Biology Forums - Study Force

From the Huffingtonpost:

''Frank Baker faced death while earning two Purple Hearts in Vietnam, but the scariest moment of his life came in June 1995.

Baker was in his home in Vermont, when he suddenly burst into flames, an experience he discusses for the first time on "The Unexplained Files," airing Oct. 2 on the Science Channel.

"We were getting ready for fishing and sitting on the couch," Baker said on the episode. "Everything was great. [Friend] Pete [Willey] was sitting next to me [and] we were having a helluva time."

That is, until things started heating up -- literally -- when flames appeared on Baker's body.

"It was the damndest thing I've ever seen," Willey remembered. "Frank was freaking out and making me freak out."

Baker started panicking and tried everything to stop his body from being burned.

"I had no idea what was taking place on my body -- none," he said.

Baker and Willey somehow put out the flames and got to a doctor. But the diagnosis was as shocking as the sudden flames that engulfed his body.

"The doctor called, and said, 'Frank, this burned from the inside out,'" Baker said.


Frank Baker discussed his alleged case on Oct. 2, on the Unexplained Files on the Science Channel. No skeptical input whatsoever is offered in the news source (which did irk me) so I'm wondering what you guys think.

He was then diagnosed with partial spontaneous combustion. He says on his Facebook he wants donations because he's having testing done and for finding a cure. He recently sold his home so there must be truth to this story because he seems really desperate he says this has happened to him 3 times so far and that there may not be a fourth.

This sounds like a severe case of heartburn lol This, of course is impossible. Yes, gas is produced in our intestines, let's say it's methane (CH4) for arguments sake. CH4 is a hydrocarbon; in order for something like this to 'combust', ample oxygen is required + an energy source (>>40 oC - our body temperature)... Another reason why it's bogus is because it came from the Huffingtonpost.

Some theories on how SHC happens isn't limited to methane gas explosions, but from a build up of reactive chemicals in cells, or some kind of metabolic runaway event.

However, the most popular theory of how true SHC happens is from a chemical reaction. Cells do produce reactive chemicals such as propanal, hydrogen peroxide, other aldehydes, etc. In high concentrations these chemicals react with other chemicals exothermically.

I know Frank Baker's facebook account. He asks for donations to help find a cure for his chronic SHC, and to pay for the testing because they're interested in his cells. He says it's happened to him not once but 3 times and has launched a funding site for his condition.

Frank also says he has the doctors statements to back him up.
There was a case last year of a baby in India named Rahul who also kept spontaneously combusting, and like in this case, the doctors diagnosed him with spontaneous combustion. Made national news.

Hydrogen peroxide, true, but never have I heard of propanal.

Natural selection would have weeded out this possibility long, long ago. If this thing were common, the human race would cease to exist - humans would be in constant fear of going to bed one night and not waking up as a result of internal burning. The idea is absolutely ridiculous.

@Bio_man, you mentioned that you'd need a spark of some sort. Recall that fires can begin as a result of a buildup of static electricity inside the body, but this idea is also far fetched.

We all know what really happened here. Frank Baker obviously lit a match near his bum hole, but doesn't want to admit it :D

Maybe, but there's still people getting things such as cancer. Just because natural selection is real doesn't rule out the possibility that some bodies develop faults in their lifetime. It doesn't disprove SHC at all.

Also, if it was static electricity that caused him to catch fire, that still wouldn't explain why his doctor concluded that he had burnt from the inside out. Static electricity is a surface phenomenon. It would not have caused burns that were more severe on the inside than on the outside, as a simple biopsy, CT or MRI scan would've shown.

(http://www.intechopen.com/source/html/42341/media/image3_w.jpg)
Good diagram to show that oxygen levels inside the colon are extremely low.

Back when we were tribes-people, we rarely made it to our 40's. Men and women would die at a very young age, relative to today's standards. Therefore, adult onset diseases, such as cancers, weren't common anyway. When seeking a mate, men wouldn't select for women that didn't have cancer; if a woman looked healthy, had long hair, and was single, they were selected by the alpha male of the tribe.

Can you provide an actual, credible source for this story?

I cannot offer links because I don't have enough posts.. but search it on the Huffington post.. I also have Frank Baker's facebook account with him asking for donations to find a cure for SHC..

Also you did not comment on the most popular theory for how SHC happens - a chemical imbalance.

You can post links. You need a single post only - but I'm searching it now. The more I look into it, the more I find it absurd.

Before I respond to that idea, have you ever used hydrogen peroxide for a cut?

Here's the link : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/frank-baker-spontaneous-combustion_n_4024833.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/frank-baker-spontaneous-combustion_n_4024833.html)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to give away Facebook data. I'll leave it there.

Anyway, the hydrogen peroxide you use for cuts is low concentration. Usually about 3%. At 70%, for example, hydrogen peroxide is highly reactive and it may react and oxidize organic materials causing spontaneous combustion, because the reactions are exothermic.

Propanal is unstable and can exothermically polymerize with certain amino acids etc... Aldehydes are also metabolites and these are reactive too, depending on the species of aldehyde.

What I am saying is that there are some rather nasty chemicals which are metabolities in the body. Chemicals you wouldn't really want to mess with even in a lab.

Now consider that's when you have two or more chemicals in a lab. The human body contains thousands of chemicals, so there's a lot of space for chemical incompatibilities.

Don't mean to sound smug, but I'm aware of all those chemicals ^-^

Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that if you've ever used H2O2 for a cut, you'll notice that the cut turns white. Reason being, we have MASSIVE amounts of catalases (enzymes that neutralize peroxide) in our bloodstream that neutralize it (H2O2 + Catalase --> Water + O2). We have evolved to produce just the right amounts for things like this never to occur.


Good point, but if that were the case, it would have happened to this person along time ago. Unless a mutation occurred somewhere inside of him, that makes him produce a lot of more deadly chemicals. However, even if this were true, that would mean he has cancer, and so would have been dead by now.

Not likely.. sorry.. enzyme deficiencies do occur and it's possible that the culprit wasn't hydrogen peroxide but some other chemicals mixing together creating the exothermic reaction. Cancer kills you slowly.. cancer happens much slower than exothermic reactions.

So you think it's cancer?

Evidently it isn't if he isn't dead yet. Correction, cancer does act quickly.

And, if it's not cancer, then it's not a mutation.

Enzyme deficiencies do happen as we age, but how would that account for the sudden appearance of toxic chemicals mixing together? Wouldn't that happen in all humans.

What I think could happen is that too many enzymes are produced in cells, due to a mutation (not all mutations are cancer) the enzymes, by chance, happen to be enzymes which will metabolize their substrate into say, propanal, aldehydes, etc, nasty reactive chemicals prone to reacting exothermically and polymerizing due to increases in temperature. Another mutation in the mitochondria means too much of that enzymes substrate is produced. The mitochondria bursts allowing the enzyme to react with the over abundant substrate, and the enzyme then converts the substrate to these reactive chemicals. A sudden spike in reactive chemicals would be exothermic because they tend to react with any organic material.

