Preface: It's great if this really is a breakthrough.

I'm a bit skeptical though.

1. Genetic engineering/manipulation "therapy" has had little success. 5 years ago they claimed gene therapy could cure melanoma in the American Journal of Science. It's addressed in this article here: Don't be deluded that this is the cancer breakthrough.

2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business

There's a GURPS advantage called Sanitized Metabolism, which reads:

"You are totally clean. Your native intestinal enzymes and symbiotic bacteria eliminate your body odor and make efficient use of food and drink, leaving minimal, sanitized waste products. You never suffer from bad breath, excessive perspiration or unsightly skin problems."

Always wished I could put that on my RL character sheet.


That said, there's a strict hierarchy of super powers:

Level 1, God:
Omnipotence
Batman

Level 2, Cosmic:
'Omnipotence'
'Reality' Manipulation
Time Manipulation

Level 3, Rule the World:
Mind Control
'Luck' Manipulation
Kill Anyone
Speed
Magic
Genius
Hyper-Technology

Level 4, Super:
'Luck'
Invulnerability
Healing Factor
Insubstantiality
Invisibility
Teleportation
Telekinesis
etc.

Level 5, Overrated:
Ninja
Flight
Eye Beams
Strength
etc.

Level 6, Worthless:
Aquaman


I spend a lot of time thinking about this.

Your refutations were (in order)

"This guy believes in evolution"

"We can never prove anything about the fossil record"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is crazy"

"this quote is old"

"this guy is a probable creationist"

Yeah, amazing refutations..which you got from a website, while calling me out on doing the same thing. Evolutionists, biologists, palentologists etc DO dispute the theory of evolution..you were right though..the ones I provided were kind of weak. You'll have an infinitely harder time refuting these:

"With the failure of these many efforts [to explain the origin of life] science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate.

After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be proved to take place today, had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."

Loren C. Eiseley,
Ph.D. Anthropology. "The Immense Journey". Random House, NY, p. 199

"We have no acceptable theory of evolution at the present time. There is none; and I cannot accept the theory that I teach to my students each year. Let me explain:

I teach the synthetic theory known as the neo-Darwinian one, for one reason only; not because it's good, we know it is bad, but because there isn't any other.

Whilst waiting to find something better you are taught something which is known to be inexact, which is a first approximation."

Professor Jerome Lejeune,
Internationally recognised geneticist at a lecture given in Paris

"Considering its historic significance and the social and moral transformation it caused in western thought, one might have hoped that Darwinian theory ... a theory of such cardinal importance, a theory that literally changed the world, would have been something more than metaphysics, something more than a myth."

Michael Denton,
Molecular Biologist. "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis". Adler and Adler, p. 358

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory - is it then a science or a faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation-both are concepts which believers know to be true but neither, up to the present, has been capable of proof."

L.Harrison Matthews,
British biologist

"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."


L. Harrison Matthews,
Introduction to 'Origin of Species: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life', p. xxii (1977 edition).


"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete, because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man."

Dr Albert Fleischmann. Recorded in Scott M. Huse, "The Collapse of Evolution", Baker Book House: Grand Rapids (USA), 1983 p:120

"Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."


William B. Provine,
Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University, 'Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life', Abstract of Will Provine's 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.


"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ? [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn’t happen by chance."


Hubert Yockey,
"Information Theory and Molecular Biology", Cambridge University Press, 1992, p. 257


"As I said, we shall all be embarrassed, in the fullness of time, by the naivete of our present evolutionary arguments. But some will be vastly more embarrassed than others."


Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, Principal Research Associate of the Center for Cognitive Science at MIT, "Inevitable Illusions: How Mistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds," John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1994, p195)


"In 10 million years, a human-like species could substitute no more than 25,000 expressed neutral mutations and this is merely 0.0007% of the genome ?nowhere near enough to account for human evolution. This is the trade secret of evolutionary geneticists."

Walter James ReMine,
The Biotic Message : Evolution versus Message Theory


"Today, a hundred and twenty-eight years after it was first promulgated, the Darwinian theory of evolution stands under attack as never before. ... The fact is that in recent times there has been increasing dissent on the issue within academic and professional ranks, and that a growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp. It is interesting, moreover, that for the most part these 'experts' have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances regretfully, as one could say. We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience'; but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists."


