Everybody is looking for a specific anti aging remedy or an elixir of youth, … But, I think that completely different non-chemical approach makes sense. Read the link below:

http://www.tupbiosystems.com/aging.html

The secret is: Aging is not caused by the passing of years, but rather from an overload of information being stored in the body on a cellular level. Therefore, the only treatment that can be called real anti-aging treatment is the one that allows the body to reduce the level of unnecessary information that is written in cellular memory.
:D

doubtful:D ok ok I agree- the less stress the longer the life, but it's when you talk about years not decades

don't worry, be happy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that aging was caused by the ends of DNA string (forgot the exact name) getting worn off after time.
The only way to stop aging would be to bind those ends together (look at the analogy of a shoe lace - it has a plastic at the end of it - after years that plastic comes off and shoe lace starts to get loose. We need to put the plastic back on - the research on this matter is already taking place)

DNA is not the bottom line. The matter is what the mechanism Nature uses to change DNA. It is definitely not what modern scientists do.

this medicine will be ready in about 20 years (just the right time for me)
your suggested version of cure is maybe some 100 years, which isn't good for me

Somebody designed a project of a house but the paperwork is not a house. Builders can build the house but do not know how to do it without the paperwork. Thus, both parts are not the house, but together they can create the house.

Complete information about a human being is not the human being (reality). It requires using a building force of Nature. The secret is how Nature accepts information to build or change a physical form. You need to put the right information written on the language that Nature is understands and put this program into the 'computer' of Nature and this 'computer' will bring it into reality (physical form).

If researchers will change their approach - we can see the described technology sooner than 20 years.

don't really know what to think about your theory
pretty uncontrollable


You need to put the right information written on the language that Nature is understands
isn't it the genetical code?
Nature changes genetical code, so why can't we

Of course, we can change genetic codes. But …

Try to change a couple lines of code in any OS as you wish - most likely your computer would stop work properly. If we will try to change our DNA code without knowledge of all the interactions - we will get problems with 99.9999…% of accuracy. More changes - more problems. Why? Our knowledge is too primitive for this task. It means that our scientists waste our money for creation of troubles that we ever can imagine. But there is a solution:

Can you use TV without knowledge its electronic blueprint? Yes, you can. The same is with DNA. We do not have to know OS of Nature. We have to know rules how to use it (how to materialize or dematerialize information).

For instance, Yogis can cut the body and get no bleeding, no scars, …., no evidences of what was happened. Or they can drink poisons without any harm to health. In reality, what Yogis are doing? They just control realization of information. Can you learn it? Yes, you can. Where are genetic codes?

I am talking about a completely different logic of our existence. Everything what we see are consequences of what we do not know. We need to learn a new science.

but first we need to reach the limits of the current one

You mean to learn our mistakes?

no- to do what we have begun and only then start a new thing- it's not good to leave things at halfway

you don't know what wonders our current science can reveal

What savages can reveal for new technologies in a modern society? So, what wonders can our current science reveal if they do not understand what they are doing (the reasons of problems)? A new amazing drug with side effects that will overkill its benefits? To spend a few hundred years to understand that there are no specific remedies for cancer, aging etc.? (Instead, there are many non-specific remedies because the matter is not chemicals but the technology) To produce genetically altered food that cause long-term dangerous side effects? To invent genetically manufactured replacements for the immune systems and blood that in a certain period of time (years) will cause cancer in 100% of cases? To improve the immune-system-targeted bio-weapons that could kill all humanity because there is no defense?

What positive they can discover if they are looking in a wrong place? Any interactions with the base of complex mechanism that they are do not understand at all can bring only small of big problems/disasters.
They think they are Gods and have right to violate the laws of this World for free? I think it is better to stop what they are doing - creation of super destructive wonders. Their work would be more effective and useful if they will take a course to comply with the direction of evolution (rules/laws of the World).

So, what wonders can our current science reveal if they do not understand what they are doing (the reasons of problems)?
you'd be surprised to know how much has been discovered by pure chance


They think they are Gods and have right to violate the laws of this World for free? I think it is better to stop what they are doing - creation of super destructive wonders. Their work would be more effective and useful if they will take a course to comply with the direction of evolution (rules/ laws of the World).

then why don't you start in the "right" dirrection
by saying that all the rest are stupid requires no big intellect and while I see some good ideas in your theory it's too far feched to change a whole dirrection of science

cheers

First, please, give me an answer - how much information you have on me to make your claims? And, please, remember - no information about an object is not an argument. I can prove by a few independent methods that things I told here are the truth. Can you do the same?

I can prove by a few independent methods that things I told here are the truth.
you are welcome

Can you do the same?
not about your theory

Can you do the same about your claims?

which clames?
that A=FS ?
or that Q=cm(t2-t1)?
that by manipulating genetical code we can change the physical proprties of a lifeform?

Originally posted by Avatar
then why don't you start in the "right" dirrection
by saying that all the rest are stupid requires no big intellect and while I see some good ideas in your theory it's too far feched to change a whole dirrection of science


Let's start from your last claim (above). Can you support it?

I claimed that you have said too much little facts (or no facts) to support the idea of changing the whole way of science in a very undefined direction

ok- erase all that I have said and tell me what do people need to do, need to research in order to start "the new science"

to make "the nature of universe" to work for our benefit

until we can't do that we better stick to what we have can and would potentially be able to
imho

to return to the very begining- you advice to have less stress and live longer - it can be done but it is not very effective, isn't it?

then there is a soon to discover method of how to make people live a healthy life for about 250 years and more- you say to fuck it and to introduce some new way of science noone has defined (you also) and to start work on that- that way we would have scientifical anarchy and standstill for a couple of decades just in search for "the new science". It's a waste of time and we have not high enough level of advancement to make nature work for us, because of that we work for ourselves and that is good and will be for a couple of thousand years forth

The problem is that you do not know basic information about the issue. For instance, do you know how to change the genetic code of the bees (to grow a different kind of completely healthy species) without any side effects, any chemical mutagenic agents, radiation, X-Rays and other modern gene-altered staff? I guess, you do not know. But, the secret has more than 300 years and it is fully reproducable, it is very simple. Can modern genetic science repeat it with their tolls (mass accurate replacement of genes in unlimited amount of species simultaneously)? I guess never.

Do you know how to kill cell's tissues (in a sealed vitro) without any factor, which officially can be classified as harmful (no known physical factors at all)? If you know, please, give me a name of this effect. But, even if you know - you cannot explain how it works because you have no education in this field.
,
Can you explain why some Yogis can drink cyanide without harm to their health in a bundle with a historical fact (chronology) of Rasputin's last day: he was poisoned twice with cyanide, than shot in pointblank, than he stood up and ran very fast, than was shot again, than was drowned into cold water under the ice and than the autopsy showed that Rasputin was breathing under water for about 40 minutes! I am curious, how you can explain it with point of view of traditional science. In order to repeat it, should we change genes or something else?

Can you explain a fact from pure physic - how and why photons have memory? Genes?

You believe that existing traditional methods are able to discover method of how to make people live a healthy life for about 250 years? You just do not know that it is impossible. Please, do not understand me wrong - it is possible to live 300-400 years, but with a completely different approach (the approach, that the traditional science has now, is completely useless).

As a task, try to explain, why people can drastically age after super stress (distress) in a few hours/days? What affects them (the reason of changes, not the consequences)? Can we create an opposite effect and how?

yes- i admit- I do not know much as any human and maybe less than some, but I do not think that we have to trash our current science- ok - do research on your suggested method, but not abandon that what has given us for instance - internet

As a task, try to explain, why people can drastically age after super stress (distress) in a few hours/days?
yes- I think their nervous system overloads. I've seen pictures of a young woman in her 20 whos hair just after a bungee jump turned completely white.

Can we create an opposite effect and how?
if their nervous system oveloads I think that not- you can not turn overloading into other direction.

What you suggest is complete peace of our nervous system. OK- nerve cells won't age, but there are many different types of cells who age no matter of how calm or stressful you are and that is locked in our DNA and its properties

Originally posted by Avatar
if their nervous system oveloads I think that not- you can not turn overloading into other direction.

OK. Now, try to classify what does it means the nervous system overloads? What is the common factor in all nervous system overloads? The common is that a person cannot handle information that he/she accepted (therefore, it always has a relative meaning). A possible conclusion - the reason of fast aging was information overload. To say shortly - information overload is a possible reason of any aging process (before you will tell me opposite in your opinion facts - try to convert everything to information to explain your cases. With this approach you can explain facts in my posts: Yogis, Rasputin's last day, etc.). If this is the truth - we can reverse aging by deleting of unnecessary information from the cellular level. Physical changes will happen automatically, because this information links with physical matter (the only way to store info). Physical matter cannot exist without linked info. It means, that an extra physical matter (old cells, etc.) will disappear according to the level of deleted info. Thus, according this possibility, we can look and feel as 20 during 300-400 years.

If this is not enough for the beginning, please, consider that I tried to explain the theory as simple as I can.

it wouldn't work because as I said before there are many other cells that are not linked to the nervous system, but they age

OK. Now, try to classify what does it means the nervous system overloads?
the fact that nervous system overloads was/is only my assumption. I'm no biologist, therefore can not verify that

Well, What weird junk is this? It says information is "dumped" in cells. Thats such a load of crap. What "information". A person is not a computer.

I think the most prominent view of why people die is that cells degenerate into cancers of psudo-cancers, which render things inpoerable.

Death is complicated and not caused by one thing alone. 100 years ago most deaths came from desieses that destroyed certain vital organs. Now the vital organ of your arteries can get clogged by material thus suffocating your cells from within. Cancer is a very natural way to die, everyone gets cancer because it comes from the incorrect division of cells in your body. There is no death chemical that your body lets out. Cancer cells form everywhere and most probably everyone has them by age 20. Don't quote me on that, but think about the billions of cells that have to divide, something has to go wrong. These cancer cells may be dead weight and end up making vital organs inopperable. Does skin cancer kill people?

so we have to teach our organism to kill cancer cells

Were you saying that as a joke? That might actually work. I mean, cells have proteins in them that help for cells to "recognize" cells of its same type. I'd bet the cancer cells have pretty much the same structure, but if they could it would be very useful. We might even be able to create viruses that can attack cells where abnormal internal behavior occurs.

