Rifle River (jstream at girch1.med.uth.tmc.edu) wrote:
: In article <2qn5ke$iht at emoryu1.cc.emory.edu>, bioaw124 at emoryu1.cc.emory.edu: (Claire Maier) wrote:
: > Gregory's background is that he is spinal cord injured, and somehow
: > believes that if his theories were to be adopted, they would lead to the
: > development of a treatment to reverse his paralysis.
: Claire, do you know this for a fact?
: When I first read this I began laughing because I thought it was a joke.
: Upon second thought, I realized that this could explain Gregory's recent
: behavior. Was this a clever joke? or is it true?
I wouldn't joke about something like this. It's true. When Gregory first
posted about his theories (in 3 long, tedious posts which he called
"abstracts" and never once got to the point, or, indeed, referenced
anything more recent than the 1970's and included historical material as
far back as the 1700's), I posted a reply critical of his "abstracts." He
later e-mailed me and told me that he was paralyzed and that his theories
showed why modern neurology has, and must, fail in treating spinal cord
injury and neurodegenerative diseases, and that his "research" had shown
him that his condition should be reversible. (Plus other comments about
how scientists don't have the patience or the insight to follow his
arguments because they have been too entrenched in their own views for 2