>> ^Sylvester_Ink:
Black Dynamite was a very well done spoof of the old blaxploitation films. It's a pity the movie didn't get more attention. It was absolutely hilarious.




I agree 100 percent, its a very well done film. As a canabanoid has a receptor in the human brain so did this movie in mine, nothing makes me laugh like this movie did.

>> ^rasch187
I would like to see some objective sources for your claims, imstellar.


How much are you paying me for the pleasure of being your personal research assistant?

If you are honestly interested in the validity of any of the claims I made, I'm sure you'll be able to pick out a few terms from what I presented and turn them into a couple Google searches.

Heres a start:

"THE METABOLISM OF TUMORS IN THE BODY. Otto Warbug. Kaiser Wilhelm Institut fur Biologic, 1926"

"On respiratory impairment in cancer cells."

"The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1931"

"My life with the Eskimo: Vilhjalmur Stefansson"

"Oncogenes in Tumor Metabolism, Tumorigenesis, and Apoptosis"

"Saccharine Disease"

"Good Calories Bad Calories"

"Elevated Insulin-like Growth Factor I Receptor Autophosphorylation and Kinase Activity in Human Breast Cancer"

"Potential role of sugar (fructose) in the epidemic of hypertension, obesity and the metabolic syndrome, diabetes, kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease1"

"Increased consumption of refined carbohydrates and the epidemic of type 2 diabetes in the United States: an ecologic assessment"

"Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load, and the risk of breast cancer in an Italian prospective cohort study1"

"A HISTORY OF SUGAR MF.RKETING THROUGH 1974, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ECONOMICS. STATISTICS, AND COOPERATIVES SERVICE
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMIC REPORT NO. 382"

"Glycemic Index and Serum High-Density Lipoprotein
Cholesterol Concentration Among US Adults"

"Relation between a diet with a high glycemic load and plasma concentrations of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in middle-aged women1"

"Studies on the Metabolism of Eskimos - Journal of Biological Chemistry"

"Dietary protein intake and renal function"

"Advanced glycation end products and the absence of premature
atherosclerosis in glycogen storage disease Ia"

"Chemical Calorimetry. XLV. Prolonged Meat Diets with a study of Kidney function and Ketosis"

"Diabetes Mellitus - Japan 1950-2004"

"Diabetic Mortality rate and the amount of sugar consumed per capital in England and Wales"

"Pounds per sugar per head per year from 1800 to 1960"

"Fasting insulin and incident dementia in an elderly population of Japanese-American men"

"Diabetes mellitus and the risk of dementia "

"Prevalence of the Metabolic Syndrome Among US Adults"

"Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality Associated With the Metabolic Syndrome"

"C-Reactive Protein, the Metabolic Syndrome, and Risk of Incident Cardiovascular Events "

"Obesity and the Metabolic Syndrome in Children and Adolescents"

"NCEP-defined metabolic syndrome, diabetes, and prevalence of coronary heart disease"

"Coronary-heart-disease risk and impaired glucose tolerance. The Whitehall study."

Average pounds per year of Sugar Consumption
1700: 4 lbs
1800: 18 lbs
1900: 90 lbs
2000: 145 lbs
2009: 156 lbs

Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Dementia, etc. were all virtually nonexistent several hundred years ago. Life expectancy figures you've likely heard where people only lived to be 35, etc. are complete B.S. High infant mortality rates, accidents, and infectious disease dramatically skew the life expectancy downward. Those subsets of the population not affected by these outside factors lived to be in excess of 80-100 years old without any incidence of cancer, heart disease, diabetes - the so called "diseases of civilization." Here is a table of ages of deaths for a population of Inuit from the Moravian Church in Labrador
and the Russian Church in Alaska, 1822-1836:

Aleuts, Unalaska district
Died ages 1-4 -- 92
Died ages 4-7 -- 17
Died ages 7-15 -- 41
Died ages 15-25 -- 41
Died ages 25-45 -- 103
Died ages 45-55 -- 66
Died ages 55-60 -- 29
Died ages 60-65 -- 22
Died ages 65-70 -- 24
Died ages 70-75 -- 23
Died ages 75-80 -- 11
Died ages 80-90 -- 20
Died ages 90-100 -- 2

People who lived in the jesus damn Artic 200 years ago, had zero access to fruits or vegetables and subsisted on a diet of 100% meat (fish, seals, whales, etc.) for their entire lives. 25% of them lived to be over 60 years old, with some living past 90...in a freaking igloo!