Were you saying that as a joke?
no

If I joke I put a grinning smiley;)

Please, read my previous post again and you will see that a type of cell makes no difference in the final result. The matter is, that we can defeat physical aging, as well as cancer, etc., without direct genetic manipulations that make our modern science so proud.

Scientists need to find the way on how to manipulate information on the cellular level. For instance, about 30 years ago, one US clinic conducted, I would say, an informational experiment. What is the most effective method of treatment: placebo or real drugs. But, the difference with other placebo experiments was that nobody knew which remedies were real drugs and which remedies were placebo. The result: all placebo remedies worked better than real drugs except morphine. Placebo morphine was 10% less effective than real morphine. Why placebo remedies worked better than real drugs? There was no hypnosis, no psychotherapy. What the mysterious force was working? A possible explanation:

1. Placebo remedies do not have side effects.
2. Somehow information about what the drugs should do - was executed in the patient's bodies. In other words, the information, not chemicals was the main treating factor.

This is one more evidence that non-chemical (informational) treatment of physical problems/diseases is possible. As you understand, the development of this experiment was killed immediately, because manufacturing of drugs is a huge business (should we be proud about achievements of pharmaceutical companies)?

What I am talking about is that any technology carrying the task of how to put or delete information on the cellular level is far more advanced than all modern wonders we have now. The only thing that modern genetic science can do well is production of destructive technologies/weapons, because alterations of genetic code without knowledge of following interactions - can cause only troubles. Instead, there are safe solutions based on the different approach. And instead of putting money before health (killing any positive beginnings) - think about the future of our children whose world we are going to spoil now.

Originally posted by drg
...The matter is, that we can defeat physical aging, as well as cancer, etc., without direct genetic manipulations that make our modern science so proud.

Scientists need to find the way on how to manipulate information on the cellular level...What I am talking about is that any technology carrying the task of how to put or delete information on the cellular level is far more advanced than all modern wonders we have now. The only thing that modern genetic science can do well is production of destructive technologies/weapons, because alterations of genetic code without knowledge of following interactions - can cause only troubles.
You're an uneducated crackpot. All information in a cell is stored on the molecular level; it's chemically encoded, primarily in DNA. Any alteration to the information is a cell will by necessity involve biochemical manipulation. If you had even the most basic understanding of cellular biology, you would know this.

As for the genetic engineering that you seem to hate so much, do you have any actual data to back up your extravagant claims? You claim that genetic manipulation 'can cause only troubles', but to date genetic manipulation has created many effective new drug therapies, plants that are resistant to insects without the use of pesticides, potential treatments for people with genetic disorders, and many other benefits. What harm has it caused? Where are the 'troubles' that you're so concerned about?

You should learn a few things about biology and chemistry before you waste people's time with nonsense like this.

<i><b>Nasor wrote:</b> You're an uneducated crackpot. All information in a cell is stored on the molecular level; it's chemically encoded, primarily in DNA. Any alteration to the information is a cell will by necessity involve biochemical manipulation. If you had even the most basic understanding of cellular biology, you would know this.</i>

DNA is an obvious visible consequence of where information is stored. But it is not the bottom line. Therefore, you have no idea how to change DNA code using special techniques of binding information. For example, how to correct genetic defects of newborn children or how to get a hen from a duck's egg without direct genetic manipulations. (You need to get extra education about the force that drives DNA and other chemicals. Why do fresh cut apples start to lose vitamin C immediately? Because of DNA?).

What genetic engineering is doing can be compare with what they should do as Stone Age technologies with modern technologies. Your knowledge is not higher.

<i><b>Nasor wrote:</b> You claim that genetic manipulation 'can cause only, but to date genetic manipulation has created many effective new drug therapies, plants that are resistant to insects without the use of pesticides, potential treatments for people with genetic disorders, and many other benefits. What harm has it caused? Where are 'troubles' that you're so concerned about?</i>

Did you ever hear about genetic experiments called "chimeras" (about 25 years ago)? Nowadays genetic things that you are claim as helpful were proven as dangerous many year ago. Genetic manipulation is using for business but not for actual help (because of long term side effects). Can you say that produced by genetically altered bacteria insulin is the cure for diabetics? You may say that diabetics have no choice, but they have it and bosses of genetic engineers just do not let this info to go.

I wish to explain you more, but you have to little knowledge about the issue.

how to get a hen from a duck's egg without direct genetic manipulations.
why? what's the difference- we would be doing manipulations anyway
But it is not the bottom line
oh- what is?
What genetic engineering is doing can be compare with what they should do as Stone Age technologies with modern technologies
you hate genetic engeneering

I wish to explain you more, but you have to little knowledge about the issue.
very logical:rolleyes:

drug:

You wouldn't happen to be religious would you be?

You talk about this information, but what is the actual phisical mechanism? Computer store information in hard disks as little nitches and temporarily as a code of transistors that are either on or off. Tapes, records, cds, harddrives, and even writing are all information stored as nitches or symbols on a magnetic or hard surface.
What in cells would be this "information" and where would the "information" come from? The concept of information is a vauge one to say the least, it is like saying cells store facts. A fact is an idea, its not tangeble. Neither is information.

"Why do fresh cut apples start to lose vitamin C immediately? "

Do they? I've never heard of this... I looked it up and couldn't find anything. Im sure -information- has very little to do with this if it is true.

"Nowadays genetic things that you are claim as helpful were proven as dangerous many year ago. "

Any technology can be "good" or "bad". We could engineer plants to kill us, but no we would rather engineer them to help us. Claiming that genetic engineering is "bad" is uncalled for. It is like saying houses are bad.... as oppsed to caves...

Do you think we should go back to being hunter gatherers, (or farther down the evolutionary path) algae?

"Genetic manipulation is using for business but not for actual help "

That is such bullshit. This so reminds me of Muscleman's claim that the Devil was trying to take over the world..... Genetic manipulation is expensive and vegitables aren't getting any more expensive.... The bussinesses actually use it to create foods that yeild more (more money for them) and do things so they don't need to (pest resistant plants). Geneticists also are creating foods that are actually more good for you. People like food that is good for you, therefore they will make more money. Its simple.

DNA is an obvious visible consequence of where information is stored. But it is not the bottom line.
Yes, actually, it is. Nearly everything about the structure and function of a cell can be broken down to DNA and relatively simple chemistry. That's not to say that everything about the workings of cells is understood, but everything can be explained as chemical reactions, directed by DNA at the most fundamental level. The only thing 'below' DNA would be biochemistry, but DNA is definitely where the information is stored.
Can you say that produced by genetically altered bacteria insulin is the cure for diabetics? You may say that diabetics have no choice, but they have it and bosses of genetic engineers just do not let this info to go.

Ah yes, now there's an international conspiracy of scientists to withhold information. That makes perfect sense.

The really amazing part is that your primary source for this thread is a website that's obviously just a scam to get money out of people who weren't paying attention in highschool biology class.

a website that's obviously just a scam to get money out of people who weren't paying attention in highschool biology class.
lmao

<i><b>drg's quote:</b> how to get a hen from a duck's egg without direct genetic manipulations.
<b>Avatar's quote:</b> why? what's the difference- we would be doing manipulations anyway</i>

The difference is that first method allows to transform duck's DNA into hen's DNA and get a completely healthy and normal hen from a duck's egg. If our modern genetic engineering will try to do the same - they can get only a new monster.

<i><b>drg's quote:</b> But it is not the bottom line
<b>Avatar's quote:</b> oh- what is?</i>

The things that drive DNA, destination and action of chemicals, etc. The things can be active and passive. As a rule we have a deal with a passive form, therefore, it looks that DNA (physical matter) is the most important factor. If we will physically change it - we will get a predictable result. But, if we activate those things - any humanly designed law can be violated (to change a physical structure without visible physical reason, to drink poison without harm, etc.). It is not a mystery, it is just a next step of physic, or you can call it as a next step of science (real science, because it works with the reasons instead of cosequances).

<i><b>drg's quote:</b> What genetic engineering is doing can be compare with what they should do as Stone Age technologies with modern technologies
<b>Avatar's quote:</b> you hate genetic engeneering</i>

I just do not see any sense to do it now (on the stage of science) except for military purposes.

<i><b>drg's quote:</b> I wish to explain you more, but you have to little knowledge about the issue.
<b>Avatar's quote:</b> very logical</i>

First, in order to talk further, I need to explain to you that meaning of information in the theory is different from common logic. I use the word "information" here because it has many common features with the common logic. In the both meanings - "information" is passive and cannot interact with the physical matter. For instance, if I will say a command "sleep" - nobody will sleep, or if I will say I want to turn a pig into a hen - nothing will happen. But, there is a possibility to give the words (information) some power if we implement another "player". To say shortly, if we will combine an architect (system information) with builders (the things) - we can get a house (a physical result). If word "information" is more or less understandable, but second meaning do not have any analogy in our language. Of course, it has a name with special meaning, but it is a long story of explanation. I can explain it and show what you can do with the new knowledge, but can you tell me any reason for what? Yes, it allows to manipulate genes without of knowledge of DNA as well as you can operate TV without knowledge of its electronic blueprint (or you have to know it?) I do not say that we have to stop DNA studies; I am saying that direct genetic manipulations should not be the first priority of humanity.

To all my critics and defenders of genetic engineering. Guy, before you are talking about safety and pseudo-conspiracy read info below and I think: <b>"Do you really posses all necessary information to judge things that you do not understand?"</b>

<ul>We can judge the approach of the traditional medicine from an article published in Health Breakthroughs magazine in the Winter issue, 1997 (page 8), by Dr. William C. Douglass, M.D.: "Indeed, side effects from drugs put an estimated 1.6 million people in the hospital every year." Another doctor, David Williams says: "<b>160,000 people die each year because of adverse reactions to prescription drugs.</b>" COMPARE WITH ALL THE LOSSES OF AMERICANS DURING THE VIETNAM WAR DURING 10 YEARS: <b>53,000</b>

<b>102 out of 198 drugs approved by the FDA (52% drugs!!!)</b> between 1978 and 1986 <b>had "serious post-approval risks</b> such as heart failure...convulsions...kidney and liver failure...birth defects and blindness" (reported by the General Accounting Office).</ul>

Look at the overall picture-puzzle collected from the Fact Database of Health Breakthroughs magazine (Winter 1997) and judge for yourself:

<ul>In New York City, tuberculosis is making a comeback. And fully a third of these new cases are resistant to antibiotics.