Wolfgang Smith,
Mathematician and Physicist. Prof. of Mathematics, Oregon State University. Former math instructor at MIT. Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of the Teachings of de Chardin. Tan Books & Publishers, pp. 1-2


"If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes [proteins produced by living cells] have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You would find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.
How can I be so confident of this statement? Well, if it were otherwise, the experiment would long since have been done and would be well-known and famous throughout the world. The cost of it would be trivial compared to the cost of landing a man on the Moon.......In short there is not a shred of objective evidence to support the hypothesis that life began in an organic soup here on the Earth."


Sir Fred Hoyle,
British physicist and astronomer, The Intelligent Universe, Michael Joseph, London, pp. 20-21, 23.


"...(I)t should be apparent that the errors, overstatements and omissions that we have noted in these biology texts, all tend to enhance the plausibility of hypotheses that are presented. More importantly, the inclusion of outdated material and erroneous discussions is not trivial. The items noted mislead students and impede their acquisition of critical thinking skills. If we fail to teach students to examine data critically, looking for points both favoring and opposing hypotheses, we are selling our youth short and mortgaging the future of scientific inquiry itself."


Mills, Lancaster, Bradley,
'Origin of Life Evolution in Biology Textbooks - A Critique', The American Biology Teacher, Volume 55, No. 2, February, 1993, p. 83


"The salient fact is this: if by evolution we mean macroevolution (as we henceforth shall), then it can be said with the utmost rigor that the doctrine is totally bereft of scientific sanction. Now, to be sure, given the multitude of extravagant claims about evolution promulgated by evolutionists with an air of scientific infallibility, this may indeed sound strange. And yet the fact remains that there exists to this day not a shred of bona fide scientific evidence in support of the thesis that macroevolutionary transformations have ever occurred."


Wolfgang Smith,
Ph.D Mathematics , MS Physics Teilardism and the New Religion. Tan Books and Publishers, Inc.


"... as Darwinists and neo-Darwinists have become ever more adept at finding possible selective advantages for any trait one cares to mention, explanation in terms of the all-powerful force of natural selection has come more and more to resemble explanation in terms of the conscious design of the omnipotent Creator."


Mae-Wan Ho & Peter T. Saunders,
Biologist at The Open University, UK and Mathematician at University of London respectively


"In other words, when the assumed evolutionary processes did not match the pattern of fossils that they were supposed to have generated, the pattern was judged to be 'wrong'. A circular argument arises: interpret the fossil record in terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?"


Tom S. Kemp,
'A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record', New Scientist, vol. 108, 1985, pp. 66-67


"We have proffered a collective tacit acceptance of the story of gradual adaptive change, a story that strengthened and became even more entrenched as the synthesis took hold. We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that interpretation, all the while really knowing that it does not."


Niles Eldredge,
Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates, American Museum of Natural History, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p144)


... by the fossil record and we are now about 120-years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much.
The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."


David M. Raup,
Curator of Geology. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology". Field Museum of Natural History. Vol. 50, No. 1, p. 25


"Thus all Darwin's premises are defective: there is no unlimited population growth in natural populations, no competition between individuals, and no new species producible by selecting for varietal differences. And if Darwin's premises are faulty, then his conclusion does not follow. This, of itself, does not mean that natural selection is false. It simply means that we cannot use Darwin's argument brilliant though it was, to establish natural selection as a means of explaining the origin of species."


Robert Augros & George Stanciu,
"The New Biology: Discovering the Wisdom in Nature", New Science Library, Shambhala: Boston, MA, 1987, p.160).







>> ^MaxWilder:
What the hell are you talking about? I refuted every one of your quotes point by point! I provided links to further information. The whole point was that your "evidence" of paleontologists speaking out against evolution was utter bullshit!
The only one where I discredited the source was from some no-name Swedish biologist that nobody takes seriously. Every other source was either out of context (meaning you are not understanding the words properly), or out of date (meaning that science has progressed a little since the '70s).
You have got your head so far up your ass that you are not even coherent now.
But you know what might change my mind? If you cut&paste some more out of context, out of date quotes. You got hendreds of 'em! </sarcasm>
>> ^shinyblurry:
So basically, you cannot provide a refutation to the information itself but instead try to discredit the source.