Since the enzymes cannot diffuse between membranes, it would keep these separate, so if there's an over abundance of 1 enzyme in the cell and an over abundance of another enzyme (which produces the 1st enzyme's substrate, which when converted by the 1st enzyme, becomes reactive chemicals) in the mitochondria, you could have a situation where you've got two bags which when mixed will produce highly reactive chemicals, if the mitochondria happens to burst.


As far as I'm aware, enzymes do not pass through cell membranes. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hi again...

Explains everything :down:

They aren't ''new'' enzymes, the mutation or imbalance causes too many enzymes to be created.

I ask, is it possible to have an over-abundance of a specific enzyme?

And what is the percent of enzymes relative to the water in the cell/mitochondria?

Post Merge: 10 years ago

I also ask if the mitochondria can suddenly burst and release these substrates (which can then be turned into highly reactive chemical)

Post Merge: 10 years ago

Because, if there's an imbalance in the cell itself, well the cell is constantly receiving substrates from the outside. Nothing can be built up per se, so any increase in an enzyme that's producing toxic chemicals will be slow so that the enzyme has time to be denatured by the toxic or unstable chemicals.

But if there's a build up of substrate in the mitochondria, and it bursts, and there's an over abundance of an enzyme which converts that substrate into reactive/unstable chemical, then there's trouble.

Post Merge: 10 years ago

BAD NEWS. I found out the mitochondria CAN burst, so it IS possible

You're trying real hard to prove that something exists. I'm wondering if there are any ulterior motives to this thread now. Were you the author of the Huffington Post article by any chance?

In order for any gene to be expressed in eukaroytic organisms, transcription factors are required. These factors (proteins) bind to genetic code upstream from the actual gene. Therefore, in order to over-express three 'existing' enzymes, you'd need three random mutations to simultaneously occur at different locations of a single cell. To make matters worse, not only would genes coding these transcription factors need to be mutated, the upstream non-coding regions of the enzymes would also need to be mutated lol And to make matters worse beyond that, enzyme genes are coded on all 46 chromosomes, and each chromosome set (1-23) has two different alleles to choose from! Let's say we're living in a dream world and this did occur; more enzymes doesn't necessarily mean more reactions. What good is it to have several enzymes, but not enough substrates to push the reaction forward? Is there now an amply supply of substrate coming from somewhere?

(http://library.thinkquest.org/C005053/enzymeconc.jpg)

And, that is important because? Like I pointed out, if a mitochondrion bursts, there are 20 others that occupy the same cells. Lysosomes, tiny organelles in our cells, clean up that mess anyway. In addition, a mitochondrion is probably 1/1000 the size of the cell that contains it, so one 'bursting' is negligible.

You've got a good imagination, but this story is clearly bogus and I'm sure it won't fly in any scientific community.

But over-abundances do occur so I'm wondering if this could happen not locally but generally.

And I'm not trying to prove anything SHC just freaks me out and the more I read these news articles that I can't avoid the more convinced I am its real but I don't want that

Anyway the chemicals made from these substrates are reactive, so assuming that there was a very high conc. of substrate + equally high conc. of the enzyme that converts it into whatever reactive chemical... would these enzymes be destroyed before the concentration of this reactive metabolite could result in much heat production?

Not sure if reactive chemicals damage enzymes but it's worth an ask.

HI

After reading the article, my conclusion:

Snake oil. Frank Baker has made himself rich because of this I bet.


If these mutations do occur, by definition, those cells are cancerous. The cells would divide and produce enzymes uncontrollable everywhere within the vicinity.


Yes, they do.

So lets assume there's a high concenctration swarm of enzymes in the body making contact with a high concentration of substrate (which is getting converted to a highly reactive chemical)

Do the enzymes denature?


Do they denature immediately?

What would happen?

Depends on the chemical make up of the enzyme.


Denaturation occurs immediately, but all that is required, really, is for the active site to be affected by the chemical for it to stop work. Enzymes are pretty delicate.

So what would happen to them if this situation were to occur? Are all reactive chemicals damaging to these enzymes?

The enzymes would stop working contingent on the fact that the chemicals denature the enzymes. They would subsequently get digested inside the cell, and then the cell would be marked for destruction (apoptosis).

Give it up, this doesn't happen ;) It's just a myth. The guy found a venue that no one else has exploited and is making money off it.

This ''chemical reaction'' theory is probably the only plausible mechanism of SHC I can think of..

SHC has hardly been solved. It is still a very controversial subject and here's why.

The Wick effect explanation doesn't cover the full extent of SHC, it only explains about half of the cases at most.

''SHC eyewitness cases in more detail'' offers several eyewitness cases of SHC, which cannot possibly be attributed to the wick effect.

There was a baby in India named Rahul who kept spontaneously combusting and it made national news at the time. The mother was an illiterate, there isn't any way she could have known about SHC. I honestly doubt a 3-month old was chain-smoking and drinking large amounts of alcohol.

Doctors subsequently diagnosed the 3-month old with Spontaneous combustion.
Doctors also diagnosed Frank Baker with spontaneous combustion (in that case, ''partial spontaneous combustion'').

These cases are instead seemingly consistent with an internal chemical reaction gone awry and I ask if that scenario is a mere possibility.


Acrylamide is an example of a chemical with selective reactivity. I don't think it reacts with proteins but its very reactive with some things and readily polymerizes. It's a byproduct of carbohydrates and starches.

Something to consider would be why Frank Baker says he has the doctors statement to back him up, offering all his contact details to people who don't believe him, if he's lying about the whole thing? Note that his friend Willey must also be a conspirator in this as well, because he says he was there with Frank when it happened. He requested for donations to (according to him) find a cure for SHC and to pay for the medical testing + hospital stays where his cells are being evaluated.

Whoa, watch the claims! Acrylamide is definitely not a byproduct of carbohydrates and starches.


Did Frank ever get a second opinion? Probably not.

Well I read statches when heated form acrylamide. Enzymes catalyse ''cooking' so I thought it'd be a byproduct in the body as well.

Cyanide doesn't denature nonmetallic enzymes, and according to the Human Metabolome Database, it's produced by the body's enzymes. Cyanide is highly reactive with ketones so I'm wondering if my scenario coupled with a diabetic could cause some nasty exothermic reactions to occur on a localized level.

Cyanide is toxic, yes, but I'm speaking on a small scale. We can assume that we have a cell that's producing a lot of substrate, and in the other cell next to the defective cells, we have a cell packed full of an enzyme which converts that substrate into cyanide. For some reason, these cells burst. So we'd get a burst of concentrated cyanide mixing with a high concentration of acetone which is a highly exothermic reaction through addition.