In Britain, over 60 percent of staph infections are now drug-resistant.

And in South Africa, there was an outbreak of hospital-acquired strep infections that did not respond to normal treatment.

The popular over-the-counter cold medicine makes cancer cells spread like crazy! A study at a leading cancer center proves it makes tumors grow 2 times faster!

Alka Seltzer is able to cause Alzheimer's disease (shocking new findings)!

The common blood-pressure drug increases your heart attack risk. A study shows that people who take it are 60 percent more likely to have a heart attack!

An FDA-approved food additive that is so dangerous it was once classified by the Pentagon as a biochemical weapon!

Using Tylenol for a hangover can cause serious liver damage!

Combining cold medicine and antibiotics can kill you!

You've been hypnotized to believe that an aspirin a day prevents heart attack. Studies show that there is no difference in the death rates of the group which took a daily aspirin and the group which did not. You do not know what aspirin companies have hidden - to get the best study results, they mixed aspirin with magnesium. It is not aspirin that prevents heart attack, but magnesium! Magnesium is totally safe and it dilates blood vessels, acts as a natural blood thinner and hinders the formation of blood clots. Regular use of aspirin can lead to peptic ulcers and reduce the body's production of important hormones. Recent studies link aspirin to macular degeneration - the number one cause of bleeding in people over the age of 55! You need to stop taking a daily aspirin and stick to magnesium instead!
</ul>

"I am saying that direct genetic manipulations should not be the first priority of humanity."

Well, i don't think it is. You win there.

drugs are a whole different story from genetics. I don't like taking pills myself.

While it's true that adverse drug reactions kill tens of thousands (or more) people every year, they save millions.

Not that it really matters; genetic engineering has little to do with prescription drugs.

<i><b>Frencheneesz wrote:</b> drugs are a whole different story from genetics. I don't like taking pills myself.</i>

You are right as well as we were starting to talk about aging, but, my point was: "Do you really posses all necessary information to judge things that you do not understand?"

For instance, I know that many really good things cannot go on not because they are bad, but because they are interacting with big "money bags". Only scientists know what does words "serious scientific research" mean. I spoke with many scientists in the U.S. and asked them: "why are you doing this cheating"? We are in a free country. Their basic answer sounds like: "We have families and children. We need to put bread on the table. Yes, we are cheating, but they pay us money."

It is much easier to have a deal with a worthless idea, because a worthless idea has much less interactions to count and the most important - non-brilliant-mind investors can easily understand it and, therefore, open their pockets for the research. Who has money - usually are not smart enough to understand complex scientific ideas. They replace an ability to think with an ability to feel blood, I mean money. Those abilities are opposite (you cannot call a shark as a smartest creature, because it can smell blood well). Thus, the same investors never will give money on serious complicated research no matter what. The result: … I cannot prove it directly, but if you have friends-scientists - they should tell you the truth (every scientist knows what's going on). People often forget the power of "black magic" symbols: money and greed - that still go before everything.

Therefore, if you never heard about certain things - it does not mean they do not exist. If information can benefit people, but also seriously can hurt existing money-making machine - "money bags" prefer to keep this info for special use rather than switching to a new revolutionary technology. Therefore, according to the statistic, any major discoveries wait about 100-150 years until "money bags" will become more educated.

Do you see the pattern?

You ignore the fact that many high-tech companies are financed and managed almost exclusively by people who are very knowledgeable about science and technology. Try getting a managerial job at Merk or IBM without having a hard science or engineering degree; they won't even look twice at your application. For that matter, many of the largest high-tech companies were founded by scientists and engineers.

Your claim that "any major discoveries wait about 100-150 years" is bizarre beyond comprehension. I suppose you think someone knew how to make semi-conductor microchips in 1850, or that scientists knew about DNA in the early 1800's? Maybe they secretly developed quantum theory in 1780, right after the American Revolution?

<i><b>Nasor wrote:</b> While it's true that adverse drug reactions kill tens of thousands (or more) people every year, they save millions. Not that it really matters; genetic engineering has little to do with prescription drugs.</i>

Genetically altered food has hidden abilities to alter genes or functions of a person who eats it. I will try to explain it on an example:

If the immune system do not recognize an agent - a "panic attack" is happened. We call it allergies. For instance, the immune system of the majority people recognizes dust and they have no allergy to dust. The immune system of minority people does not recognize dust and they have hyperreaction on dust. The simplest method to cure - insert dust information into memory bank of the immune system. It stops allergy in minutes and forever. Bolded it: in stage of dust allergy - dust but not the immune system manage the situation. No problems if only the body manages own environment. The same mechanism is for a food allergy. The immune system does not recognize certain ingredients or nutrients/chemicals of food.

Transfer this mechanism to genetically altered food. Changed chromosomes create changed bio-metabolism and changed 3-D structure (and more) of molecules. They are become different from those the body (the immune system) recognizes well. It means that the body does not metabolize genetically altered food properly. It means that genetically altered compounds will take over normal functions and structures of the body and will change them as soon as it possible. Although, this mechanism is the same as typical allergy - but because alteration is going on a deeper level (genes) - consequences will come not in hours as with typical allergy but in years. And the worse is because it takes over the base of the body functions (genetically determined reactions) - it could unpredictably alter not only its eaters but also his/her children the person could have.

If our mind does not understand things that drive our DNA, …, life - it does not mean they do not work and we will be free from the consequences of our "smart" decisions.

P.S. If you would know a little bit the base of the theory - I would give you 100% checkable proof, in all other respects - you won't believe it and, therefore, won't test it (because it is too unusual approach).

"Genetically altered food has hidden abilities to alter genes or functions of a person who eats it. "

Two words: Bull Shit. Do you see any way at all that any cell we have killed (eaten) could alter our DNA? Have you taken biology? Do you know that a cells nucleaus is a pretty damn hard thing to get into?
Only the tricky viruses can get past the double membrane of the nucleaus of a cell, and not all of those can at that. How is dead plant or animal matter going to alter a person DNA?

If genetically altered food alters the eaters DNA, then so does non-genetically altered food.

"If the immune system do not recognize an agent - a "panic attack" is happened. We call it allergies. "

No, alergies are when the body is affected by a "histomine". Those histomines cause a nervous reaction to those particles.

"The simplest method to cure - insert dust information into memory bank of the immune system."

The immune system does not have a "memory bank", that is quite simply the stupidest thing i have ever heard. If you are trying to create a metephor, stop right now. If you would kindly gives us the actual facts, THEN you can compare it to something (like a memory bank). The immune system doesn't have a brain...

You have 100% checkable proof? Go right ahead.

<i><b>Frencheneesz wrote:</b> Do you know that a cells nucleaus is a pretty damn hard thing to get into?</i>

If you mean your finger or tongue - you are right.

<i><b>Frencheneesz wrote:</b> If genetically altered food alters the eaters DNA, then so does non-genetically altered food.</i>

Nope. Read carefully what I wrote. Genetic code of our body recognizes only certain set of ingredients and surely do not recognize genetically altered food. It surely could be improved, but …

<i><b>Frencheneesz wrote:</b> … alergies are when the body is affected by a "histomine". Those histomines cause a nervous reaction to those particles.</i>

It is the same as to say that a house was burned by smoke. The histamine - is "smoke". Tell me what the agents are causing "smoke".

<i><b>Frencheneesz wrote:</b> The immune system does not have a "memory bank", that is quite simply the stupidest thing i have ever heard.</i>

Read about T-cells (Immunology). They have memory.

<b>Frencheneesz, please, tell me what the necessity to show the whole world that you do not know many things?</b>

<i><b>Nasor wrote:</b> You ignore the fact that many high-tech companies are financed and managed almost exclusively by people who are very knowledgeable about science and technology.</b>

Who I spoke with? Yes, they have diplomas, but in reality - they are not scientists, they are businessmen. Of course, they can have a degree of somebody, but how they did it? Do you know how? I like one professor, who told his students: "You think that the meaning of "professor" means the person is the smartest guy? No, he isn't. He is the foxiest guy.

As a rule - who is scientifically smart - is not a businessman. Who is a businessman - is not a scientifically smart person.

<i><b>Nasor wrote:</b>Your claim that "any major discoveries wait about 100-150 years" is bizarre comprehension.</i>

Do you know who discovered The Theory of Relativity and all its formulas? I bet you don't. (The person is not A. Einstein). How can you claim that we know everything about our past?

I actually have been ignoring this thread for a while now, since it really seemed to be stupid from its inception. However, the forum has been a little slow, and drg has provided lots of incredibly stupid things here to attack. So, I might as well. :o Forgive me if I take quotes out of context, I can't be bothered to read the whole thread. I also have to stand beside my buddy French, since he's actually doing some excellent critical thinking here.
code of our body recognizes only certain set of ingredients and surely do not recognize genetically altered food.
The DNA of a tasty veggie or animal causes the organism to create proteins and sugars. We digest the proteins into amino acids, which we then use to construct our own proteins. We burn the sugars in the presence of oxygen to liberate energy. Because very little of plant or animal matter is actually deoxyribonucleic acid, it constitutes little in the course of nutrition. Your body rather immediately destroys any DNA in the food you eat, and never has a single example ever been shown of a piece of food DNA recombining with somal DNA. It just doesn't happen. Viruses, of course, are not part of the normal diet.

The DNA of the tasty veggie or animal simply scripts the production of nutrients (the proteins and sugars). It doesn't affect the organism enjoying the tastiness.