>> ^Sagemind:

... But totally sanitary as the Whiskey kills any germs or viruses present!


Off-topic:

Viruses can live through alcohol. The simpler they are, as they're "dead" anyway, the easier it becomes for them to not be targeted by alcohol. Some have protective protein or other type of layers on their outer layer (or shell, whatever). Those are the ones that die; like influenza (I'm unsure if it kills ALL types of influenza), HIV, and I think Herpes simplex. However, other viruses like Herpes A (correct me if I screwed that up anybody, this is by rote memory) don't die. Viruses are just "lines of code" were as bacteria has structure, relies on it's environment and is just as susceptible to it's own "diseases" that come in the form of proteins, enzymes, or molecules (like alcohol). Alcohol can pass the outer layer of the cell walls and screw things up, plus it can cause water to get absorbed (I'm not sure if it would "pop" the bacteria, I think it just destroys the cell's integrity).

For all we know there ARE bacteria out there that can survive, but they'd have to be specifically setup in a way that the intrusion of the alcohol doesn't disrupt cell functions. For all we know they could evolve a surface that has a function that deals with alcohol. Of course, some have to survive in the first place or by random evolution hit the jackpot pertaining to alcohol; their structure is their major limitation in protection (one cell and dirt simple) . I also love how silver does it's thing to bacteria. Yes this is semi-off topic, but I live for science. *monocle smile* (do we have an emoticon, yet?)

I'm more scared of prions.
(of Mad Cow disease fame; really scary scenarios are possible if we get a full-on human version)

There is parts of this video that I agree with, and parts with which I must disagree. The truth is that yes, there are antibiotics and drugs that do not interact with each other when mixed with alcohol, but here is the reason with which it is advised against mixing the two:

Many, many drugs are metabolized in the liver. One of the many effects of acute alcohol intake will put a strain on your liver and occupy enzymes that would be otherwise used for digestion of the drug you are taking. This has an effect on the availability the drug to bind to these and alters the number of metabolites of that drug in the body (either increased or decreased).

Changes in the blood concentration of active metabolites may alter the effects and side-effects of that particular drug. This may reduce drug effectiveness or increase rate and intensity of side-effects.

Of course none of this may happen, but we advise you NOT to mix these drugs with alcohol in order to ultimately reduce the risk to the patient.

>> ^conan:

useless without explanation. could also be a moby music video.


Well, being a biology professor let me try and help you out...

0:13 - 0:22 - mitochondria

0:23 - 0:29 shows glucose (long blue string) with associated phosphates floating in the cytoplasm. I believe those are phosphates (?) coming off as it enters the mitochondrion. Though there should only be 1 phosphate, so this may be incorrect.

0:30 - 0:32 show the extramembranous proteins on the exterior of the mitochondrion.

0:37 we enter the mitochondrion.

0:38 - 0:47 we float through the mitochondrion. Notice the green double-helixed DNA at the left and bottom of the screen. This is mitochondrial DNA. I believe those other colored things floating around are later molecules from the Krebs Cycle - they could be miscellaneous intermediary molecules such as oxaloacetate and citrate.

0:48 - 0:54 we see the cristae (inner foldings) of the mitochondrion with the transmembranous proteins along it. The small molecules floating around are ADP and ATP.

0:55 - 0:59 we see NADH and FADH2 floating to a transmembranous protein (purple) and becoming oxidized, losing their electron. The green/blue colored sea on the bottom of the screen is the membrane (phospholipids).

1:00 - 1:01 we flip to the opposite side of the membrane, to the outer membranous space. The tentacle-looking things is part of the membrane, the phospholipid bilayer.

1:02 - 1:07 I'm not entirely sure which part this is...if I had to guess I'd say it was an electron carrier.. perhaps ferredoxin transporting electrons from protein to protein in the electron transfer chain, which is why it glows (electron-rich) as it moves from protein to protein.