I know these scenarios are extremely implausible and unlikely, but unlikely things do and can occur so they must be considered before we are so quick to dismiss SHC.

I had trouble following it so I drew a diagram of the scenario to help http://oi59.tinypic.com/29zspe9.jpg (http://oi59.tinypic.com/29zspe9.jpg)

Post Merge: 10 years ago

I also should mention that hydrogen peroxide and acetone exist in the cells, when these mix together above 10 c it creates an explosive chemical which can actually detonate even if it's underwater spontaneously

Anyone?

Can someone reply to my theory please??

It's wrong. Why are you talking about cyanide, a deadly, industrial poisonous gas?

"Well I read statches when heated form acrylamide. Enzymes catalyse ''cooking' so I thought it'd be a byproduct in the body as well."

Acrylamide is formed on the barbecue grill @ 500 degrees temperature, but definitely not in our bodies - that notion is strictly out of question. Period.

"I know these scenarios are extremely implausible and unlikely, but unlikely things do and can occur so they must be considered before we are so quick to dismiss SHC."

You know how absurd your theories are. Why don't you go ahead and test them out if you're that passionate about this pseudo-condition?

I gave another theory... the body constantly produces Hydrogen Peroxide and Acetone as a metabolic byproduct. When these two chemicals combine they produce Acetone Peroxide. Acetone Peroxide is insoluble in water, and will hence accumulate. It isn't toxic but is an explosive and can burn spontaneously, even underwater, in the slightest amounts.

Could you show me an article that states humans produce acetone as a waste product?

Here:

Human Metabolome Database

Search ''Acetone''.

It's pretty common knowledge in the world of biochemistry and especially to diabetics. If you look up hydrogen peroxide, you will see HMDB also declares it as another endogenous byproduct.

Let's say you form aqueous acetone peroxide. Then what happens?

Acetone peroxide can detonate or catch fire spontaneously, and it can explode even when wet.
Acetone peroxide is insoluble - you can't actually form an aqueous solution of it. Because of this, it can accumulate easily.

Please provide source.


Where will it accumulate? Inside cells? If that happens, macrophages will come and destroy that cell.

Hi GaiaGirl95,

How come you're not logging into your account instead of posting as a guest?

I don't currently have my home PC right now, which my login data is stored on. I should get it back by tomorrow though. For now I can only reply as a guest.

And a YouTube video titled ''Acetone Peroxide Explosion Montage'' shows AP detonating when underwater.

Explosion Video of the Week: TATP | Popular Science says: ''Note: TATP is still explosive when it's wet, so it's probably one of the reasons for the TSA's draconian rules about liquids.)''

How much AP is required to cause an explosion? If you can think of any disorder that produces the chemicals needed to make AP within the cell, then you probably got something going, but all of these thoughts are assumptions. Theories are not built on assumptions. In addition, what fuels AP once it is burning /releasing energy?

AP is its own oxidizer.. so it will continue to burn until it has used itself up.
Only about a gram or so is required to achieve a fire from AP. AP is insoluble, so if cells are producing a higher than normal concentration of acetone and HP (can happen. Catalase deficiency + diabetes?) in your cells, then by logic you should be accumulating AP.

Now all you have to do is prove if there are any proven biochemical pathways that will produce acetone and HP. If you can, then you are a ticking time bomb!

From PUBCHEM: Compound Summary for: CID 180
Acetone
Also known as: 2-propanone, propanone, Dimethyl ketone, Methyl ketone, Pyroacetic ether, Dimethylformaldehyde, beta-Ketopropane, Dimethylketal
Molecular Formula: C3H6O   Molecular Weight: 58.07914   InChIKey: CSCPPACGZOOCGX-UHFFFAOYSA-N
A colorless liquid used as a solvent and an antiseptic. It is one of the ketone bodies produced during ketoacidosis.   From: MeSH''


NCIBI.GOV:
''The cellular production of hydrogen peroxide.''

''1. The enzyme-substrate complex of yeast cytochrome c peroxidase is used as a sensitive, specific and accurate spectrophotometric H(2)O(2) indicator. 2. The cytochrome c peroxidase assay is suitable for use with subcellular fractions from tissue homogenates as well as with pure enzyme systems to measure H(2)O(2) generation. 3. Mitochondrial substrates entering the respiratory chain on the substrate side of the antimycin A-sensitive site support the mitochondrial generation of H(2)O(2). Succinate, the most effective substrate, yields H(2)O(2) at a rate of 0.5nmol/min per mg of protein in state 4. H(2)O(2) generation is decreased in the state 4-->state 3 transition. 4. In the combined mitochondrial-peroxisomal fraction of rat liver the changes in the mitochondrial generation of H(2)O(2) modulated by substrate, ADP and antimycin A are followed by parallel changes in the saturation of the intraperoxisomal catalase intermediate. 5. Peroxisomes supplemented with uric acid generate extraperoxisomal H(2)O(2) at a rate (8.6-16.4nmol/min per mg of protein) that corresponds to 42-61% of the rate of uric acid oxidation. Addition of azide increases these H(2)O(2) rates by a factor of 1.4-1.7. 6. The concentration of cytosolic uric acid is shown to vary during the isolation of the cellular fractions. 7. Microsomal fractions produce H(2)O(2) (up to 1.7nmol/min per mg of protein) at a ratio of 0.71-0.86mol of H(2)O(2)/mol of NADP(+) during the oxidation of NADPH. H(2)O(2) is also generated (6-25%) during the microsomal oxidation of NADH (0.06-0.025mol of H(2)O(2)/mol of NAD(+)). 8. Estimation of the rates of production of H(2)O(2) under physiological conditions can be made on the basis of the rates with the isolated fractions. The tentative value of 90nmol of H(2)O(2)/min per g of liver at 22 degrees C serves as a crude approximation to evaluate the biochemical impact of H(2)O(2) on cellular metabolism.''

Peroxisome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
D-amino acid oxidase and acyl-CoA oxidase produce H2O2:

acyl-CoA + O2 \rightleftharpoons  trans-2,3-dehydroacyl-CoA + H2O2

Yeast?