Here's an example for you: if you grow a genetically altered potato, which is five times the size of a normal potato, you can rest assured that you have five times the mass of sugars to burn. (Yum.) If you take the time to remove all of the cell nuclei from your potato, you will have a considerably pure mass of sugar. Are you actually foolish enough to think that sugar produced by genetically altered tasty veggies is different from that produced by normal tasty veggies?
If the immune system do not recognize an agent - a "panic attack" is happened. We call it allergies.
This is so completely and utterly oversimplified and undercomprehended (is that a word? ;)) that it's laughable. Go buy a biology textbook and stop making yourself look continually more stupid. Really.
Changed chromosomes create changed bio-metabolism and changed 3-D structure (and more) of molecules. They are become different from those the body (the immune system) recognizes well.
Please provide one, just one, example of this.
It means that the body does not metabolize genetically altered food properly.
Please provide one, just one, example of this.
It means that genetically altered compounds will take over normal functions and structures of the body and will change them as soon as it possible.
This isn't Star Trek or the Andromeda Strain. Again, please provide one, just one example of this.
Although, this mechanism is the same as typical allergy - but because alteration is going on a deeper level (genes)
Oh, a "genetic allergy" eh. Better call Prentice-Hall to get that publishing contract started. You're going straight to the top. :)
Read about T-cells
He's right on this one, though, French. The body certainly does have a memory of past invaders -- this is the mechanism exploited by vaccines.
Do you know who discovered The Theory of Relativity and all its formulas?
No single person discovered "all the formulas," numbnuts.

- Warren

<i><b>chroot wrote:</b> I actually have been ignoring this thread for a while now, since it really seemed to be stupid from its inception. However, the forum has been a little slow, and drg has provided lots of incredibly stupid things here to attack.</i>

<b>chroot</b>, you have too old data. But, try to explain why the naturally derived chemicals are OK (for the body), but the same artificially created copies are not? If you would be able to explain it - you would, probably, be able to judge about genetically altered food. By the way, how can you explain fast cancer spreading (prostate cancer grown in 8 times for 4 years, etc.)?

<i><b>drg wrote:</b> If the immune system do not recognize an agent - a "panic attack" is happened. We call it allergies.</i>
<i><b>chroot wrote:</b> This is so completely and utterly oversimplified and undercomprehended (is that a word? ) that it's laughable. Go buy a biology textbook and stop making yourself look continually more stupid. Really.</i>

Can you show how smart you are in this object before claims? Have no words? Sorry.

Originally posted by drg
But, try to explain why the naturally derived chemicals are OK (for the body), but the same artificially created copies are not?
Are you asking me to show you that C6H12O6 is C6H12O6 is C6H12O6, or what?
By the way, how can you explain fast cancer spreading (prostate cancer grown in 8 times for 4 years, etc.)?
Citation, please.
Can you show how smart you are in this object before claims? Have no words? Sorry.
Certainly. Read up on allergies here:

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/allergicdiseases.htm

BTW, do you intend to respond to any of my half-dozen questions, or just ignore them?

- Warren

So, can you explain why the naturally derived chemicals are OK (for the body), but the same artificially created copies are not?

It seems, you do not know about the cancer statistics at all? And spreading of cancer has no explanation? Did you ever try to match appearance of genetically altered food with the cancer statistic for the population? No? Let them go?

About allergy. Why you did not provide me a link to 17 century? It would be almost the same value. Your link is from Stone Ages. That's why allergy is still a problem - there are too many very smart people who look only down.

Originally posted by drg
It seems, you do not know about the cancer statistics at all? And spreading of cancer has no explanation? Did you ever try to match appearance of genetically altered food with the cancer statistic for the population? No? Let them go?
Inform me with the facts, and we'll talk. Show me the cancer statistics, and show me the consumption statistics on genetically altered food. I will not allow you to make sweeping statements and use hand-waving as proof. Show me the numbers from their first sources, and we'll talk.
About allergy. Why you did not provide me a link to 17 century? It would be almost the same value. Your link is from Stone Ages.
The link I provided is still a quite simplified version of things, but by and large it is the accepted view of all modern immunologists. Are you positing that the year 2002 is, in fact, in the Stone Ages?

- Warren

I really like to have opponents as you, <b>chroot wrote:</b>.

<i><b>chroot wrote:</b> Inform me with the facts, and we'll talk. Show me the cancer statistics, and show me the consumption statistics on genetically altered food. I will not allow you to make sweeping statements and use hand-waving as proof. Show me the numbers from their first sources, and we'll talk.</i>

First, this is a proof that you are judge things that you do not know.

<i><b>chroot wrote:</b>The link I provided is still a quite simplified version of things, but by and large it is the accepted view of all modern immunologists. Are you positing that the year 2002 is, in fact, in the Stone Ages?</i>

Modern medicine of 1850 was completely sure that Syphilis could be cured with a proper diet. Quacks were treating the disease by Arsenic and Bismuth. Later medicine accepted Arsenic and Bismuth as a part of the treatment. The question: who was in the future in 1850?

The same analogy with your example. I just did not mention that meanings "the Stone Ages" and "the future (here)" were relative. If this correction is very important for you - take my sorry.

Originally posted by drg
First, this is a proof that you are judge things that you do not know.

I'm not judging anything, fuckwit. I asked to see the facts. I'll make up my mind on the issue when I see them.
Modern medicine of 1850 was completely sure that Syphilis could be cured with a proper diet. Quacks were treating the disease by Arsenic and Bismuth. Later medicine accepted Arsenic and Bismuth as a part of the treatment. The question: who was in the future in 1850?

This anecdote has absolutely nothing to do with the rubbish you're spouting. Don't play bait-and-switch with me.

Let me put it to you straight: I'm smarter than you. I'm more educated than you. I think more critically than you. I am your intellectual superior.

I will not let you pass off hand-waving and anecdotes as proof. I will not let you make personal judgements of empirical evidence. I will not let you misconstrue facts outside their context. I will not let you bullshit, dodge questions, or meander into noncausal arguments.

There are only two ways this discussion will proceed:

1) You will be corrected when you make mistakes. You will be forced into accepting evidence as evidence. You will be shoehorned into real, rational, logical thinking.

or

2) You will leave the discussion on your own accord.

I have time and ample intellectual zeal to spare. You will not silence me with bullshit. Pick your path, and get to it.

- Warren

<i><b>chroot wrote:</b> I'm not judging anything, fuckwit. I asked to see the facts. I'll make up my mind the issue when I see them.</i>

chroot, you are a liar. Read an example of what you wrote:

<ul>Here's an example for you: if you grow a genetically altered potato, which is five times the size of a normal potato, you can rest assured that you have five times mass of sugars to burn. (Yum.) If you take the time to remove all of the cell nuclei from your potato, you will have a considerably pure mass of sugar. <u>Are you actually foolish enough to think that sugar produced by genetically altered tasty veggies is different</u> from that produced by normal tasty veggies?</ul>
By the way - yes, they are not the same.


<i><b>Kent_B:</b> Modern medicine of 1850 was completely sure that Syphilis could be cured with a proper diet. Quacks were treating the disease by Arsenic and Bismuth. Later medicine accepted Arsenic and Bismuth as a part of the treatment. The question: who was in the future in 1850?</i>
<i><b>chroot wrote:</b> This anecdote has absolutely nothing to do with the rubbish you're spouting. Don't play bait-and-switch with me.</i>

You even unable to understand analogies.

<i><b>chroot wrote:</b> There are only two ways this discussion will proceed:
1) You will be corrected when you make mistakes. You will be forced into
accepting evidence as evidence. You will be shoehorned into real, rational, logical thinking.</i>

Read carefully what you wrote. You think that only you can have the right opinion. May I ask you? Why you are visiting forums if you know that only you are right and everybody is wrong? I guess, you think you are God.

<i><b>chroot wrote:</b> Let me put it to you straight: I'm smarter than you. I'm more educated than you. I think more critically than you. I am your intellectual superior. </i>

When last time you visited your psychiatrist? You missed the visit.

I love you. You are very smart.

Originally posted by drg
chroot, you are a liar. Read an example of what you wrote:

I wasn't even talking about that, fuckwit. Learn how to associate responses and statements.
You even unable to understand analogies.
Your analogy is flawed, since there is no connection between your anecdote and reality, except for that which make up to support yourself.

Why you are visiting forums if you know that only you are right and everybody is wrong
Because I'm disappointed in the US's primary education system, and am doing my part to alleviate stupidity. Fuckwits like you need my help.

- Warren

OK, chroot. If a couple questions are too much for you - let's start one by one.

chroot, you claimed that you are smarter more educated than me. Why you still did not answer the question: why the naturally derived chemicals are OK (for the body), but the same artificially created copies are not?

And even worse. Why you were asking me for more info about. How it could be that God (I mean you) does not know the answer? Where is your the highest education?

Man, your responses are getting lamer every post. If you don't put your heart into it, fuckwit, it's no fun for me.
Originally posted by drg
Why you still did not answer the question: why the naturally derived chemicals are OK (for the body), but the same artificially created copies are not?
Probably because you're incapable of using grammar effectively to indicate that that was, in fact, a question directed at me.

The answer is: I have no idea what you're talking about. Please provide something more specific than "naturally derived chemicals."
How it could be that God (I mean you) does not know the answer? Where is your the highest education?
I never said I was God -- I just said that I'm significantly smarter than you. That seems to ring even more true now. And I'm working on my MS in astrophysics at Berkeley... how about you?

- Warren

<i><b>chroot wrote:</b> The answer is: I have no idea what you're talking about. Please provide something more specific than "naturally derived chemicals."</i>

Only too a smart person can have no clue what I am talking about.
OK. Natural and artificial fructose. It is not a too complicated formula to compare. Or just say that you never heard about.

<i><b>chroot wrote:</b> And I'm working on my MS in astrophysics at Berkeley...</i>

It explains your attitude and why you do not know the answers. Now show me how you are significantly smarter than I am (give me the answer).

Originally posted by drg
OK. Natural and artificial fructose. It is not a too complicated formula to compare. Or just say that you never heard about.
Never heard about. Tell me about it.
It explains your attitude and why you do not know the answers.
Suck it.

- Warren

Originally posted by drg
OK. Natural and artificial fructose. It is not a too complicated formula to compare. Or just say that you never heard about.


