from the SMoC\cite{Peebles10}.  (c)~The 50~Mpc radius region around us
is missing DM by a factor of~3--4 while the fluctuations in the
density must not be larger than about 10~per cent on these scales if
the SMoC were true\cite{Karachentsev12}. (d)~Disk galaxies of similar
mass are observed to show too little scatter in their
properties\cite{Disney08}, which implies that galaxies obey laws that
do not emerge in the SMoC.

\section{The mass-discrepancy-acceleration correlation: towards
  galaxy laws}
\label{kpmsec:MDA}

The rotation velocity, $V(r)$, measured at a radius $r$ in a disk
galaxy can be compared to the rotation velocity, $V_b(r)$, that one
would expect due to only the observed baryonic matter. A plot of
$V^2/V_b^2$, which is the mass discrepancy at $r$, in a given galaxy
as a function of $r$, gives the putative DM profile of the galaxy. As
pointed out by McGaugh\cite{McGaugh04}, combining many such
measurements for many galaxies yields a mass-discrepancy vs $r$ plot
with no correlation. However, plotting the mass-discrepancy in
dependence of the baryonic-Newtonian acceleration, $g_N=V_b^2/r$,
yields a tight correlation (Fig.~\ref{kpmfig:mda}).
\begin{figure}[pb]
\centerline{\psfig{file=kropamil_fig1.eps,width=13cm}}
\vspace*{-3mm}
\caption{The mass-discrepancy--acceleration
  correlation\cite{McGaugh04,Famaey12} for disk galaxies. The
  red/solid and green/dashed curves are two different forms of the
  MONDian transition function as in fig.~11 in
  Kroupa\cite{Kroupa12}. For the Solar system $g_N>6\times
  10^{-5}$m/s$^2$. \label{kpmfig:mda}}
\end{figure}
The mass-discrepancy--acceleration correlation deviates from the
Newtonian value below an acceleration of $a_0\approx
1.2\times10^{-10}$m/s$^2 = 3.8\,$pc/Myr$^2$ which is about five orders
of magnitude smaller than the acceleration of Neptune in the Solar
system.

No known physics of the DM particles can account for the observed
mass-discrepancy--acceleration correlation. But this relation is
convincing evidence for gravitational dynamics becoming non-Newtonian
at accelerations $a<a_0$. This and many other correlations were {\it
  predicted} 30~years ago by Milgrom\cite{Milgrom83} who introduced a
new constant of nature, $a_0$  {at the foundation of a new
  paradigm dubbed `Modified Newtonian Dynamics' (MOND). In this
  paradigm Newtonian dynamics and general relativity are modified, so
  that galaxy dynamics is explained without the need for dark matter.
  Since its formulation in 1983\cite{Milgrom83} MOND has passed all
  observational tests from $10^6\,M_\odot$ dwarf disk
  galaxies\cite{Famaey12} to massive elliptical galaxy\cite{Milgrom12}
  scales, with some tension remaining on the globular- and
  galaxy-cluster scales\cite{Kroupa12}. These are, however, not
  major\cite{Sanders07,Sanders12}.}

\section{The MOND paradigm}
\label{kpmsec:MOND}
While MOND has developed significantly in its particulars (such as
formulations of various underlying theories), its basic
non-relativistic (NR) tenets, from which follow all its major
predictions, remain the same as originally proposed. These tenets, put
in a somewhat improved form, are: (1) A new constant, $a_0$, with the
dimensions of acceleration is introduced into dynamics. (2) A MOND
theory must tend to standard dynamics in the limit $a_0\rightarrow 0$
(in other words, when the theory is applied to a system where all the
quantities of dimensions of acceleration, $a$, are much larger than
$a_0$). (3) In the opposite limit, $a_0\rightarrow\infty$ (namely,
when all $a\ll a_0$ in which case we also have to take $G\rightarrow
0$ so that $Ga_0$ remains fixed) the theory is postulated to become
space-time scale invariant\cite{milgrom09a}, namely, invariant under
$(t,\vr)\rightarrow\l(t,\vr)$.