''Production of large amounts of hydrogen peroxide by human tumor cells.'' Cancer Res. 1991 Feb 1;51(3):794-8. Szatrowski TP, Nathan CF.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1846317 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1846317)

'The cellular production of hydrogen peroxide.'' Biochem J. 1972 Jul;128(3):617-30. Boveris A, Oshino N, Chance B.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4404507 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4404507)

''Hydrogen Peroxide''
http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary (http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary) ... gi?cid=784

''Increased hydrogen peroxide generation by neutrophils from patients with acne inflammation.'' Int J Dermatol. 2003 May;42(5):366-9. Akamatsu H, Horio T, Hattori K.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12755973 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12755973)

''Role of hydrogen peroxide in neutrophil-mediated destruction of cultured endothelial cells.'' J Clin Invest. 1981 Sep;68(3):714-21. Weiss SJ, Young J, LoBuglio AF, Slivka A, Nimeh NF.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6268662 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6268662)

''Neutrophil activation on biological surfaces. Massive secretion of hydrogen peroxide in response to products of macrophages and lymphocytes.'' J Clin Invest. 1987 Dec;80(6):1550-60. Nathan CF.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2445780 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2445780)







''Acetone concentration in gas emanating from tails of diabetic rats.'' Anal Sci. 2012;28(5):511-4. Yamai K, Funada T, Ohkuwa T, Itoh H, Tsuda T.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22687932 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22687932)

''Acetone in breath and blood'' - by Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc. 1977; 88: 128–139. O. B. Crofford, R. E. Mallard, R. E. Winton, N. L. Rogers, J. C. Jackson, and U. Keller.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2441399/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2441399/)

'Concentrations of acetone in venous blood samples from drunk drivers, type-I diabetic outpatients, and healthy blood donors.'' J Anal Toxicol. 1993 May-Jun;17(3):182-5. Jones AW, Sagarduy A, Ericsson E, Arnqvist HJ.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8336493 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8336493)

''Insulin and the production of acetone bodies by the perfused liver' - J Physiol. 1926 October 30; 62(1): 17–32. by H. S. Raper and E. C. Smith
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1514887/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1514887/)


What happens when acetone and hydrogen peroxide mix:

http://explosives.wonderhowto.com/how-t (http://explosives.wonderhowto.com/how-t) ... e-0132649/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone_peroxide)

You get acetone peroxide, a high explosive, which can detonate even when wet, because the detonation is a result of rapid expansion (it is friction against solids which constitutes the heat produced from this explosive) Source: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JGEg (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JGEg) ... 22&f=false

You should look into how much energy is released per gram of acetone peroxide. In addition, look into how acetone peroxide is formed (the chemical reaction, whether or not a catalyst is required, etc). Also, look into what can neutralize acetone peroxide.

I got some new info...

Frank Baker and his witness refused to take a Polygraph test. I know this because the documentary was re-aired and a commentor admitted to this.

Now I recall a friend posting on a similar forum about this topic saying Frank is a very honest person and isn't getting money from it.

Why would he refuse to take a polygraph test anyway?

HI


Goes without saying, he's a liar?

Fame ≠ money.

Notice the issue here. Not only is this so-called condition extremely rare, the only living survivor doesn't want to take a lie-detector test.

A person claiming he/she is Frank's friend says that frank isnt making any money off of this and that he's a honest person.

^^ Funny

Just because my friends claims I'm such and such doesn't necessary mean that it's true.

I've read this discussion and I wonder how I missed it!
Anyways, there is only 1 thing I have to say: GaiaGirl95, seriously now, you though of all these ideas and you can't just think that there is a small possibility that he may be lying? I mean, come on, there are no proofs at all. He has just made this up with his friend and (possibly) his doctor. Isn't that easier and much more probable than the complicated ideas you suggest?

Improbability doesn't mean it can't happen. You could say we didn't go to the moon because that's more likely because more people fake things than go to the moon. Improbable things can and do happen so I fail to see how probability disproves this.

Everything is possible. It's just that it is highly improbable. It is way more likely that he is just lying about this... You must always take the probability into account. I think this case is so much unlikely that it's not worth making points to prove that it "could"happen.

Unlikely things do happen. Sometimes they seem so unlikely it;'s hard to believe.
But that's why they make news headlines.

Of course. But is that a reason to believe something just because someone claimed it? Big headlines certainly doesn't mean trustworthy news.

Innocent until proven guilty.

What would be his motive to lie?

Why would he reveal his full address several times in public, asking for donations to fund for testing?

As well as the fact he didn't receive any money on his funding website, and he had sold his house on November 27th, around 2 months after the episode aired. This tells me he needed money pretty desperately, and his facebook posts do suggest he is desperate to put an end to his chronic SHC (he claims it's happened to him 3 times so far. He says ''there may not be a fourth'')

He implies the episode has made the medical community interested in him. On his facebook he also states that ''they now want my cells'' to test on .

All right. Then I claim that i can fly and I demand everyone to believe me until they can scientifically prove that I'm lying.

I see this discussion doesn't go anywhere, so that is my last reply as well.

You could be flying using an aircraft or makeshift wings.

Not everything needs to be scientifically proved. SHC would be hard to prove - the evidence for what causes SHC, is burnt in the process , it will appear like normal burning deaths unless you were to take a biopsy and see something isn't right. (for example, an area of the skin that is more burnt in the inner layers than the outer layers. This would be somewhat concealed to firefighters etc.)

Have the conducted an autopsy of his insides for burns?

No, because Baker isn't dead yet.
He says he's survived SHC.

According to the Documentary, which I doubt anyone here actually watched, a Dr West said he'd burnt from the inside-out and diagnosed him with (quote) ''Partial Spontaneous Combustion''  Most likely, he'd taken a tissue sample.

They can have him swallow a camera pill to see if any damage was made. I highly doubt anything would show up. Even if there was one accessible, he wouldn't swallow it because he's a fake.

I just said the doc obviously did a biopsy and said hed burnt from the inside out, which implies there was more fire damage under the skin than outside the skin.

Just because SHC is unlikely, doesn't mean it can never happen,.
Unlikely thing do occur and just because lying is more likely, is a logical fallacy to say that is correct.

It's made headline news because it's unlikely.

I don't think so - it *never* made headline news. That article is not headline news, it's an article submitted probably by an associate of Mr. Baker.

The only common denominator here is that Mr. Baker, his doctor, and his friend all agree that it happened, but there's no biological proof that it did.

What biopsy was conducted?

I dunno - just a biopsy.
Frank Baker said he just gathered the courage to finally speak up about it.

Maybe the doctor thought SHC was just another one of those rare medical conditions and didn't forward the results to anyone else. (patient documents are confidential in the UK)

So you say SHC is possible?

Possibly, if you ate explosives and a whole lot of flint.

I mean is SHC possible to occur naturally. There are oxidizers produced by the body. These are reactive. Namely hydrogen peroxide and benzyl peroxide (the human metabolome database states that BP is produced endogenously as well) nitrates (and nitric oxide, a strong oxidizing gas) are also found and produced in the body, and they are too oxidizers.

Not possible, ever. Oxidizing agents are dissolved in aqueous solutions... I feel like I keep repeating myself. I think I might retire from posting on here. I feel like logic is being challenged with pseudo-facts and presumptions - not constructive science, in my opinion.

They are facts.
Also, even if they are, take a look at some chemicals which burn even when underwater on YouTube.
They burn underwater because they have their own oxidizer.

Hydrogen peroxide can cause oxidizable organics to spontaneously combust. This sometimes happens when HP from hair dye is allowed to condense on paper, etc.