Fructose would have the same chemical formula wether produced "naturally" or "artifically" !! If it did not then it wouldn't be fructose dumb ass!!!

So the question is in your opinion what is the difference between "natural" and artificial fructose???

P.S The idea of natural and artificial fructose is bollocks of course..its just a sugar...

Edit: spelling mistakes

I have the feeling he's talking about chirality -- not formula. Fructose is fructose, for sure -- but there exist two different structural configuration, each a mirror image of the other. The two are called left-handed and right-handed for distinction.

Life evolved to use only left-handed molecules. It is likely that life could have just as equally chosen either structure, but to accept both was simply unnecessary for survival. If you eat right-handed sugar, you can't digest it. Your body's enzymes can't fit around it properly.

All of this has been known since Pasteur, who discovered it long ago.

However, chirality has nothing to do at all with genetic engineering -- why?

1) Genetically engineered plants and animals will still make left-handed sugars. We certainly don't have the ability to rearrange some tens of thousands of protein genes specifically to make the organism manufacture right-handed sugars. Even if we had the ability to make such enormous changes, why would we?

2) Right-handed sugar doesn't hurt your body, or get into your cell nuclei and turn you into a Klingon. It's just digestive bulk, like fiber, and does no harm.

- Warren

Originally posted by drg

OK. Natural and artificial fructose. It is not a too complicated formula to compare. Or just say that you never heard about.


What the heck are you talking about here? I've had numerous classes in organic chemistry, and as far as I know D-Fructose and L-Fructose (the only 2 kinds of fructose) are the same everywhere. It doesn't matter where they come from. Your body can't tell the difference between natural and artificial.

Originally posted by Nasor
What the heck are you talking about here? I've had numerous classes in organic chemistry, and as far as I know D-Fructose and L-Fructose (the only 2 kinds of fructose) are the same everywhere. It doesn't matter where they come from. Your body can't tell the difference between natural and artificial.
Like I said, I think he thinks that genetically engineered veggies turn magically into right-handed fructose factories (they don't), and that, rather than just being indigestible, right-handed fructose gets into our cellular nuclei, modifies our DNA, and turns us into mutants that smell funny and are predisposed to cancer.

In a word: Nutball. :p

- Warren

Hmm...still, I would be interested to hear what he has to say on the subject. I find the effects of different enantiomers very interesting.

Chroot:
"He's right on this one, though, French. The body certainly does have a memory of past invaders -- this is the mechanism exploited by vaccines."

Yes sure. It is not exactly what I would call "memory", but whatever. I don't suppose you consider alergies "invaders'? Alergies can't be aquired, can they?

<i><b>chroot wrote:</b> So the question is in your opinion what is the difference between "natural" and artificial fructose???</i>

<b>The question was:</b>
why naturally derived chemicals (as food or treatment) are OK (for the body), but the same artificially created copies are not? (I am talking about side effects).

Chroot, <u>I repeated this question four times</u> (you mind is really "genious"). If you would have any knowledge about it - you would say it a long time ago. It only means that you is far below that you are claimed. You even do not know that all artificial copies always have more side effects than the original natural chemicals. If the chemical formulas are the same, than what the difference between natural chemicals and the same artificial chemicals? <u>How the body can see the difference between natural and artificial fructose if they are the same?</u> (It is a matter where they come from.)

<b>P.S.</b> I suggest you should go not further than grammar forums. I think, grammar skills are the only skills you have (although, you have some problems with understanding ... but it really does not matter).

"How the body can see the difference between natural and artificial fructose if they are the same?"

THEY CAN'T DILLWEED!!!! Artificial anything just means it was made by human intelligence rather than through biological or "natural" activity. It in no way changes the chemical formula or shape of whatever is created unless of course we WANT it changed. Most of the time, if we create something artificially, we want to change it; if we can get it from a natural source it is muuuuuuuchhhhhh cheaper.

"You even do not know that all artificial copies always have more side effects than the original natural chemicals."

Artificial copies of what? For some retarded reason you think that just because it isn't "natrual" means that its bad? Nature isn't a pretty place bimbo. Nature tries to kill us all the time, it just fails miserably for the first 60 or 70 years. Every single animal lives off of the destruction of something else. Nature isn't trying to help you, but humans are. Natural tobbacco kills you, right? If we made artificial tobbacco that was the same as normal tobbacco, it would also kill you. But if we removed all the chemicals that, when oxidized, cause cancer (which is pretty much the whole thing), it wouldn't kill you!!! Good and bad things can happen.

by the way, ARE YOU RELIGIOUS? I've asked that a couple times and you never responded, so don't bitch about someone else doing the same thing you are.

"I think, grammar skills are the only skills you have (although, you have some problems with understanding "

AHHH, that sentence is stupid. "blah is the only skill you have (yet you have problems.....)
STUPID!

So the only good thing about you is that you can talk (YET there are many bad things about you, how amazing when you only have one good thing about you). By the way, when I say talk, i mean it in the broadest of terms.

So, guys - you know nothing about the subject, but you are still arguing. You have to be educated from the beginning (at the end I will tell you the difference between natural and artificial fructose if you would be able to analyze preliminary data). Of course, you are free to talk about grammar as much as you wish (it may help you very much).

The NTP's review of the artificial sweetener saccharin.
http://www.cspinet.org/reports/saccomnt.htm
http://www.cspinet.org/reports/sacanada.htm

Scientists claim that some people may have an adverse reaction to additives. Some additives have been linked to hyperactivity in children by scientists and may provoke allergic reactions. The long-term effects of food additives on the body are often unknown and difficult to research. Increasingly, natural alternatives are being discovered to replace the artificial compounds. For further information,
http://www.organicconsumers.org/school/news/adhd.cfm

DO ARTIFICIAL FLAVORINGS LEAD TO HYPERACTIVITY?
There is a concern that artificial flavorings have a direct effect on the behaviour, health, and ability to learn for people and children. Numerous studies show that synthetic food additives can cause serious learning, behaviour and health problems. Scientists claim that artificial flavorings may lead to hyperactivity, which refers to nervousness, aggressiveness, increased movement, impulsiveness, and decreased attention span in children. Hyperactivity generally begins by the age of seven and it is 10 times more common in boys than girls. Since the cause and the cure for this condition continue to be elusive, it remains a frustration to parents, physicians and educators as well as its young victims. According to Dr. Benjamin Feingold, who is a pediatric allergist in San Francisco, food colorings, artificial flavorings and preservatives can cause hyperactivity in children. In addition, many parents and teachers believe that their children are "sugar responders", exhibiting uncontrollable behavior after eating foods containing sugar. Dr. Benjamin Feingold claims that there is a link between diet and several physical and allergic conditions. Feingold found out that 30-50% of his hyperactive patients had benefited from diets free of artificial colorings, flavorings, and certain natural chemicals like salicylates. (Salicylate is a kind of chemical that is said to prevent heart attacks.) The Feingold Program is a test to determine if certain foods or food additives are triggering particular symptoms. It is a diet for allergies, hyperactivity, asthma, and chronic ear infections that can be caused by synthetic food additives in sensitive people. This Feingold diet eliminates artificial flavorings as numerous studies have demonstrated that some children are sensitive to food additives. Moreover, in 1982, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a "consensus development" on diets and hyperactivity to review the early scientific research and advise health professionals and public. The panel had
recommended that the parents should use dietary therapy because the additives in food cause health problems.

DIFFERENCES IN NUTRITIONAL SYSTEMS BETWEEN 1940s AND 2000s

The typical child growing up in the United States of America is exposed to these powerful chemicals every day. The following chart describing the rapid change in nutritional system is taken from Dr. Benjamin Feingold's website: http://www.feingold.org/grocery.html

Sample school lunch in 1940s: Meat loaf, freshly-made mashed potatoes, vegetables. Milk, cupcake made from scratch.

Sample school lunch in 2000s: Highly processed foods loaded with synthetic additives. Chocolate milk with artificial flavors.

Sample school beverage in 1940s: Water from the drinking fountain. Candy in the classroom a few times a year at class parties.

Sample school beverage in 2000s: Soft drink with artificial color, flavor, caffeine. Candy (with synthetic additives) given frequently.

When we look at the chart above, we see that the usage of additives has increased dramatically from 1940s to 2000s. As the food industry evolves, the products contain more and more additives than before. This chart shows us the situation in the United States of America.

ALLERGIES

Another interesting discovery is that; artificial flavorings can cause various allergies. Allergies do not only occur from pollens, dusts and mites, but they may also occur from foods, additives and chemicals. Some people may have allergies to specific dyes and flavorings, which can be found in tomatoes, chocolate, egg, nuts, shellfish, berries, wheat, milk, and other foods. The allergic reactions of food vary. They can be mild or serious. They can be confined to a small area of the body or may affect the entire body. Most occur within the seconds or minutes after exposure to the allergen, but some occur after days or weeks.

http://www.allergyconnection.com
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000817.htm

Artificial flavorings used in daily products may affect human health seriously such as; eczema, asthma, hay fever, sinus, colds, catarrh, headaches or migraine, constipation, lethargy, hyperactivity, excess mucus, phlegm, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, bedwetting. These are highly documented symptoms of people who are suffering from allergies to daily products. Like the hyperactivity problem, there is no specific and
definite report on food allergies. If you want to learn more: http://www.alfafoods.co.nz

In conclusion, in the United States of America, thanks to Food Additive Amendment of 1958, some harmful chemicals are banned as they destroy human health. While we were researching artificial flavorings, we could not find any specific and definite harmful effects of them on human health. Although there are many claims and discoveries, none of them are proved. In other words, we do not know the long-term effects of artificial flavorings. However, many scientists claim that they can cause hyperactivity and allergic reactions. In the modern world, we consume these additives everyday in our foods such as potato chips, cookies, candies, and pastries. These additives are even in toothpaste, mouthwashes, and medicines. Therefore, we just want to draw your attention and warn you about the possible negative aspects of artificial flavorings. We all have to be informed in order to avoid the harmful effects of artificial flavorings. Although the claims are unproven, we have to be cautious either way because human health is one of the most important concepts of human existence.