Conceptually, $a_0$ thus plays a role as a demarcation acceleration
between the validity domain of the pre-MOND dynamics ($a\gg a_0$) and
the MOND regime ($a\lesssim a_0$). In the former, $a_0$ disappears
from physics, but in the latter domain $a_0$ appears with full impact
on various phenomena. These roles are similar to those of Planck's
constant in the classical--quantum context, and of the speed of light,
$c$, in the classical--relativistic context.  All these constants play
the role of demarcations between the old and new physics. Also, taking
them to the appropriate limit ($\hbar\rightarrow 0$ -- the
correspondence principle, and $c\rightarrow \infty$) takes one to the
old, classical theory, in which these constants do not appear. Also,
they all appear ubiquitously in the description of many, apparently
unrelated phenomena\footnote{For example, in quantum theory: the
  black-body spectrum, the photoelectric effect, the hydrogen
  spectrum, quantum Hall effect, etc.} in the new-physics regime. We
shall see below how $a_0$ enters in many such phenomena and effects in
low-acceleration galactic dynamics.

Newtonian gravitational accelerations, which scale as $g_N \propto
MG/r^2$, transform under the above space-time scaling as
$g_N\rightarrow \l^{-2}g_N$, while kinematic accelerations ($\ddot x$)
transform as $g\rightarrow \l^{-1}g$. Newtonian dynamics, which
equates the two, is thus not scale invariant. To have such a symmetry
in the MOND limit we need $g$ to scale like $g_N^{1/2}$; or, with the
help of $a_0$, $g\propto (a_0 g_N)^{1/2}$. This, more primitive,
description of the MOND limit, is essentially the original formulation
of MOND for test-particle motion \cite{Milgrom83}. The formulation of
the 3rd tenet in terms of scale invariance\cite{milgrom09a}, is,
however, rather more elegant, precise, and general, and should be
preferred.

Beyond the above basic tenets, one wishes to construct a full-fledged
theory, and then extend it to the relativistic regime. Several
relativistic and NR MOND theories are known.  In the NR regime, we
have the suitably chosen nonlinear extension of the Poisson
equation\cite{bm84}, and a quasilinear MOND formulation
(QUMOND)\cite{milgrom10a}. These are classified as `modified gravity'
(MG) theories as they modify the field equations of the gravitational
field, but not the laws of motion. There are also `modified inertia'
(MI) formulations, which do the opposite. For the latter there isn't
yet a full fledged theory, but, nonetheless, much can be said about
their predictions of rotation curves\cite{milgrom94a,milgrom11}.  In
the relativistic regime we can mention as examples, TeVeS\cite{bek04},
and its predecessors, MOND adaptations of Einstein aether
theories\cite{zlosnik07}, bimetric MOND (BIMOND)\cite{milgrom09}, one
based on a polarizable medium\cite{blt09}, and non-local, single
metric formulations\cite{deffayet11}.  Much work has also been done
over the years towards devising observational tests of MOND and on
comparing MOND predictions with observations.  Extensive recent
reviews of these aspects of the MOND paradigm
exist\cite{Sanders02,Famaey12}.

Quantum theory and relativity were not mere changes in form of the
equations of classical dynamics. They each brought about totally new
concepts to underlie dynamics. Likewise, there are reasons to presume
that what we know about MOND today is only the tip of an
iceberg\cite{milgrom09a}. One hint that this might be so is the
`coincidence'\cite{Milgrom83} $\bar a_0\equiv 2\pi a_0\approx
c\,H_0\approx c^2(\Lambda/3)^{1/2}$, where $H_0$ is the Hubble
constant and $\Lambda$ is the cosmological constant (CC).  This, and
some aspects of symmetry, may point to a deep connection between
dynamics within local systems, such as galactic systems, and the state
of the universe at large. This connection, if firmly established,
could be the most far-reaching implication of MOND.\footnote{Such a
  cosmological connection might imply that various aspects of the
  MOND-standard-dynamics interplay may depend on cosmic time.}