1:07 - 1:10 we see millions of protons flowing DOWN through the transmembranous proteins, into the outer membranous space (bottom) from the matrix (top). This creates a hypertonic concentration of protons in the outer membranous space.

1:10 - 1:14 we see ATP synthase, the main energy-producing enzyme that rotates on the cristae (part of the electron transport chain). This enzyme has a stationary portion and a rotating portion (purple and part of the brown at the top). When protons flow back into the matrix from the intermembranous space, ATP synthase rotates, creating energy. You can see the dull yellow-colored (energy-low) ADP getting transformed (being phosphorylated) into the bright white-colored (energy-high) ATP.

1:15 - 1:21 we see the phoshporylation of ATP up close. A phosphate is added to ADP to produce ATP. This is done by ATP synthase via the energy produced by the movement of protons.

1:22 - 1:29 just an overview of the whole phosphorylation process. You can see the energy-rich ATPs moving into the outer-membranous space through pores in the membrane.

1:30 - 1:32 shows a close-up of this ATP movement, to the outer-membranous space, and eventually out of the mitochondrion to be used by the cell for energy.

Actually, acid doesn't really digest food into smaller, usable particles for absorption. The real reason for stomach acid is antibacterial. In fact, in people with ulcers, a common procedure used to be a vagotomy to stop acid secretion without any consequences for their digestion or absorption of food. Today, we use antacid medications instead of the invasive and irreversible procedure. Pancreatic enzymes are the real reason for digestion.

Chyme (from Greek "χυμός" - khymos, "juice"[1][2]) is the semifluid mass of partly digested food expelled by the stomach into the duodenum. In other words, chyme is partially-digested food.[3]

Also known as chymus, it is the liquid substance found in the stomach before passing through the pyloric valve and entering the duodenum. It results from the mechanical and chemical breakdown of a bolus and consists of partially digested food, water, hydrochloric acid, and various digestive enzymes. Chyme slowly passes through the pyloric sphincter and into the duodenum, where the extraction of nutrients begins. Depending on the quantity and contents of the meal, the stomach will digest the food into chyme anywhere between 40 minutes and a few hours.

With a pH of around 2, chyme emerging from the stomach is very acidic. To raise its pH, the duodenum secretes a hormone, cholecystokinin (CCK), which causes the gall bladder to contract, releasing alkaline bile into the duodenum. The duodenum also produces the hormone secretin to stimulate the pancreatic secretion of large amounts of sodium bicarbonate, which raises the chyme's pH to 7 before it reaches the jejunum. As it is protected by a thick layer of mucus and utilizes the neutralizing actions of the sodium bicarbonate and bile, the duodenum is not as sensitive to highly acidic chyme as the rest of the small intestine.

At a pH of 7, the enzymes that were present from the stomach are no longer active. This then leads into the further breakdown of the nutrients still present by anaerobic bacteria which at the same time help to package the remains. These bacteria also help synthesize vitamin B and vitamin K.


****Ulcers are R-Tards

And then they add salt to it.

At least it hasn't been spiked with foul tasting compounds of Cl and F that are intended to kill bacteria and to get you to ingest things that are really only useful topically to slow the erosion of teeth and have no additional benefit (but likely unwanted side effects) when taken systemically. Just search Google scholar for fluoride neurotoxicity in rats or check the CDC's recommendations on upper limits for fluoride levels in drinking water and consider how impossible it is to control the dose when people are drinking different amounts of water.

Fluoride is rapidly eliminated from the bloodstream via the kidneys and uptake by calcified tissues. However, people who lack proper kidney function are vulnerable to being poisoned by fluoridated water. The mechanism of action as a poison is essentially interfering with all kinds of enzymes. It has very broad dose-dependent systemic effects. The upper limit for safety is only 2x the "optimal level" used for preventing cavities, which is an absurdly small margin of error given the uncontrolled quantities of tap water people consume.

It's also immoral to force a specific medical treatment on everyone without their consent UNLESS abstention from the treatment endangers people other than themselves (i.e., vaccines).

I don't know anything about the autism correlation or cause.