Water is no match for oxidizers + fuel. Take a look at space-ships and sattelites! Their fuel can burn even in space. There is no oxygen in space just as there is no oxygen in water.

The thing I really cant understand, is why do you insist so much??? Honestly, even if there is the slightest possibility that SHC is real, there is no reason to believe something just because 3 people claimed it. Really now, you try to persuade us for something with no sufficient proof! How do you expect us to believe that event??
Think about it just a minute: Is the examinations of one doctor enough to persuade us? Is the claims of two people enough to persuade us? If yes, I can create 10000 similar diseases easily.

And, anyways, WHY you believe Mr Baker and you don't believe the hundreds of researches that were made and concluded that SHC cannot happen?

Now, I don't say that SHC is surely fake. I just say that there is about 99,9999999% possibility to be fake and 0,0000001% possibility to be real. On the other hand, it seems that you believe it is real 100%... And I just can't see why. Are you so kind that you cannot believe someone is lying??


Also, its funny how a quite meaningless topic was so much extended  lol. At least I hope, from now on GaiaGirl95 will stop believing everything she reads.

^-^

So you admit SHC is possible just unlikely, but that does not disprove this case at all anymore than probability math disproves the moon landing and Apollo 13's return to Earth, etc.

You have eight zeros which represents 1 in 1 billion - there are 7 billion people on Earth.

Then you shouldn't accuse people of lying before proven guilty.

Just because it's so improbable, does not mean it hasn't happened. It's rude to accuse others when they could be suffering.
It's more likely man didn't go to the moon, or that the crew of Apollo 13 never made it back to Earth - but both happened.

Post Merge: 10 years ago

Show me these studies that somehow show SHC cannot happen. Linking me to case studies on the wick effect and I'll ignore you. The wick effect, like SHC - has not been proven, all it's been demonstrated is that the wick effect produces similar burn patterns as seen with the victims. It certainly does NOT disprove the possibility of SHC anymore than the theory of the big bang disproves black holes.

SHC rarely shows its evidence - because the evidence burns away. This gives skeptics an excuse to plug their ears and pretend SHC doesn't happen because the only evidence that matters to them is if an actively spontaneously combusting person was thrown into a lab and studied while self-immolating.

Wow. Thank god I didn't give a higher possibility like 1%. In that case, you would say that 1% of all people will have SHC!!!
I didn't say that the disease is rare. I said that it's probably fake. You confuse these two things.
I believe that these two things probabliy happened because there are more proofs than the claims of just 3 people.
What is the logic on that?
Just search for it.

But you didn't answer my question. How do you expect people to believe something so improbable having as a proof the claims of 3 people? It's like believing people talking about ghosts.

I see that again I got carried away. There is no way you will change your mind, and I wonder why I am still trying. I'd think you are probably related to the subject somehow, I can't find any other explanation, since you believe something having no proofs at all.
I'll also try to resist and retire from the post once and for all. I know, you will make one more useless reply, you will alter everything I said and you will present other illogical examples to "prove" that SHC exists. In that case, I'm not willing to continue the discussion. Other people must be laughing hard reading all this...

The explanation for SHC is that a chemical imbalance (a build up of reactive chemicals) causes a lot of heat to be generated, for example hydrogen peroxide, at about 70%, will cause leather to spontaneously combust. Videos of this can be found on YouTube. Benzoyl peroxide is even more reactive (it's labled 3 on the reactive scale as opposed to 2 on HP's MSDS)

Wait, what?! Which math disproves Apollo 13?


I will show you these studies if you can show me studies that disprove the possibility of teleportation.
You can say that again lol

Are you sure Baker wasn't producing highly flamable jet fuel inside of him because of so-called chemical imbalances?

Allow me to ask a question; let's assume that a patch of dermal cells (or cells lying completely under the skin) instantly reached a temperature of 1000 degrees Celsius. The much drier skin and clothing on top of it ignites from the heat, and the fire is put out using external means (meaning whatever was causing the cells to heat to that temperature, did not last as long as the external flames as a result of the heat)

Now, a hypothetical biopsy is taken of the tissue in this scenario.

Would there be more severe damage externally (the skin) or internally, where the heating cells were located (under the skin/muscle, etc)?

Post Merge: 10 years ago

I may also ask: can nerves produce electrical sparks? This would explain the combustion.
500 Hz is the maximum rate nerves can fire - generate action potentials.
http://www.dspguide.com/ch22/1.htm (http://www.dspguide.com/ch22/1.htm)

There is a flow of current, which produces tiny amounts of heat.
However nerves do not fire that frequently unless there is a problem.

Let's assume there is, and the nerves in the muscles begin to fire at 500 Hz (or whatever their maximum frequency happens to be).
This would surely produce more heat than normal, yes? I've known athletes comment that their body temperature increases after a work out, because the muscles are firing more often during exercise.

I also wonder if it's possible for damaged nerves to generate sparks. Diabetic myopathy causes the nerve cells to accumulate more ions than normal: ''in these patients, an enzyme called sodium potassium ATPase, know as the sodium pump because it pumps excess sodium ions out of the cell, does not work. When inflammation occurs, it triggers an increase in the number and sensitivity of sodium channels in the nerve cell membrane causing an influx of sodium with no way to get rid of it. Water follows the sodium into the nerve cells, causing swelling until the cells burst, a process called lysis.'' http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/lsuh-lrw092209.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/lsuh-lrw092209.php)

When these cells burst, the concentration decreases, so some current would be released. What about sparks? Nerves are just electrical wires anyway, and I doubt anyone has not heard about or seen an electrical wire sparking and how this can lead to fires.

(Keynote: the nerves in the skin aren't as wet as other nerves because they're located in a drier environment) A drier environment - higher chance of sparks being successfully produced.

Post Merge: 10 years ago

What if a human had a mutation that produced similar results to an electric eel whenever they sent impulses to the affected (mutated) area of cells, producing many volts and lots of current? I'd assume that not only would a lot of heat be released, but this would produce sparks, or even break down water into hydrogen and oxygen via electrolysis resulting in an explosion.

SHC possible with an over-production of oxidizers in the cells + catalase/peroxidase deficiency?

I must also note that there are oxidizers created by the body's cells. Hydrogen peroxide, benzoyl peroxide, and nitrate: http://www.hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB02878 (http://www.hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB02878)

http://www.hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB32040 (http://www.hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB32040)

http://www.hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB03125 (http://www.hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB03125)

 benzoyl peroxide is very reactive, with a 3 in reactivity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzoyl_peroxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzoyl_peroxide)
Look on YouTube, there are videos of oxidizing liquids reacting with things like leather, making them spontaneously combust: Hydrogen Peroxide(99%) on leather HD

So what do y'all think? Do you think he's telling the truth?

I was too lazy to read all that ^^ Think about what in a nutshell?