The MOND theories mentioned above depart from pre-MOND dynamics in
that they introduce $a_0$, add new degrees of freedom, and modify the
underlying action, but they do not deeply depart in spirit from their
predecessor. Perhaps one of them will turn out to be an effective
theory that captures the essence of the future deeper MOND
theory.\footnote{The appearance in all these theories of an
  interpolating function is an indication that they can only be
  effective theories.}

In addition, there are several ideas and suggestions for a
`microscopic' basis of MOND.  One such class of
suggestions\cite{milgrom99} propounds that the MOND departure from
Newtonian dynamics arises from the fact that we do not live in a
globally Minkowski space time, but in one governed by a CC. The recent
discovery of a CC-like entity that affects cosmology points to the
possibility that the universe is entering an era where it will be
increasingly dominated by the CC. Such
an eventual universe, a de Sitter universe, is characterized by a
radius $R_\Lambda\equiv (\Lambda/3)^{-1/2}$. This fact might show
itself in local dynamics in the form of the acceleration
constant\cite{milgrom99} $\bar a_0=a_\Lambda\equiv c^2/R_\Lambda$, as
indeed appears in the above-mentioned `coincidence'\footnote{This
  appearance of $\Lambda$ is different from the standard appearance of
  $R_\Lambda$ in correcting the large distance behavior of (Newtonian)
  gravity introducing a linear, repulsive force.}. For example, in a
de Sitter universe, the quantum vacuum is modified from the
Minkowskian one in such a way that the Unruh radiation seen by an
accelerated observer depends both on $a_\Lambda$ and on the observer's
acceleration $a$ (assumed constant) in a way that may point to a MOND
inertia law\cite{milgrom99}.

There have been several recent proposals\cite{pikhitsa10,klinkhamer12}
for obtaining MOND dynamics by adding the element of the de Sitter
background\cite{milgrom99} to the idea of entropic-origin-of-dynamics
suggested by Verlinde\cite{jacobson95,padma10,verlinde11}.  In the
above schemes, the $a_0$ that appears in galactic-scale dynamics is
indeed related to the cosmological constant as $a_0\sim
a_\Lambda$\footnote{Note that $\sim$\ is used as a similarity sign
  indicating that two numbers are of the same order of magnitude,
  while $\approx$ means two numbers are similar within a factor of a
  few.}. In a different approach\cite{Pazy12}, also hinging on
entropic gravity, $a_0$ emerges as the Fermi energy on an holographic
screen.

In the MOND-through-a-polarizable-medium theory\cite{blt09}, in MOND
adaptations of Einstein-aether theories\cite{zlosnik07}, and in
BIMOND\cite{milgrom09}, the relation $a_0\sim a_\Lambda$ appears
differently: In these theories a length parameter appears in two
places in the action, one that ends up defining the CC, the other
defining $a_0$. If one insists, for economy or naturalness, to use the
same quantity in both roles, the above relation holds. However, there
is no compelling mechanism for forcing this economy.

In light of the uncertainty in what the final space-time-matter theory
will look like, it is reassuring that one can predict\cite{Milgrom08a,milgrom13}
a number of general dynamics laws, which compare excellently with
observations\cite{Sanders02,Famaey12} and are based almost entirely on
the basic tenets. These laws are important to recognize and understand
for several reasons: (1) They constitute the core predictions of MOND,
obeyed by all MOND theories, present and future, that embody the basic
tenets.  (2) They focus attention on well defined, easy-to-grasp
predictions of MOND. (3) They involve only limited information about
the systems (such as global attributes) and hence are easier to test
on large samples. (4) They constitute a list of `things to show' in
the competing paradigm of Newtonian-dynamics--plus-DM.
Succinctly formulated, these laws are:
\vspace{-6mm}
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item{\label{asym}} Speeds along an orbit around any isolated mass,
  $M$, become asymptotically independent of the size-scale of the orbit. For
  circular orbits, $V(r\rightarrow\infty)\rightarrow V_{\infty}(M)$.
\item{\label{btfr}}

$V_{\infty}(M)=(M\,G\,a_0)^{1/4}$.
\item{\label{bound}}
In disc galaxies transition from `baryon dominance' to `DM
  dominance' occurs around the radius where $V^2(r)/r=a_0$.