But I do know mercury is fuck shit dangerous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_%28element%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#Allergies

There is no convincing evidence that thiomersal is a factor in the onset of autism.[17]

What that means is that they cannot prove people are getting sick from Thiomersal, or that they aren't. There simply isn't enough data to go on. That is why the The Hannah Poling Case was ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and damages were awarded. There was a direct correlation with the vaccinations, she had contracted "vaccine-induced varicella." However a month later she was diagnosed with Autism. But that is where speculation begins. How did they know, precisely, that the vaccines caused the Autism? I don't know and I don't have the time to read more of the court document.

I know that they won the case because it was Civil, Preponderounce of Evidence is all that is needed to win that case. That is why OJ Simpson was cleared of criminal charges for murder, but ordered to pay out for the wrongful death of Nicole Brown.

Just because there is a correlation does not prove causation.

As I understand it science can't disprove that vaccines didn't cause the sickness, only that the likely hood of that taking place is less likely than one might think. Meaning? It could be possible, like there could be a god, but probably not.

The U.S. federal government agreed to award damages in one case, to a girl with a mitochondrial enzyme deficiency who developed autistic-like symptoms after receiving a series of vaccines,[20] some of which contained thiomersal.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/20/2089
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#Allergies

Now for my opinion of chemicals. If there is even an ounce of doubt in your mind, then it should not be used. It is your free choice once they start forcing it, then we have a problem.

Proper science needs to be taught here. Just because there are a million studies that prove it to be safe doesn't mean there can't be a fluke. The same can be said in reverse. My wife likes to say, "A tree could fall on you too," to which I reply, "It sure could."
As if saying that it could happen means you shouldn't prepare for it. Trees are treacherous.

Read the fine, fucking, print.
http://smallbiztrends.com/2010/02/always-read-the-fine-print.html

Here's some fine print:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#flu
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#spox
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#dtap

I'll stop here, side-effects are depressing. Sure the rare ones are rare, but they can still kill you. Never let that; "They are rare" fool you into taking something that could possibly complicate matters. Always weigh the risks.

[Ramble End]

*controversy *promote

Silver definitely has some medically useful effects, but nowhere near what this guy claims. In fact most heavy metals have an anti-biotic effect (called an oligodynamic effect). The reason why silver is used is because it is the least toxic to mammals. Specifically, silver ions irreversibly damage key enzyme systems in cells and in doing so kill most microorganisms. This is why you can find bandages and medical equipment that incorporates silver.

Colloidal solutions of silver, what this guy is selling, have never demonstrated the proposed curative effects in clinical studies, and have actually resulted in toxicity in a number of cases. There is no evidence that silver does anything medically except kill things (including the people who take it in large enough doses).

>> ^Throbbin:
All that aside, has anyone investigated the potential medicinal effects of silver? Reason says there's a 99% chance this guy is nuts. But anyone who has noticed the massive attention being paid to Vitamin D recently as the Vitamin that can cure anything in the 'Professional" medical community should also understand that if someone made those claims about Vitamin D 20 years ago, they'd be labelled a snake oil salesman too.

Radio-based SETI is grounded in the hope that an advanced civilization would intentionally broadcast on a radio frequency for the benefit of lesser developed civilizations such as ours. It's a naive paternalistic fantasy if you look at it a certain way. But I think it's invaluable even as a species-wide gesture of hope. If I were some mega-billionaire I'd definitely fund an Ellie Arroway.

As for the concept of planets eventually being converted into massive brains, that's my own theory for the logical extent of the singularity as well. Unfortunately I believe at some point in the thousand year process the earth-brain becomes rather indifferent to our continued existence. We're like an enzyme. Maybe a healhy earth-brain is mindful of its enzymes.

It doesn't have to close, It is some form of pitcher plant. What slides in doesn't come out. Enzymes and digestive juices are at the base of the pitcher where the jack ass mouse slipped into. SLOWLY and probably painfully it would be digested Unless it got wise and gnawed its ass out of the plant. which I am betting it did.

>> ^blankfist:
Double fail because he also doesn't have the enzyme necessary to break down alcohol. God hates Asians.


Blankfist in with a westy special! Just kidding...

Double fail because he also doesn't have the enzyme necessary to break down alcohol. God hates *Asians.