If you are interested in this subject, check the following links for further information:
http://crucial.ied.edu.hk/foodchem/coomonfl/html
http://www.rawfoodlife.com/whole_food_crisis.htm
http://cfast.vt.edu.publications/foodad/html

Originally posted by drg
So, guys - you know nothing about the subject, but you are still arguing. You have to be educated from the beginning (at the end I will tell you the difference between natural and artificial fructose if you would be able to analyze preliminary data).
There are only two types of fructose: d-fructose and l-fructose, and your body doesn’t care where they come from; it doesn't matter if they're 'artificial' or 'natural'. Your body can't tell the difference. I'm interested in synthetic chemistry, so I'd like to hear what you have to say (if anything), but this is getting a little annoying. Just post whatever you have to say about it.

I hope you're not thinking that saccharin is the same thing as artificial fructose...

Okay, drg, you must understand something:

A "flavoring" is not a precise chemical. It's a substance that causes the human body to experience a type of flavor.

A "natural flavoring" is some chemical (or, more likely, it's a cocktail of several) that is derived from some plant, say.

An "artificial flavoring" is some different chemical (or cocktail) that just happens to produce the same sort of taste.

The two are NOT the same, in any respect whatsoever. A "natural flavoring" and an "artificial flavoring" do not have the same chemical formula at all. An "artificial flavoring" is NOT a copy of a "natural flavoring."

So are natural and artificial flavorings different to the body? OF COURSE. They're different in every respect! They aren't even the same chemicals!

This entire time, however, you've been trying to tell us educated folk that two chemicals, with IDENTICAL CHEMICAL FORMULAE AND STRUCTURE, act differently when produced naturally or artificially. This statement is of course, FALSE.

- Warren

First, you need to collect enough data (a pretty long list). Then we will analyze it. If it is too long for you - I can accelerate it.

<b>Organic vs. Commercial Food (think about genetically engineered food)</b>

"The organic pears, apples, potatoes and wheat had, on an average, over 90% more of the nutritional elements than similar commercial food. The average difference is over 2.5 times."

<b>ABSTRACT</b>

Organic food has been noted in various studies as having similar nutritional value as commercial foods. These studies usually look at the dry ashed concentration and are designed for the food producer. In this study the average elemental concentration in organic foods on a fresh weight basis was found to be about twice that of commercial foods.

The difference in nutritional value of organic foods compared with commercial foods has been studied many times. These studies are intended and needed for the growers, but for the consumers interested in nutrition, what is needed? They go to a store and must choose between two potatoes or two pears. One is organic, one commercial. Each is about the same size and looks like the same variety. They need a simple, practical answer. Do the foods labeled organic have greater nutritive concentration?

Over a period of two years, foods were purchased at several stores in the western suburbs of Chicago. Apples, pears, potatoes, and corn were selected, choosing specimens of similar variety and size. Organic whole-wheat flour and wheat berries were obtained from catalogs and markets in the Chicago area. Baby foods and "Junior' foods were also included in the study.

Specimens were taken to Doctor's Data Laboratories, Inc. in West Chicago,IL for analysis of elemental concentrations. The method for sample preparation for the analysis of 38 elements is an open-vessel hot-plate acid digestion. A 0.4 gram specimen of food was weighed to ± .005 gr. A 1O ml mixture of ultra-pure nitric acid and perchloric acid in 3 to 2 ratio is heated with the sample until a clear liquid is obtained. Digested samples are diluted to a standard volume and analyzed on state-of-the-art instruments. Comparable specimens were always analyzed sequentially and often rerun to determine reproducibility of certain elements.

Results are expressed as a comparison of the percentage of organic foods having more or less of each element as compared with the commercial foods. This is done to eliminate the influence of the matrix effect on the results. The matrix effect (caused by different viscosity, acidity and residue in the ashed specimen), of each food type must be studied to produce accurate numerical results. In this study, the matrices were not studied, so numerical results are not reported. Why so much difference when only minor differences have been noted before?

First, many prior studies compare dry weight values. Nitrogen(2), jibberelic acid and other substances can increase moisture content of a food.

Second, commercial and organic farming may have changed in the past few years since many studies have been done.

Thirdly, post harvest handling may make a difference not addressed in most studies.

Are the levels of elements in food important? The 1988 Surgeon General's report on nutrition states that nutrition can play a role in the prevention of such diseases as coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes. Nutritional Influences on Illness(3) cites studies that have found low levels of elements correlate with many health conditions, citing many studies which show that supplementation of these elements can reduce symptoms.

Examples include: alcoholism, allergy, cancer, candidiasis, cardiomyopathy, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes mellitus, fatigue, headache, hypertension, obesity, premenstrual syndrome, and rheumatoid arthritis to name a few. These studies do not directly prove causation but do document correlation. The elements found to reduce symptoms are the same elements found in this study at greater concentrations in organic food.

The study has many limitations, but specimens taken over a two year period provided quite similar results. Despite the study's limitation, this suggests there are significant differences between organic and commercial food. The organic pears, apples, potatoes and wheat had, on an average, over 90% more of the nutritional elements than similar commercial food. The average difference is over 2.5 times.

References:

1.Hornick. Sharon B. Factors affecting the nutritional quality of crops. Am. J. Alternative Ag., Vol. 7. Nos. I & 2, 1992.
2.Kumar, Vinod, W.S. Ahlawat, and R.S. Antil. 1985. Interactions nitrogen and zinc in pearl millet: Effect of nitrogen and zinc levels on dry matter yield and concentration and uptake of nitrogen and zinc in pearl millet. Soil Science 139:351-356.
3.Werbach, Melvyn R. Nutritional Influences on Illness, 2nd Ed. 1993,Third Line Press, Tarzana, CA.

<b>Now about genetically engineered bacteria and artificial low-calory sweeteners.</b>

The FDA approved Aspartame is made by combining: 50% Phenylalanine produced by produced by <b>genetically engineered bacteria</b>, with 40% Aspartic Acid, and 10% Methyl alcohol.

Aspartame can be found in: Foods, Beverages, Medications, and Food Supplements
Medications include: Children's Tylenol, Coumadin, Dilantin, Inderal, Aldomet, Antidepressants, Insulin, and Lidocaine.

Recent scientific research showed evidence of the following:

Aspartame breaks down into methanol (wood alcohol).

Methanol quickly converts into formaldehyde in the body.

Formaldehyde gradually leads to severe damage to the neurological system, immune system and causes permanent genetic damage at extremely low doses.

Methanol from alcoholic beverages and fruit and juices does not convert to formaldehyde and cause damage because there are protective chemicals in these beverages.

Recent independent research in Europe demonstrated that ingestion of small amounts of aspartame leads to the accumulation of significant levels of formaldehyde (bound protein) in organs (liver, kidneys, brain) and tissues.

Excitotoxic amino acids such as the one immediately released from aspartame likely increases the damage caused by the formaldehyde.

The result: " Aspartame breaks down into methanol that quickly converts into formaldehyde which leads to severe damage to the neurological system, immune system and <b>causes permanent genetic damage</b> at extremely low doses. "

References:

National Health Institute
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/
MEDLINE
http://www.medline.com/
The Center for Behavioral Medicine, Northeastern Ohio University, College of Medicine.
http://www.neoucom.edu/
Donna F. Smith, CCN, ND (: "Avoid all refined white sugar and artificial sweeteners.")

DRuGed:

If you are going to give us links, give the links directly to where there is information that supports you. Do not just give random health web sites...

"The organic pears, apples, potatoes and wheat had, on an average, over 90% more of the nutritional elements than similar commercial food. The average difference is over 2.5 times."

That is bullshit, period. Organic shit sucks. Its small, usually much more rotten, and 3 times more expensive. Not all commercial foods that aren't organic are genetically engineered. There IS such thing as normal foods that happen to use pesticides. They are all over dipshit.

Give us actuall citations bitch. The problem I have with you is that you are spreading completely false data around to people that might actually listen to you. IN OTHER WORDS YOU ARE STUPIFYING PEOPLE. Your rambling is not proof. Citations CAN be considered evidence to us. GIVE US THOSE.

ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?
ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?

God damnit, you've ignored that one at least 5 times.

drg,

Okay... I think we can all agree that Aspartame is bad news. I don't eat any of that stuff. It probably does cause odd biochemical problems.

Aspartame, however, is not "artificial sugar." It's a totally different chemical. You understand this, correct?

You made the claim that artificially-produced chemicals are different than naturally-produced chemicals. You've provided pages upon pages of interesting reading, but nothing that actually supports your claim.

- Warren

<i><b>chroot wrote:</i> You've provided pages upon pages of interesting reading, but nothing that actually supports your claim.</i>

Please, just wait. I am waiting for other comments then I will continue.

Originally posted by drg
Please, just wait.
I have no idea why you'd want me to wait.

- Warren

drg:

your posts in this thread are becoming increasingly lengthy, probably the cut and past type.

you still havnt answered chroot on his first post, in which he was simply asking you for the evidence. cant provide the evidence?

and why all the b.s. about sachrin? that $hit was never intended for our bodies, is not sugar, and has no relavence to you question posed about sugar.

if you have some relavent information, spit it out. i think you are just riding your own b.s. as long as you can, probably trying to look smarter on the way. you cant just learn all this stuff overnight. i didnt even bother reading your last two "cut and pasts"(posts) because i scaned them for relavent information to the subject, and you are just beating around the bush.

Do not worry, please. Everything that you will read below is related to the subject (artificial/natural chemicals and aging, etc.).