In one study of terminally ill patients, patients who were so close to dying that any treatment (including no treatment) was deemed ethical, an intervention method consisting of the complete removal sugar from their diets (think about what most hospital diets consist of for a second) was introduced. Those patients living past the first week (most were so far gone, they died before the study could even start) had their tumors either regress enough to be surgically treated, or experienced full remission. Patients who were previously given less than a week to live were now cancer-free simply by removing sugar from their diets.

Cancer cells have been shown in many studies ( including this one http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=296896) to have a disproportionally higher number of insulin receptor cells. Cancerous cells are "successful" mutations from an evolutionary perspective in that they lead to massive cell propagation. However, most cancerous cells have no method of internal cell metabolism, and must subsist and grow almost exclusively on energy supplied by blood glucose (hence the elevated receptor count). Essentially, cancerous cells are "parasites." By removing all sources of glucose from the body, and entering a state of ketosis, where acetone bodys supply energy to the cells as opposed to glucose, the cancer cells starve; dying or slowing growth to the point where the body's immune system can sucessfully remove them.

Long story short, you wanna live to be 100, stop drinking so much f*ing soda.

>> ^soulmonarch:
One chief characteristic of scientists is that they are never happy with a simple definition when they can make up a more complicated one. Apparently only because adding new words makes one sound smarter.
Essentially, they have subdivided the 'sense of touch' into four smaller groups:
- Nociception (pain)
- Thermoception (temperature)
- Proprioception (kinestics)
- Equilibrioception (balance)
I, for one, call that complete bullshit.
All of those are tactile (touch-based) sensations, and each relies upon the others to function correctly. Sub-dividing them into separate categories doesn't give us a deeper understanding about how each of them function, it just gives people more BS to argue about instead of doing REAL work.
But, most importantly, making up new definitions for the sake of simply making up new definitions makes people sound like pompous dicks.
Uh... /rantoff
Sorry.


I assume you understand the sense of touch enough to make such conclusions?

So if we not divide it into those categories, then how do we deal with a person who gets a virus, it fucks his nerves but not completely, leaving him able to: feel temperature, have balance, and feel pain but has no ability to understand the location of his body? do we (assuming scientist do not categorize touch) say he has a touch problem and leave it at such enormously ambiguous terms? or do we (as we should do) analyze his condition and go: hmm only his propioception is affected, less focus on that. or would you rather have the doctors waste time dealing with all the four variables because 'dividing a vague idea of touch' would be pretentious. How is categorization of ideas and things we have not finished to explore a bad idea?

Are you actually saying that just because those 4 things are dependent on each other, we should not bother categorizing them? Hmm what if each of those happen to have different types of receptors and/or types of cells specialized for each of them? Assuming that we can understand the complexity of the human senses by simply treating them as a whole entity free of components is in my opinion quite arrogant, bullshit and pompous.

I'm making these questions out of pure curiosity, because I can't see how what you are saying holds any water.

If I understand her correctly the new drug doesn't kill the bacteria but instead blocks the receptor whereby they all agree to attack you simultaneously.

So, wouldn't you need to keep taking the drug forever? If you stop blocking the receptor then the bacteria can agree to attack you again.

Am I missing something?

forgive me, i'm not very clever, but can you implant the receptor part into ladies instead of robots?

>> ^andybesy:
OK. So the 'wires' are called axons, and when a neuron recieves an electrical impulse it transmits neurotransmitter chemicals across a synapse to receptors in another neuron?
Is the synapse the area between two neurons?
Are all neurons chemically connected, or do some have direct electrical connections via an axon?


Axons are just a part of the neuron

(simplified picture of a neuron)
http://www.morphonix.com/software/education/science/brain/game/specimens/images/neuron_parts.gif


The synapse is basically the sum of all components: The end of in the axon sending the electrical signal, the space between them ( called a synaptic cleft) and the receiving end of the other neuron.
http://anthropologynet.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/neuron-synapse.png

The neurons in the video communicate chemically via synapses. Axons are just extensions that each neuron has. Any given neuron can have numerous axons. At the end of each axon, there is an axon terminal this is the rounded ends you see in the video. The space between them is a synaptic cleft. Some neurons have electrical synapses instead. These are found in places where you need the fastest response but dont need to be able to interpret data or make decisions. Reflexes are an example. Electrical synapses are a minority though.

