Death Records Now

Anyone remembers the Nobel Prize to recognize true Albert Einstein?
Does someone remember there existed a Nobel Prize posted in Sweden which was posted till the early 1990s, the Nobel Prize to recognize the true Albert Einstein? Albert Einstein in the textbook was found or believed to steal the identity of this person. There was even a model of the hands placed in the San Jose Convention Center in California to wait for this person. The rule was if anyone touched the statues of the hands and the bell rang, then that person was a match or recognized as a true Albert Einstein. The Nobel Prize was posted in Sweden till 1992. Anyone recalls this? This was very popular till the early 1990s. If it was withdrawn, then who and why did they withdraw it?

If Albert Einstein did not steal the identity of the true Albert Einstein, then why did Sweden or America or the world want to recognize a true Albert Einstein. I think the professionals, or elders remember this because this was very popular. They mentioned that on the US radio up to 1992.

What I ask is only top professors or US Presidents know. But the event which was organized in San Jose Convention Center to wait or recognize a true Albert Einstein was true or real which was up to 1992. Don’t someone remember this? For example, history recorded that the Scientist Niels Bohr died long time ago. But that was wrongly reported. For protection of his identity History purposely recorded for his false death. But Niels Bohr was found to be alive till 1992 and he knew about the event in San Jose Convention Center to recognize a true Albert Einstein too. Indeed, he could have been the true inventor of Einstein’s Theory.
Only top professors or top US government officials know about this.

Wow, I had forgotten about this until now.

You’re right, there was a conspiracy theory or hoax that was going around in the 1970s, back when I was a kid, similar to Elvis, that the real Albert Einstein wasn’t the guy everyone thought he was. And there was something about a statue and a bell. This was back before the Internet, so the legend died a peaceful death.

I think the whole gist of this legend is that like Elvis, Einstein was larger than life, a hero, more than a regular person. And like Elvis, larger than life stories circulated about his life and his death.

To answer your question, I do have a vague memory of this legend, but there was never a Nobel Prize to this effect. The more current Einstein legend is that Einstein plagarized Special Relativity. But like most legends, careful analysis of his complete work dispels this theory, in my opinion.

Neils Bohr is accepted to have died in 1962. The theory that he lived until 1992 would have made him 107 years old. Of course some people do live to 107 years old, but it is wildly unlikely.

Part of this legend may be credited to the mid 1950s and the Cuban Missile Crisis during Stalin’s tenure. It was close to the time of both Einstein’s death, Bohr’s death and Bertrand Russel’s rise to international fame. It was probably the first time in modern history that scientists became common household names.

A little history of this time can be found here …
http://www.pugwash.org/reports/pim/pim2.htm

Athough I think these legends are wrong, I also think that they are wonderful in that they involve an element of fantasy about science and scientists. It’s fun to think that people are getting as excited about science as they are about entertainment and politics.

For example the notion that Cholesterol is a good thing. This article I am about to post is very scientific yet another website called quack calls them stupid and pesduo scientist. They didnt debunk any of their points or any of their science theyt just classified them a pesdo science. Can you debunk their points ?
_________________________________________________________
ople with high cholesterol live the longest. This statement seems so incredible that it takes a long time to clear one´s brainwashed mind to fully understand its importance. Yet the fact that people with high cholesterol live the longest emerges clearly from many scientific papers. Consider the finding of Dr. Harlan Krumholz of the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Yale University, who reported in 1994 that old people with low cholesterol died twice as often from a heart attack as did old people with a high cholesterol.1 Supporters of the cholesterol campaign consistently ignore his observation, or consider it as a rare exception, produced by chance among a huge number of studies finding the opposite.

But it is not an exception; there are now a large number of findings that contradict the lipid hypothesis. To be more specific, most studies of old people have shown that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for coronary heart disease. This was the result of my search in the Medline database for studies addressing that question.2 Eleven studies of old people came up with that result, and a further seven studies found that high cholesterol did not predict all-cause mortality either.

Now consider that more than 90 % of all cardiovascular disease is seen in people above age 60 also and that almost all studies have found that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for women.2 This means that high cholesterol is only a risk factor for less than 5 % of those who die from a heart attack.

But there is more comfort for those who have high cholesterol; six of the studies found that total mortality was inversely associated with either total or LDL-cholesterol, or both. This means that it is actually much better to have high than to have low cholesterol if you want to live to be very old.
Many studies have found that low cholesterol is in certain respects worse than high cholesterol. For instance, in 19 large studies of more than 68,000 deaths, reviewed by Professor David R. Jacobs and his co-workers from the Division of Epidemiology at the University of Minnesota, low cholesterol predicted an increased risk of dying from gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases.3

Most gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases have an infectious origin. Therefore, a relevant question is whether it is the infection that lowers cholesterol or the low cholesterol that predisposes to infection? To answer this question Professor Jacobs and his group, together with Dr. Carlos Iribarren, followed more than 100,000 healthy individuals in the San Francisco area for fifteen years. At the end of the study those who had low cholesterol at the start of the study had more often been admitted to the hospital because of an infectious disease.4,5 This finding cannot be explained away with the argument that the infection had caused cholesterol to go down, because how could low cholesterol, recorded when these people were without any evidence of infection, be caused by a disease they had not yet encountered? Isn´t it more likely that low cholesterol in some way made them more vulnerable to infection, or that high cholesterol protected those who did not become infected? Much evidence exists to support that interpretation.Most studies of young and middle-aged men have found high cholesterol to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease, seemingly a contradiction to the idea that high cholesterol is protective. Why is high cholesterol a risk factor in young and middle-aged men? A likely explanation is that men of that age are often in the midst of their professional career. High cholesterol may therefore reflect mental stress, a well-known cause of high cholesterol and also a risk factor for heart disease. Again, high cholesterol is not necessarily the direct cause but may only be a marker. High cholesterol in young and middle-aged men could, for instance, reflect the body’s need for more cholesterol because cholesterol is the building material of many stress hormones. Any possible protective effect of high cholesterol may therefore be counteracted by the negative influence of a stressful life on the vascular system.
English isnt my first language .

This quote is from Ravskov’s article The Benefits of High Cholesterol & his book ‘Cholesterol Myths’ promoting a single persons view point. This is not from a refereed journal so can say what ever the author chooses. Most of the criticism is that the author makes claims and bases the results on partial evidence. The data is cherry picked to support a view point.
Here are some sites rebutting this book.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=80854
http://skepdic.com/refuge/bunk28.html

Cherry picking data
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

Data biases and fallacies
http://info-pollution.com/evidence.htm

All new theories that attempt to explain how the world works must agree with all observed facts and explain how the events produce the known results. Many new theories fly in the face of accepted ideas because they are based on a small body of very new evidence that falsifies the previous explanation of facts. In peer review the evidence is obtainable by others using the same methods so it is verified as repeatable. Then the logic of the new theory is assessed by other scientists that specialize in this area ie they are peers capable of understanding the new evidence compared to the earlier smaller body of evidence. In this way if a single researcher made an error it will be caught by others knowledgeable in the specialty. If there is no error the knowledge is shared pushing others along in their efforts.