Fact is - photons have memory. Therefore, there are methods to change photons' behavior using … just special so called "information".
In this way, a message encoded in photons of light can be transmitted from one place to another without sending the photons across the space in between. The University of Aarhus' Institute of Physics and Astronomy research involved "quantum entanglement", a mysterious method of entwining a number of particles without any physical contact.

http://www.ifa.au.dk/
1. Charles H. Bennett, Gilles Brassard, Claude Crepeau, Richard Jozsa, Ashes Peres, and William K. Wootters "Teleporting an Unknown Quantum State via Dual Classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Channels. Published in Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (March 29,1993
2. Tony Sudbury, "Instant Teleportation", Nature vol.362, pp 586-587 (1993)
3. Ivars Peterson, Science News, April 10, 1993, p. 229.
4. If you have an access to closed info - you can read more at:
http://vesta.physics.ucla.edu/~smolin/
http://vesta.physics.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/uncompress_ps_cgi?papers/teleportation.ps

There is such meaning as 'atomic memory' (Quantum Memory). For start you can read:

"We have demonstrated experimentally that coherent optical information can be stored in an atomic medium and subsequently read out by using the effect of EIT in a magnetically trapped, cooled atom cloud. We have experimentally verified that the storage and read-out processes are controlled by stimulated photon transfers between two laser fields. Multiple read-outs can be achieved using a series of short coupling laser pulses. In Fig. 4a and b we show measurements of double and triple read-outs spaced by up to hundreds of microseconds. Each of the regenerated probe pulses contains part of the contents of the 'atomic memory', and for the parameters chosen, the memory is depleted after the second pulse and after the third pulse." …" By injection of multiple probe pulses into a Bose-Einstein condensate - where we expect that most atomic collisions are coherence-preserving-and with use of controlled atom-atom interactions, quantum information processing may be possible during the storage time."

Nature 409, 490 - 493 (2001) © Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
(read more references at the bottom).

What do chemicals consist of? If even atoms and photons have memory, what doubts you have about the cell memory and memory of molecules? Or do cells and molecules have no atoms? Can you apply quantum mechanics principles, quantum information and metrology to allergy, cancer, aging etc.? May I say - no way? Can you explain why native chemicals do not interact with each other within the body (blood stream etc), but in vitro - they do it very fast? Why do native chemicals react in only certain places if they could do it everywhere? What are the force that keep them under control inside the body? According to the law of Quantum Physic special information the form of special field can be attached to any chemicals and this info can direct chemicals to the pointed target.
The difference between artificial and natural chemicals is this marking code ('atomic memory'). Natural substances have specific 'atomic memory' that allows the body to recognize chemicals and direct them to the proper places.
Artificial copies do not have specific 'atomic memory' about where they should go, therefore, they go everywhere including places where they are unwanted (this is the reason for side effects). Genetically altered food always has problems with specific 'atomic memory' (defects) and, therefore, it causes unpredictable damage to the chemical and I would say 'electrical' structure of the body. You have no idea how much!

For example, can you explain why the suicide rate in the US for youngsters tripled since 1980? (A 2001 newsletter to Doctors for Disaster Preparedness). With allergy you still stocked up on the histamines (it means no cure), with your approach to aging - the maximum that you can do is create walking (on two legs) cancer and you badly want to accelerate destruction of humanity with artificial chemicals
(everywhere) and genetically engineered food (everywhere).

You even do not want to hear that all aforementioned problems can be resolved today with no side effects or adverse reactions with all the linked organic matter. The reason - you think if you never heard about it -
thus, this is the proof that the solution is does not exist (because of you). Guys, you are very "smart".

Read an example how can people talk about complicated issues:

Matrioshka Brains:

"What is life on Earth but a set of interactivity laws applied to a set of chosen molecules."
http://www.arkania.org/~benzer/?p=32

He is in one but big step from the level where he can get the answers to his questions.

As you may understand, I knew from the beginning "the quantum multiplication table" in medicine (proven by many independent methods criteria). Therefore, I have no need to prove that my point of view ("quantum medicine") is the truth to anybody. I need something different for personal use.
Anyway, I would like to tell you many thanks for your fighting with me. You helped me very much. So far this is the first public place where show this point (reach my goal).

References:

1. Harris, S. E. Electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Today 50, 36-42 (1997). | ISI |
2. Scully, M. O. & Zubairy, M. S. Quantum Optics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997).
3. Arimondo, E. in Progress in Optics (ed. Wolf, E.) 257-354 (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1996).
4. Hau, L. V., Harris, S. E., Dutton, Z. & Behroozi, C. H. Light speed reduction to 17 metres per second in an ultracold atomic gas. Nature 397, 594-598 (1999). | Article | ISI |
5. Kash, M. M. et al. Ultraslow group velocity and enhanced nonlinear optical effects in a coherently driven hot atomic gas. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 5229-5232 (1999). | Article | ISI |
6. Budker, D., Kimball, D. F., Rochester, S. M. & Yashchuk, V. V. Nonlinear magneto-optics and reduced group velocity of light in atomic vapor with slow ground state relaxation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1767-1770 (1999). | Article | ISI |
7. Harris, S. E., Field, J. E. & Kasapi, A. Dispersive properties of electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Rev. A 46, R29-R32 (1992). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
8. Grobe, R., Hioe, F. T. & Eberly, J. H. Formation of shape-preserving pulses in a nonlinear adiabatically integrable system. Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 3183-3186 (1994). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
9. Xiao, M., Li, Y.-Q., Jin, S.-Z. & Gea-Banacloche, J. Measurement of dispersive properties of electromagnetically induced transparency in rubidium atoms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 666-669 (1995). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
10. Kasapi, A., Jain, M., Yin, G. Y. & Harris, S. E. Electromagnetically induced transparency: propagation dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2447-2450 (1995). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
11. Hau, L. V. et al. Near-resonant spatial images of confined Bose-Einstein condensates in a 4-Dee magnetic bottle. Phys. Rev. A 58, R54-R57 (1998). | Article | ISI |
12. Fleischhauer, M. & Lukin, M. D. Dark-state polaritons in electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 5094-5097 (2000). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
13. Harris, S. E. Normal modes for electromagnetically induced transparency. Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 52-55 (1994). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
14. Fleischhauer, M. & Manak, A. S. Propagation of laser pulses and coherent population transfer in dissipative three-level systems: An adiabatic dressed-state picture. Phys. Rev. A 54, 794-803 (1996). | Article | PubMed | ISI |
15. DiVincenzo, D. P. The physical implementation of quantum computation. Preprint quant-ph/0002077 at http://xxx.lanl.gov; (2000).
16. Orszag, M., Saavedra C. Phase fluctuations in a laser with atomic memory effects. Phys. Rev. A., 43, 554 (1991).
17. H.-K Lo, S. Popescu, and T. Spiller, editors, Introduction to Quantum Computation and Information. World Scientific, Singapore, 1997
18. Eugene Polzik Atomic Entanglement Created by Light: Towards Quantum Memory. Institute of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University, 8000, Denmark
19. Ivan Deutsch Entangling Dipole-Dipole Interactions for Quantum Logic in Optical Lattices. Dept. of Physics and Astronomy, University of New Mexico

drg,

You really disappoint me. You had me all prepared to learn something new, but instead all you offered was half-truth and opinion.

Let's see now...

What do chemicals consist of? If even atoms and photons have memory, what doubts you have about the cell memory and memory of molecules?
Perhaps you just don't realize it, but this is an absolutely enormous leap of logic. You're trying to convince me that quantum entanglement imbues molecules with a memory. Mmm... sorry, but this is just your lack of education speaking.

Photons do not have "memory." They have states. A photon can be in a cetrtain state -- say, left-polarized or right-polarized. The photon's state can then be altered by an interaction with some bit of matter. There is no memory of the previous state.

Quantum entanglement is an extremely delicate phenomenon. Every interaction, every collision of atoms, will destroy any information about the last collision. The mathematics of quantum mechanics mandates this. Entanglement lasts only so long as no interactions occur, and are destroyed immediately when they do. Surely you understand the interaction timescales involved in liquids at room temperature?

You've lept from A to Z, drg, and there's no evidence of B through Y. Sorry.
Can you explain why native chemicals do not interact with each other within the body (blood stream etc), but in vitro - they do it very fast? Why do native chemicals react in only certain places if they could do it everywhere?
This is a vague anecdote, not a step in a logical process. You'll have to be much more specific with us.
For example, can you explain why the suicide rate in the US for youngsters tripled since 1980?
Surely you believe that society has something to do with suicide rates? I'm sure the psychologists in the group can provide more detail, but an explanation of the suicide rate needs no appeal to a molecular memory of the chemicals produced in genetically altered foods. The suicide rate goes up and down over time -- always has, always will.
With allergy you still stocked up on the histamines (it means no cure), with your approach to aging - the maximum that you can do is create walking (on two legs) cancer and you badly want to accelerate destruction of humanity with artificial chemicals
(everywhere) and genetically engineered food (everywhere).

This is a delusional and derisive attack, not a step in a logical process.
The reason - you think if you never heard about it -
thus, this is the proof that the solution is does not exist (because of you). Guys, you are very "smart".
Yes. We, the members of sciforums.com, are personally responsible for the downfall of all humanity.
Read an example how can people talk about complicated issues:

Matrioshka Brains:

I read the first page or so, and saw at least nine or ten of my 'Steps to Become a Crackpot.' If these kind of people are your champions, you're in for a long life of idiocy and paranoia.

drg, this is the bottom line: If you wish to prove to us that nutrients created by genetically altered foods are different than those produced by non-genetically altered foods, you will have to design an experiment that can accurately discern which is which. The truth is that no such experiment can be designed.

- Warren

Guys, I am not a social teacher to teach you things you do not know. This was an experiment. If you really want to know the truth - you have info where to start. But if you are just curious - forget about.

Want to prove me wrong? I can talk with you if you know the basics of the issue (the only sense to talk). For example, if you know at least old outdated info about the topic - you can answer what does the below formula mean:

v.o. = are identified
v.b. = are not identified
g.o. = are not identified
g.b. = are not identified

Clue: first letters means "virtual" and "gluon", however, those words could be replaced (that depends on a scientist, it is the same as 'atomic memory' can be replaced with 'quantum memory' but the meaning is the same)

P.S. If the truth is opposite of what a person believes (like a religious man) - there are no facts to help him until he will try to understand it sincerely.

Vlad, baby, you'll have to stop talking in code if you want to talk at all.

Maybe you should stick to nutraceuticals and Nostradamus doomsday predictions, "Dr. G."

- Warren

"Fact is - photons have memory."

That is in no way a fact. Only thinking things can use memory, therefore, even if photons did posses some kind of "memory", life at the DNA level has no intelligence.

"If even atoms and photons have memory, what doubts you have about the cell memory and memory of molecules? "

None. Yet I do have doubts about that conditional statment that the rest of that claim relys on.