Even if you present 1000 different and possible scenarios as to how SHC can be real, you are missing the most important thing: Evidence. The evidence of each one of the reported cases are very poor, and they usually are just claims of some people.

Also, you confuse 2 completely different things: whether or not SHC is possible has nothing to do with whether or not Mr Baker is telling the truth.
However, with the so far evidence, I would say that the answer is probably negative for both.

Although we presented some basic points why your theory about the electric eel is probably impossible, it is hard to talk about it any further, because we know very little about the mechanism of the electric eel (the articles provided very basic information). Again, until now all evidence shows that bit is very improbable.

so the controversy rages on... it's 2014 and we still don't know enough about our own bodies to safely conclude our cells can't heat themselves up to the point we combust.

We've never conducted research on something like this because no company is going to invest its time and money on something whose probability of ever occurring in nature is 1 in 1099. Who would want to invest their resources in this when there are far more important things in life. Even if a university decided to test some of these 'theories', they'd end up going bankrupt due to the lack of enrollment since no future student would want to be part of an institution that is so feeble-minded. Instead of answering questions here, I'm wasting my time talking about the possibility of spontaneously burning within - how stupid does that sound?!

if SHC wasn't real and was just an urban myth it wouldn't be reported in the news.

So you say that EVERYTHING reported in the news is real?  :o
What if I make a newspaper and report everything wrong?

well it made global news about a baby in India who kept combusting. the baby's name was Rahul, and the articles said the docs diagnosed him with SHC. It's been in the news several times. in 2010 there was a news article about a shc victim named michael farhety. latest news article is about frank baker surviving shc. all in different papers. (ABC news, The Hindu, HuffingtonPost, Yahoo, Daily, Mail etc etc.

^^ How are there even related to Mr Baker? Even if SHC exists (which I highly doubt) how does that even prove anything about the Huffingtonpost you presented?

Also take a look at this about the new case you presented:
"However, no evidence was found to support the SHC claims, said Dr J Jagan Mohan, head of the burns department at the hospital.
‘I still stand by what I said, that there is no such thing as spontaneous human combustion,’ he said. ‘The possibility of child abuse exists and needs to be explored.’ "

Although this case of SHC is also probably fake, either way it provides no proof about Baker's claims.

Worldwide news are not more credible than other news. On the contrary, sometimes big newspapers and tv channels are more corrupted.

In conclusion, whatever the news, you must judge before believing.
NEVER believe something if there are no absolute proofs, and ALWAYS have doubts no matter how convincing the news might be.

What I am saying is SHC has not just been reported in the media once. It's been reported several times with separate cases. If SHC was a myth I doubt all these unrelated media outlets would cover separate unrelated cases of SHC. SHC is covered just how plane crashes are covered.

So what if the possibility of SHC is unlikely? Why do you think the news reports on stuff like this? because it's RARE and unlikely !! That's the whole point!!  :-:)

how do you expect SHC would leave evidence ? it'd just look like a person got burnt from any other heat source even if it was truly SHC. The cells of the body would heat up and this would cause the surface of the person to catch fire (the skin and the clothing) so they would actually catch fire from the outside but the trigger for the heat that caused them to ignite was internal. Flame damage would not exist inside the body but it is possible for something to catch fire with just heat! its called ''autoignition temperature''. . think of clothes on a radiator catching fire. the radiator's heat comes from steam. (mine does) there is no fire in a radiator, but if the radiator gets too hot, it CAN cause things on the surface to catch fire due to the heat.

Post Merge: 10 years ago

frank baker doesnt appear to be lying. if he was, then why did he choose to sell his home shortly after the documentary on his case aired ? he was asking on facebook for donations to get testing , treatment, money to pay for the hospital stays, etc. nobody donated to his gofundme. i checked .. it makes sense that he sold his home (and perhaps chose to live in a friends house , or an apartment ) to get some money to pay for his treatment. when you sell things you get some money . i can see how someone desperate enough could sell their house to get some money if theyre terminally ill , etc

I can't understand your point... So, basically you clarify that you believe everything the media is saying...
Just because media sometimes is saying the truth (plane crashes etc) that doesn't mean media is always honest.

You keep saying that SHC can not be scientifically (dis)proven. How does that make the article true?

There is one thing I can't understand: Why do I even bother to reply?...

If you are to become a scientist, PLEASE STOP THINKING LIKE THAT.

if he was lying, then WHY did he choose to sell his home shortly after the documentary on his case aired ? he was asking on facebook for donations to get testing , treatment, money to pay for the hospital stays, etc. nobody donated to his gofundme. i checked .. it makes sense that he sold his home (and perhaps chose to live in a friends house , or an apartment ) to get some money to pay for his treatment. when you sell things you get some money . i can see how someone desperate enough could sell their house to get some money if theyre terminally ill , etc That alone indicates Frank NEEDED money for something very important , or what he FELT was more important than having a roof over his head!

Frank Baker's facebook account. He uses his wifes account to speak, and he's asking for donations to seek a cure for SHC: https://www.facebook.com/rose.alsdorf (https://www.facebook.com/rose.alsdorf) search the address, his house was sold November 27th.

I don't care. It just doesn't prove anything.

No, but it DOES give credibility to his story.
Now, explain to me WHY he sold his own home just a month after the documentary aired, after he FAILED to get money by asking for donations. what if you had a lifethreatening condition and you didnt have the money, and asking for donations didnt work? you'd sell your house as well because im sure you value your life more than your house!

SELLING your house just for a hoax? that seems a bit far for an immature prank! and I'm sure you'll agree.

if you don't explain it then i can only conclude you're blind and cannot put yourself into other people's shoes.

What if he sold it to a friend/relative just to make his case look more credible? What if he was planning to sell it from the beginning, and it was a coincidence? What if he just didn't sell anything, and he is just saying it?
What if he is really is immature?

Because of these, the argue that "he sold the house" provides zero credibility to his case.

i just found a link which seems to prove the possibility of SHC . it did not cause combustion but here is a report of a case where a 6-year old Florida boy spontaneously cooked from the inside: http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-06-24/health/os-boy-high-temperature-died-20110624_1_malignant-hyperthermia-association-medical-experts-defective-gene (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011-06-24/health/os-boy-high-temperature-died-20110624_1_malignant-hyperthermia-association-medical-experts-defective-gene)

it uses the mechanism of metabolic runaway. a sudden hormone imbalance causes the mitochondria to work overtime. if its bad enough , i dont see how it couldn't lead to spontaneous combustion.

108 degrees are Fahrenheit and NOT Celsius.
The child was not cooked from the inside. The child died from hyperthermia, and that surely is not the only case of death from fever.

108 F (=42.2 C ) is not enough to cause burns (or flames).

The disorder of the child is named Malignant hyperthermia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_hyperthermia)

theres nothing stopping the heat building up to over 500 C if the metabolic overload was bad enough.