Sorry, I'll edit the description soon to try to make it more clear. I posted it in a rush.

OK. So the 'wires' are called axons, and when a neuron recieves an electrical impulse it transmits neurotransmitter chemicals across a synapse to receptors in another neuron?

Is the synapse the area between two neurons?

Are all neurons chemically connected, or do some have direct electrical connections via an axon?

CCR5-Δ32 is the receptor protein of the day.

update, if anyone is interested:
Without going into too much detail, both my husband and I used this product for several months. Results? wow.
Hubby already was able to tan with the sun, so he started darkening right away on a very low dose. No remarkable side effects on his part other than iron rods (expected, wink wink nudge nudge) and after three months his blood pressure was just a touch high so we are giving it a rest.
Me? As I have said before, I have never met anyone whiter than me. If I have any melanin naturally in my body I'd be surprised. Sunburns are a big deal. But I apparently do have melanocyte receptors because I did get a tan for the first time in my life. It was a very interesting and enriching experience.
From the start I used a very low dose and right away had several "cons" including incredible muscle aches (ibuprofen helped) and severe teeth grinding for some reason, especially at night. I found that laying in the sun for at least 30 minutes a day helped, which in and of itself was odd because I didn't burn at all as I always have. It took 8 weeks for me to notice the color. My hair even started growing out darker! I found that PT141 also greatly affected my thoughts. Libido was tremendously enhanced in that regard, if I had to pick one word to describe it I would say "yummy". I felt much more alive. I also found that I could do a lot of physical labor or work out and not get sore at all. It undeniably did something to my muscles and I had (and still have after being off of it for a couple of months) much greater strength. The teeth grinding was enough to make me take a break, however, and it quit when I stopped. I have found no mention of this from other people's stories on the melanotan message board either, so that's strange.
If anyone is considering doing research of their own, write me and I'll share what I learned!

>> ^kronosposeidon:
But see, rottenseed, nobody cares.
EDIT: For those of you without humor receptors in your neurological makeup, I'm teasing rottenseed, because he's my friend. Because I care.

Just wondering...do you have a personal record of everything I have ever posted on this site? I mean, to be able to pull that up within minutes of reading my response, you're either the smartest man alive or the creepiest stalker I've had yet [flattered].

It's like you know me...*blush*

But see, rottenseed, nobody cares.

EDIT: For those of you without humor receptors in your neurological makeup, I'm teasing rottenseed, because he's my friend. Because I care.

LOL 36000 bits of information.

What is a "bit". Your optic system is so parallel, some parts are registering movement, some patterns, some face recognition, some looking for colors, some looking only at which "pixels" have changed.

Anyone know how many fibers are in the optic nerve bundle? Yes neurons fire slowly, but the raw data processed is staggering.

The simple example is watching TV. Or certainly anyone will agree you probably see as much as a webcam and even if you closed your eyes and only open them once a second, certainly you are far exceeding some bullshit 36000 bits. That's even treating things as "pixels" with "bits" of color.

In fact you see in analog colors mixing the receptors, so you can see an insane number of "bits" of resolution of color and that isn't even covering perception, who knows what your brain ignores or considers close enough.

>> ^spoco2:
But you said 'As for the other facts, well those are generalized averages, etc. I found most of them acceptable enough. (for an internet video)'
Which... they are not, by any stretch of the imagination. The 2 million working parts claim is ridiculous, you either clump the receptors together, and then you have just a handful of working parts (the Retina, the Cornea etc.), or you include them individually and you get 126 Million... 2 Million isn't near either camp (plus, saying 126 Million working parts would be far more impressive in the video anyway).


Crap I did say that. I take it back. Like 3 or 4 "pass". The others, don't.

But you said 'As for the other facts, well those are generalized averages, etc. I found most of them acceptable enough. (for an internet video)'

Which... they are not, by any stretch of the imagination. The 2 million working parts claim is ridiculous, you either clump the receptors together, and then you have just a handful of working parts (the Retina, the Cornea etc.), or you include them individually and you get 126 Million... 2 Million isn't near either camp (plus, saying 126 Million working parts would be far more impressive in the video anyway).