"For example, can you explain why the suicide rate in the US for youngsters tripled since 1980?"

Society obviously sucks more than in 1980...

You STILL have not answered my question, its starting to piss me off.

ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?!!!!

ANSWER IT!

Are you saying that there is no genetic manipulation that could benifit humans? Are you saying that nature is already "perfect" for us? AND you are saying that, somehow, normal food CAN NOT affect DNA while genetically altered food CAN? Thats absurd.

drg you seem to believe that synthetic sweeteners like aspartame are 'artificial fructose.' This is incorrect; 'artificial fructose' is fructose that has been created synthetically from raw chemicals in a lab, rather than naturally by plants. It's important to keep in mind that artificial sweeteners like aspartame are not the same thing as artificial fructose. Natural and artificial fructose are indistinguishable from each other and effect the body in exactly the same way. Aspartame and fructose (whether natural or artificial) are obviously very different.

<i><b>Frencheneesz wrote:</b> That is in no way a fact. Only thinking things can use memory, therefore, even if photons did posses some kind of "memory", life at the DNA level has no intelligence.</i>

First - read the references; than - talk about. No knowledge is not a proof of non-existence.

. If the truth is opposite of what a person believes (like a religious man) - there are no facts to help him until he will try to understand it sincerely


meaning that this applies to you?

like i said, you cut and past but do not talk yourself about the real issue you brought up, but instead keep introduces new topics in here. if you stated in your own words a defense to your theory, without simple cut and paste explanation, i would take you more seriously. however it seems you just believe what you read and state exactly that without shedding any new light on the topic


by the way, on the frontier of physics, there is much disagreement, i think you are just reading a group of peoples theories.

you provide 2 links i cant access, one that is not in english.


This was an experiment

my take on this? the truth- to see if we knew you dont know what the hell you are talking about? you're all over the place with your logic.

Originally posted by chroot
Like I said, I think he thinks that genetically engineered veggies turn magically into right-handed fructose factories - You're giving him far too much credit.

<i><b>Nasor wrote:</b> if you stated in your own words a defense to your theory, without simple cut and paste explanation, i would take you more seriously.</i>

I gave you a clue … You would prove it if you wish for … and everything you cannot explain will have a necessary explanation … and you can use it right now (practically). But, just I need to prove (to somebody) that (according to the theory) you even do not want to think about … I got what I need.

If you know that 2 x 2 = 4 will you prove to somebody who thinks that 2 x 2 = 5 that he is wrong?
If you will insist that you will do it - may I ask you a question: "For what?"

P.S. You want additional info about the theory? Why? Because I started the topic? Do you think I badly want to prove the theory? I don't care what you will think about me and the theory. I had different purposes.

But, do you really believe that your knowledge is the top knowledge in the World and it always correct?

Nasor wrote: if you stated in your own words a defense to your theory, without simple cut and paste explanation, i would take you more seriously.



i wrote that dumbshit



But, just I need to prove (to somebody) that (according to the theory) you even do not want to think about … I got what I need.

you make no sense

If you know that 2 x 2 = 4 will you prove to somebody who thinks that 2 x 2 = 5 that he is wrong?


if they wanted to know corectly, or i would ask them for their proof

But, do you really believe that your knowledge is the top knowledge in the World and it always correct?


never said that, and no i dont


P.S. You want additional info about the theory? Why? Because I started the topic? Do you think I badly want to prove the theory?


ya, you started the topic. now we call you out to provide some evidence. do i think you want to prove the theory? no, i think you cant

drug:

"No knowledge is not a proof of non-existence."

WTF? If life at the DNA level cannot understand "information" then in no way could "information" be used.

You continue to avoid my question "ARE YOU RELIGIOUS?", and I assume you are not because you made a reference to the "religious man" that contradicts proof. But, may I ask, why did you just completely ignore my question after I posted it 4 times?

"Do you think I badly want to prove the theory? I don't care what you will think about me and the theory. I had different purposes."

WHAT? Why are you posting here if not to convince peope of things or to learn? What are your high and lofty "different" purposes for starting this thread in which every single person has not only told you that you are wrong, but has given you proof of such.

Your theory sucks ass and you do a very good job of showing your stupidity. If you "don't care" then just stop posting here, its that simple.

<i><b>Frencheneesz wrote:</b> Your theory sucks ass and you do a very good job of showing your stupidity. If you "don't care" then just stop posting here, its that simple.</i>

I glad we had everything what we need. You got a "proof" that I am stupid (without even checking the references because, I guess, it requires thinking). I got what I need. I am happy and you?

Five pages of information...dont know how to handle it...my hair just turned gray (not the ionising radiation kind)...

I have a vaccum cleaner that will suck out all the overloaded information from your body. I just figured out how to put anti-information in water. I am willing to sell them at $500 per pint if anyone is interested.

When these anti-information hits your cells riding the water molecules....well...you know.

I have a friend who got so fascinated with computers that he got overloaded with all these information and now he thinks, he has surfed the entire internet and now babbles a lot about tetraneutron and complex hypercharge on nuclear oscillation at galactic co-ordinate in alpha-1,1,1 dihydrochloroethylamine.

I feel sorry for my friend, but then again...he just started selling aloe gel at $300 per oz and people are buying it like crazy....and no one wants to question for the fear of looking stupid....

Guys, you want to show how “smart” you are. Unfortunately, you cannot see beyond school knowledge. Everything that is going on further – you cannot understand at all (like soulless computers cannot do work beyond a program). You even cannot remember points in the posts that you read. Therefore, you cannot put info together (to analyze info properly).

That’s why kmguru is thinking that his examples with PCs and Internet and his friend are correct. Please, read my posts again to understand what is this “information” I meant (if you think you have average logical abilities).

20 years ago military made weapons based on what you think is stupid and do not exist. For instance, if you saw TV after 9/11 – they told about bio-weapons that affect so called the informational recognition system. There is no defense, because traditional medicine has no idea about this mechanism and how to handle it. They can spray with the undetectable agents food that goes to the US and everyone who ate it – will die from unknown disease during one year.

Unfortunately, as far as I know they did not develop a mass-production technology for manufacturing of remedies against this kind of bio-weapons.

It is possible to survive for infected person, if he/she can understand how it works, but it seems it would not be you.

P.S. Thanks to G.W. Bush – we are at the edge of WW III.

Originally posted by drg
That’s why kmguru is thinking that his examples with PCs and Internet and his friend are correct. Please, read my posts again to understand what is this “information” I meant (if you think you have average logical abilities).

Please, can you elucidate in one reply without refering to web sites, other posts, other anchors, or questioning peoples capabilities etc? And please do it in English - my Russian thinking is not very good.

Just one self standing post containing your new theory and your claims. Imagine you are writing a patent application.

Thanks

Originally posted by drg
There is no defense, because traditional medicine has no idea about this mechanism and how to handle it. They can spray with the undetectable agents food that goes to the US and everyone who ate it – will die from unknown disease during one year.
<H1><B><I>NEWSFLASH: YOU ARE A CRACKPOT. NO ONE BELIEVES YOU, BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF YOUR CRACKPOT THEORIES. CALLING US STUPID DOES NOT CHANGE THIS. SHUT UP ALREADY.</I></B></H1>

I do not need fanatics-believers. I prefer to speak to who is able to think beyond "stamps".

If you will force your brain to work properly - you will see enough proof you need for (for the beginning).

But you are speaking as Stalin. He thought (by the fact) he was the smartest man in the World and <b>during 4 years (!!!)</b> he did not believe all hard evidences (the precise plan and date) that Hitler will attack the USSR until Hitler "suddenly" did it.

I see you at the same genius people as Stalin. There are no hard facts that can help you.

Keep going.

<b>P.S.</b> About new bio-weapons - it was shown on NOVA (the USA) right after 9/11.

The last note:
I did not expect to convince somebody here because it is beyond abilities of average people. The people who are able to understand it - never talk about it publicly (so and I did not say you too much). I need your replies for ...

either:


SHUT UP ALREADY


or:




you elucidate in one reply without refering to web sites, other posts, other anchors, or questioning peoples capabilities etc



sounds easy enough for a person as intelligent as yourself?

<i><b>On Radioactive Waves wrote:</b> you elucidate in one reply without refering to web sites, other posts, other anchors, or questioning peoples capabilities etc</i>

First - I am not a public teacher ...

Second - I tested all of you ...

Third - I do not care what you think about me ...

Forth - sincerely thanks for your replies. Although, I did expect nothing good about the topic but your replies are amazing even for me.

<b>P.S.</b> If WW III will come - you will surely understand things that you missed here. Unfortunately, many people do not do a step forward until they have no other choice.

Just in a case - remember, the time is running ...

You think that saccharin and aspartame is the same thing as artificial fructose, and you expect us to believe that you were 'testing' us? You don't even understand basic chemistry terms.

Nasor wrote: You think that saccharin and aspartame is the same thing as artificial fructose, and you expect us to believe that you were 'testing' us? You don't even understand basic chemistry terms.

The same was the word "artificial" but not chemical formulas. As I told you - nobody got the point (what I am talking about).

P.S. Guys, if you think I am a stupid man - why you are talking with the stupid man? If you so sure that I am a stupid man - why you want to prove me your claim? It is not necessarily to do if you are sure that you are right.

But as you wish ...

Originally posted by drg
P.S. Guys, if you think I am a stupid man - why you are talking with the stupid man? If you so sure that I am a stupid man - why you want to prove me your claim? It is not necessarily to do if you are sure that you are right.


Once again....

Please, can you elucidate in one reply without refering to web sites, other posts, other anchors, or questioning other peoples capabilities, or claims?

Just one self standing post containing your new theory and your claims. Imagine you are writing a patent application.

Thanks

Originally posted by drg
<i><b>On Radioactive Waves wrote:</b> you elucidate in one reply without refering to web sites, other posts, other anchors, or questioning peoples capabilities etc</i>

First - I am not a public teacher ...

Second - I tested all of you ...

Third - I do not care what you think about me ...

Forth - sincerely thanks for your replies. Although, I did expect nothing good about the topic but your replies are amazing even for me.

<b&