cancer and zodiac signs
odonnell at sasa.gov.uk
Thu Aug 11 06:24:32 EST 1994
In article <slawiecd.90.776540850 at usctoux1.cto.us.edu.pl>, slawiecd at usctoux1.cto.us.edu.pl says:
> MORTALITY RATES, CAUSED BY MYOCARDIAL INFARCT AND CANCERS
> AMONG PEOPLE, BORN UNDER DIFFERENT ZODIAC SIGNS
> This finding is probably one of first objective arguments
>that, after all, the relation between zodiac signs and a kind of
>personality, which infuences death circumstances, thus an aspect
>of human destiny really exists.
> We formulated a hypothesis, which facilitates the discussion
>of these results. Our hypothesis assumes that some inborn
>characterological features (personality type) of a new-born
>persons are induces by the pattern of day-light, perceived by a
>pregnant woman. There are many experimental findings supporting
>this hypothesis. Perceived light, through visual pathways,
>nucleus suprachiasmaticus and pineal gland determines circadian
>rythm of secretion of melatonin (17,18). Pineal gland acting on
>hypothalamus determines circadian changes of many hypophyseal
>hormons and especially gonadotropins (18,19,20).
I am not sure whether this is a brilliantly conceived spoof or
whether it is genuine.....
However, working on the assumption that it is genuine, I would point
out that the above two quotes are contradictory. Firstly, we are
told that an experimental difference can be explained by the position
of stars many millions of miles away from us and each other and then
we are told that it is explained by environmental factors such as day-light
pattern. I can't comment on your findings re day-light. However,
by associating (apparently) scientific work in with astrology
you have devalued your results and simply created ammunition for the
army of cranks who believe that their destiny is determined by the stars.
Scottish Agricultural Science Agency
More information about the Bioforum