Did you ask the enzymes if they are functional at such high temperatures?

ask Frank Baker, Michael Farhety, Henry Thomas, Jack Angel, and baby Rahul that.

Can enzymes function at 500 degrees Celsius?

Yes, according to Frank Baker, Michael Farhety, Henry Thomas, Jack Angel, and baby Rahul!

Enzymes found in humans denature after 40 degrees Celcius. At 50 degrees, all of them are denatured.

lol Save yourself the embarrassment and don't make comments like that.

Don't you think it's weird how those unrelated people all experienced the exact same thing?
These people did not mention them heating up so perhaps the enzymes in the areas they caught fire heated up so rapidly they didn't have time to denature before the person caught fire without feeling themselves heating up.

What about ion channels? they are not enzymes but they can pull ions in and out of membranes. that creates a current which creates some heat. if these ion channels went crazy then there would be more heat!

Ion channels do not have a mind on of their own where they can simply decide when go into turbo mode. And, there's no reason why these mutated ion channels would be localized in the intestines, because the tissue that surrounds one's intestines - epithelial tissue - has a similar physiology to epithelial tissue found elsewhere in the body.

a person on a social forum told me how his aunt actually survived spontaneous human combustion in a very similar way to frank baker did.
he said how he was there when he saw the flames appear on her and how her doctor then concluded it was coming from her cells and he diagnosed her with spontaneous combustion.
he said she didnt smoke, swears on the truth, and ended the thing with 'science doesnt explain everything'

he said something about reactive gasses  and chemicals building up in her from a bad diet caused her to start flaming up from the inside.
something about when the greases mix an over abundance of certain enzymes start producing reactive chemicals very rapidly , like putting an enzyme powder into a solution of concentrated substrate.
nitric oxide (a very reactive oxidizing gas ) was mentioned.
what do you think?

Science is used as a mean to explain what we don't know using proven methods and facts discovered in a controlled environment. What we don't know now are merely gaps which can be filled with knowledge in the future. In science, conclusions are made based on evidence and confirmation of predictions, and that's what differentiates scientific knowledge from unscientific knowledge. What you've described here is a possible evidence that hasn't been confirmed and probably can never be replicated - therefore, it won't slide in a court of law, nor will it in this forum.


There are plenty of obese people that eat >5000 calories per day, and none of them are at risk of burning inside.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

The person who wrote it swore on the truth. as more of these SHC survivors speak up it's harder to dismiss SHC in general.

Doesn't matter if they spoke with full honesty, it still wouldn't hold in front of a panel of scientists (or any reasonable person).

no they cannot be verified in a lab because its difficult to get an actively combusting person into a lab so thisis why its important to go through all hypothesises on how SHC may happen to see if those can actually result in SHC. right now debunking the possibilities of SHC is the best way to debunk these cases

think of 'gravity hills' we all know gravity cannot repulse objects so we just dismiss those as optical illusions
so if we go through the offered possibilities of SHC and debunk those as impossible we can dismiss every case of SHC

I wonder what you guys think of this scenario
I drew a picture to explain it and it is somewhat relevant to the previous thread I created yesterday but it is more relevant to this one since it is about SHC.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/2iw0tl.jpg

Golgi appartus doesn't 'produce' anything, technically. Its role is to export previously made proteins in vesicles to areas inside and outside the cell.

but if a mutant enzyme were to be made it would be 'caught' by the golgi apparatus to be packaged.

Not following ???

So the guy who mentioned his aunt spontaneously combusted posted about it a second time on this social website and I tried to get him to admit he lied and there was no case of an aunt spontaneously combusting and there was no doctor to confirm she'd burnt from the inside out

Didn't go well, I got cussed at in ALL CAPS and he seemed very defensive, telling me to leave his aunt alone, I politely asked him to admit his lies, but he never did. He just got more and more defensive.

Is this normal for a person who is lying about the whole thing?

GaiaGirl95, when someone gets offended that quickly, it shows how immature they are. People that can't take a heated online discussion in a civilized manner shouldn't be trusted in real-life either.


Absolutely lol Can you take a screen shot of it and upload it here?

OK, I got the screenshots. (pardon the fake account age/gender, I decided to use an anonymous account when dealing with those types of people)

Here's where it first began: http://oi60.tinypic.com/35kicn6.jpg  (be sure to click on the image to enlarge it)

''Leave my aunt alone''
http://oi62.tinypic.com/9fzd42.jpg

Here's where he got really angry when I straight up called him out: http://oi58.tinypic.com/23wu3jt.jpg

When I straight up called him a liar, you can see he acts much more aggressive  than in the 1st screenshot.

You should invite him here, we'll defend you ;)

This spells immaturity.

I agree he's immature at that point, but in the first link, he seems quite mature and calm.
But that doesn't say if he's telling the truth, I mean if he was lying about the whole think I can't see him getting so defensive and worked up when he can just say ''hey, I trolled you and you fell for it, lol''

He's currently offline now.

Now I feel compelled to defending you; I'm sure the crew will too :)

So whats the verdict.. do you think he's telling the truth?

I'm in!

No way in hell. He has probably internalized this lie for so long that he doesn't know any better. It's probably a psychological issue.

Surely. If his arguments are similar to the ones you presented earlier in this thread, he has no chance of winning this debate.

Perhaps but in this case he wasn't asking for money and he seems normal otherwise.

Some people have egocentric.

But there are no indications he is lying
It seems like there's been a lot of cases of SHC lately, with doctors confirming it
(Jack Angel, Baby Rahul, Frank Baker, now this guy's Aunt)

A doctor's 'confirmation' is as valuable as anyone else, that doesn't give the story any more merit.

Well in the case of Jack Angel jack said his doctor said he burnt from the inside
In the case of Baby Rahul the doctors diagnosed him with partial spontaneous combustion
Frank Baker says a doctor told this him also, and diagnosed  with '' partial spontaneous combustion''

Apparently, '' partial spontaneous combustion''  is a legitimate doctor's diagnosis..


Now this guy on this forum said a doctor also confirmed his Aunt burnt from the inside out.

So what, a doctor's diagnosis is useless. Why not get three more of them in there, then we can start talking.

How is it useless?
You did not personally inspect these people to come to the conclusion the doctor did.

*Useless* - can be paid off, a single opinion, possibility of misdiagnosis, mentally unstable, etc. List goes on.

But would it not be very easy to tell if a person burnt from the inside out?

For example, a skin biopsy would show more severe damage to the inner, deeper layers of the skin, than the outside. The sample could be analysed and then sent to the doctor, so the doctor could inform the patient they burnt from the inside-out.

I'd like you to answer this because I'm genuinely curious if this method if feasible in this diagnosis.

Yes, if they died and their body turned into char.

No, if they are still alive, talking, eating, etc.