\item{\label{max}}
The acceleration attributed to `DM' can never much exceed $a_0$.

\item{\label{centralsig}} The central surface density of `dark
  halos' is $\approx \Sigma_M\equiv a_0/ 2\pi G$.

\item{\label{siglimit}}
Quasi-isothermal (baryonic) systems have mean surface densities
$\bar\Sigma\lesssim \Sigma_M$.

\item{\label{msigma}} Quasi-isothermal or deep-MOND systems have a
  velocity dispersion $\sigma\approx (M\,G\,a_0)^{1/4}$.

\item{\label{efe}}
The external field in which a system is falling affects its intrinsic dynamics.

\item{\label{disc}} Disc galaxies behave as if they have both disc and
  spherical `DM' components.

\item{\label{stability}}
  MOND endows self gravitating systems with an increased, but limited
  stability.

\end{enumerate}
\vspace{-2mm} In addition to these laws, it is also reassuring that
even the more elaborate prediction of rotation curves in MOND follows
almost entirely from the basic premises alone\cite{milgrom13}.  The
accuracy of MOND's prediction of full rotation curves of disc galaxies
is particularly impressive, as shown by the analysis of over a hundred
galaxies\cite{Famaey12}.  Recently, MOND has also passed an acute test
in accounting for the dynamics of elliptical galaxies\cite{Milgrom12}.

\section{MOND vs dark matter}
\label{kpmsec:MONDdm}

We have seen that the SMoC faces many difficulties in accounting for
various aspects of data on galaxies (Sec.~\ref{kpmsec:DDGT} --
\ref{kpmsec:additionaltests}). But perhaps the most cogent argument
against the SMoC is that MOND
works\cite{Milgrom08a,Milgrom08b,Sanders09}
(e.g. Fig.~\ref{kpmfig:mda}). This is not because MOND is a
competitor, but because the many tight regularities and correlations
between baryon and `DM' properties, predicted by MOND, and confirmed
in the data, are quite contrary to what is expected in the DM
paradigm.  In the DM paradigm, a present-day system is the haphazard
end result of a complex history that affects baryons and DM very
differently. The observed tight correlations argue against
this\cite{Disney08}.

It is important to emphasize that in MOND, the dynamics of a
self-gravitating system is strictly predicted once its baryon
distribution is given. But in the SMoC it is not possible to predict
the dynamics of an individual primordial (type~A) galaxy just from its
observed baryons; at best one can try to match a DM halo from an
infinite family that will fit the observed dynamics. For example,
given the baryon distribution of a disc galaxy, the MOND rotation
curve is a prediction, while the DM curve is but a fit with much
freedom allowed.
In short, unlike for MOND, the SMoC cannot predict the relations
 between baryons and DM in any individual system because these depend
 on the unknowable history of the system.
In the rare case where the SMoC does make a prediction (tidal dwarfs,
i.e. type~B galaxies), because their formation histories are well
understood, it fails\cite{bournaud07}.

Angus\cite{Angus11} and others have demonstrated that MOND-based
cosmological models are able to account for many observations such as
the CMB and the Bullet cluster.

