A non-chemical theory of aging.

[drg]

<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).

 

[Frencheneesz]

"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.

 

[drg]

<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>

 

[drg]

Do you know who discovered The Theory of Relativity and all its formulas?

<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?

 

[chroot]

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. 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

 

[drg]

<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.

 

[chroot]

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

 

[drg]

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.

 

[chroot]

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

 

[drg]

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.

 

[chroot]

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

 

[drg]

<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.

 

[chroot]

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

 

[drg]

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?

 

[chroot]

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

 

[drg]

<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).

 

[chroot]

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

 

[JBoy]

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

 

[chroot]

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

 

[Nasor]

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.