There have been cases where someone accidentally drank an highly concentrated acid, and it subsequently burnt away the person's esophagus and stomach. They had to extend and connect the person's small intestine to his throat, and remove the destroyed organs. If someone was burning from the inside, it's very likely their organs would be mutilated and removed because they would be dysfunctional. It's not like the doctor made the patient swallow a pill-camera or anything. Everything is a mere speculation. In fact, let's say I was a doctor and you came to me 100 times in a year telling me you're burning from the inside. The doctor would eventually give up and say you're right, just so that you would leave him/her alone.

No, no. I mean if the burning/internal heat was very localized, and happened just under the skin (as Frank seemed to imply since he's still alive)

Would the biopsy not show more severe burn damage in the deeper layers of the skin? (for example a skin biopsy) even though Frank said flames did appear on the outside of his body too.

Yes it would.

Yes exactly, so Frank saying his doctor concluded he burnt from the inside out is feasible
Because if it happened under his skin a biopsy would show the source of the heat was internal because the deeper layers of skin would be more burnt than the surface.

Then it must be true, Frank Baker spontaneous combusted! lol

We'll never know for sure. But, innocent until proven guilty.
You never know, Frank could be suffering right now at the trauma if he did experience this

That is true, but common sense dictates my reasoning.

What do you mean?
Is Both Frank and his friend refusing a Polygraph test such a red flag?

Here lies a 2-minute snippet of the ''Unexplained Files'' Documentary on this specific case;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-n_1mAIPLU

This doesn't explain a thing. His doctor said he was burning from the inside out, how do you even come up with that conclusion? How do we know Frank Baker isn't lying or dreamt about the whole thing.

''How do we know Frank Baker isn't lying or dreamt about the whole thing.'

-Because his friend Willey also recounted the event.

-Ever heard of a biopsy? It's reasonable to conclude inner layers would show more damage than the outer layers if he had burnt from the inside-out.

Willey? How do you know he's not also not in on it?

What's this about a biopsy? When did that happen? How would you exam your insides without cutting you open?

Taking a sample of skin?

Skin is what you observe on the person's exterior. He said the doctor noted that he was burnt from the inside-out.

That's probably what the doc meant. He took a sample of skin in the burnt area, found that the deeper layers were more severely burnt, then concluded the burns came from the inside.

It's not rocket science!

When you make outrageous claims, you need to back it up with proof. Saying the doctor took a skin sample is nonsense, and following it up with "It's not rocket science!" makes you look like an idiot. I feel offended that you take me as an idiot. According to you - I'm assuming - the doctor surgically removed some skin from this guy and examined it under a microscope and found it had burnt inside out. What types of burns? Skin is several layers of cells thick, and you'd need to go to a specialist to have something like this done - I know, I had something similar done where they even used local anaesthetics and I ended up with a scar.

Yes, ''doctor' and specialist may be interchanged by some people.

A doc could've referred to a specialist with the sample, then reported back over the phone!

Post Merge: 9 years ago

Scientists and sceptics have an allergy to things unexplained - they like to give the impression that science has it all sown-up. There are also those scientists who have made complete fools of themselves with the wick effect explanation. But as you can see among the answers, denial is always the last resort of a scoundrel.

Just because you can't backup the claims you're making, doesn't give you the right bash all scientists. Deep down inside, you know this is purely rubbish, but since you've internalized this subject for so many years, you've lost your common sense. We live in the 21st century, people don't believe things as easily as before due to reason and logic - something all humans are born with. Why do you think there are less and less religious folks out there? A lot of what never could be explained in the past can now be explained with reason - science has just be a vehicle for most people. As soon as the camera/video camera was invented, very few miracles have been documented because claims like the ones you make are easily debunked.

This is silly, seriously :nervs:

Of course SHC can be explained.

Let me summarise. Prion proteins are mutated enzymes. They have too many disulfide bonds, because of this, they can survive even extremes of 600 C~! (If you don't believe the CDC, I'm leaving.) http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/BMBL5_sect_VIII_h.pdf

Now imagine that metabolic enzymes were produced with many more disulfide bonds stabilising the structure from heat - just like prion proteins. Now imagine a mechanism similar to malignant hyperthermia. People suffering from malignant hyperthermia die from the fever, but imagine that the metabolic enzymes which produced this heat were mutated in a way that they had so many disulfide bonds, they could reach the temperature needed to heat the skin to a high enough temperature that clothing, skin fat, etc could combust.

Priors reside in the brain. Furthermore, I looked through the link you provided and there was no reference to prions working at temperatures greater than 600 degrees. This was the only thing that mentioned temperature at all, and it doesn't relate to human beings or anything of the nature you discussed in your post.

Brown P, Rau EH, Johnson BK, Bacote AE, Gibbs CJ, Jr, Gajdusek DC. New
studies on the heat resistance of hamster-adapted scrapie agent: threshold
survival after ashing at 600 degrees C suggests an inorganic template of
replication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2000;97:3418–3421. doi: 10.1073/
pnas.050566797

I'm not going to imagine anything without proof.

How do you think people get mad cow disease? I'm sure most of you /cook/ beef before eating it, but that doesn't denature the prions obviously. If you look it up it'll tell you even if the meat is reduced to ash prions remain. That's why they are so dangerous.

How do you suppose we get ''proof'' of SHC? You think it's ethical to hook hundreds of babies up to temperature sensors and keep them under laboratory observation their entire life, hoping for one of them to combust?

Not likely, anyone who thinks so is deluded.

I've seen the documentary on the Science Channel. I remember it included a lot more detail than what the news articles have given out.
And no, I could not invision this case to be a hoax. Here's why;


In the past, another person has claimed the exact same thing.

Jack Angel (even saying a doctor said he had burnt from the inside out - this case is exactly the same as Frank's! )
Also we should ponder why Frank and Jack would make up such an unbelievable tale. That doesn't seem consistent at all with hoaxers who want to be believed.

I've seen Frank's facebook account and he seems genuinely frightened this may happen to him again. He has also commented on the article about him on The Mirror (news) website, telling non-believers that it could happen to them, and that he has the Doctor's statement to back him up.

He ended the comment by giving away his complete address for anyone who has questions, or wants more information.

Animals are burnt to death in order to protect other animals from getting infected by the prions. Why would they burn them to ash if prions are carried in ash - you've got some imagination. What's most annoying about all your theories is that it all sounds forced or made up, up to and including the names you use for your characters, like Jack Angel.


These unbelievable tales are created and shown on television so that insanely idiotic people like yourself (sorry for being so crude) can keep themselves occupied while more productive people, like those producing these shows make heaps of money off of the idiots that make it their life-long goal to prove something that 99% of the world doesn't care about.


Why would I care for his information when I can PM him here ;)

Jack Angel is a real person.
Google is your friend.

You way too gullible if you believe everything you read on the internet. I bet you're one of the hypochondriacs too lol

How do you know? Would you bet one million of your hard-earned money that he's real?