\section{MOND and the dwarfs}
\label{kpmsec:MONDdwarfs}
In MOND the dual dwarf galaxy theorem predicts no systematic dynamical
differences between primordial and tidal dwarf
galaxies\cite{Gentile07,mil07}.  For example, both rotational types
A~and~B of dwarfs are predicted to fall on the same BTFR by MOND
law~\ref{btfr} in Sect.~\ref{kpmsec:MOND}, irrespective of their
different formation paths.  MOND is fully consistent with the
existence of the VPOS around the Milky Way
(Sec.~\ref{kpmsec:phasespace}) as being an ancient tidal structure in
which the Galaxy's satellites formed as tidal dwarf galaxies and
globular clusters. Tidal dwarf galaxies form naturally in MONDian
galaxy interactions\cite{Tiret07,Combes10}. The internal constitution
of the Galaxy's dwarf-spheroidal satellites is well explained with
MOND\cite{McGaugh10,Hernandez10}. No such consistent explanation can
be achieved within the SMoC, because the high measured Newtonian
mass-to-light ratios of the satellites are completely in contradiction
with them being ancient tidal dwarf galaxies. This, however, is the
only physically plausible explanation for the existence of the
VPOS\cite{Pawlowski12a, Fouquet12} with counter-orbiting
satellites\cite{Pawlowski11}.

\section{Conclusions}
\label{kpmsec:concs}

The SMoC is based on five postulates (Sec.~\ref{kpmsec:introd}); it is
reported as having appreciable success in describing the large scale
structure and the CMB. More importantly, it has a long history of
grave failures\footnote{Compare to the standard model of particle
  physics which is known to be incomplete but since decades it has
  consistently been found to be in excellent agreement with the
  data.}. The failures are not really surprising since the first and
most fundamental postulate is equivalent to an extrapolation of the
empirically established gravitational law by Newton and Einstein to
scales many orders of magnitude below the Solar system acceleration
scale.  Instead, the data correlations unequivocally show dynamics at
accelerations smaller than $a_0\approx 1.2\times10^{-10}$m/s$^2$ to
not be Einsteinian/Newtonian.  Given the nature of the failures,
dynamically significant cold or warm DM particles cannot {be the
  explanation of the mass discrepancies}.  {Observations strongly
  suggest that a complete theory of dynamics has to depart from
  standard dynamics below some critical acceleration that is a
  constant of nature.} The extraordinary success of MOND in accounting
for the observational data on galactic scales and its properties
(Sec.~\ref{kpmsec:MOND}--\ref{kpmsec:MONDdwarfs}) suggest that the
expected underlying theory will contain a deep connection between the
dynamics within local systems and the state of the universe at large.
{Understanding} the deeper physical meaning of MOND remains a
challenging {aim.  It involves the realistic likelihood that a major
  new insight into gravitation will emerge, which would have
  significant implications for our understanding of space, time and
  matter.}

\section{References}
\bibliographystyle{ws-ijmpd}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


French banks have just published their results for the second quarter, and the media deem them globally "good". They don't seem too finicky... We had already discussed the substance matter in a December 2017 article titled "French Banks Are Much More Dangerous than American Banks".
But in this article I would like to underline the bad loans – loans that will not be reimbursed, or partially only – a time bomb in the banks' balance sheets. According to the economist Jean-Pierre Chevallier, BNP-Baribas has a tendency to underestimate their weight. Using unpublished accounting records, he estimates that on top of the €39.902 billion of NPLs (non-performing loans), one must add €13.929 billion in potential losses on relatively safe loans, bringing up the total to €53.831 billion, or 7.4% of the total outstanding loans. This is starting to look worrisome. And if one recalculates the bank's leverage, we see it at 35.45 (or 1 euro in cash for 35 euro in liabilities), an astounding ratio (Lehman Brothers' leverage was at 32 before its resounding crash of September 15, 2008).
On a side note: banks also compensate for the lower margins by raising their fees – at Société Générale, they represent 42% of the bank's revenues with retail banking, and over 50% in the regional branches of Crédit Agricole! Those regional branches are as much tax collectors as they are credit issuers... This situation exposes them to competition from the neo-banks as people get fed up with paying high banking fees.
To sum it up, what constituted, up to now, worries in Italy, Spain, Portugal and, of course, Greece, risks happening in France as well. Bad loans, or non-performing loans, along with the risks they entail for the banking system, constitute a new danger that has to be seriously taken into account.