Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Last night's conversation with an oncologist

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    Last night I spent some time talking with an oncologist personally, not professionally, as I am fortunately in good health. We spoke in a relaxed setting. It
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 27 1:20 PM
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Last night I spent some time talking with an oncologist personally,
      not professionally, as I am fortunately in good health. We spoke in a
      relaxed setting. It is more difficult to talk one on one about this
      material because when you talk orally to someone, there is no chance
      to weigh your words, edit, and so forth. The discussion began over
      anti-oxidants and cancer.

      I am not sure whether I should try to put the conversation to you
      verbatim, or describe it with my eyes. For fair readers who have
      been tracking this discussion on a living earth and climate, tropical
      storm behaviors, you may find our conversation fascinating. But for
      the reader who is unfamiliar with what the heck I am talking about,
      they may find a discussion about oncology on a climate bb . . .
      well . . . crazy. Not relevant. So some explanation is required.

      Some basics. Oncology is the study of cancer. An oncologist is a
      cancer doctor. One of the first questions I asked the oncologist was
      how much time she spent treating patients and how much time she spent
      in 'research'. Her answer IMHO was typical of doctors today who are
      good and very busy--that most of her 'research', if you want to call
      it that is clinical and individual patient driven. IOWs, she spends
      a great deal of time thinking, researching about her individual
      patients and their cancer.

      What I asked the oncologist was if she was familiar with the debate
      over design and evolution. Her response was I suppose expected. An
      oncologist would deal with death all the time, with families in their
      grief, and so forth. She said that design was a religious question.
      I said, no, that's not what I was talking about. I am not talking
      about religion. I was asking a 'scientific' question, making a
      scientific point--about design. I asked her, specifically; what
      about cancer is part of design? I said, for example, what is the
      greater purpose of a virus? A virus and a host cell do not seem to
      share a common goal, or purpose. The virus destroys a cell in order
      to exist--you would think that after 3 billion years of evolution
      that the host cell would get the message and off the virus. Why is a
      virus part of design? What good, symbiotically, is a virus to a
      cell?

      So the same question, I asked, about cancer. What about cancer is
      part of design? If you know the purpose of cancer, you can
      appreciate what cancer IS and it's design function, you can treat
      your patients better.

      Then I tried to explain that question better.

      I explained about my brother doing DNA research. How electrophoresis
      works, and how that ties in to cloud microphysics and abiogenesis.
      The idea is that with DNA, you can sort out individual sequences by
      putting a sample in a gel and putting a voltage potential on the gel,
      with a cathode and an anode creating a static field. The nucleotide
      complex then moves through the gel depending on the size, shape, mass
      and charge of the DNA complex. If you add a dye, the movement of the
      DNA shows up in 'bands' and that is how you can tell DNA samples
      apart. That's electrophoresis.

      Likewise, between the ionosphere and ocean there is a voltage
      potential and there were DNA complexes in water droplets that were
      super cooled. The ionosphere acts like a cathode and the ocean
      surface like an anode and the air like the gel. And that the China
      paper tells us that in a DC field ion water that is super cooled
      freezes with relative asymmetry. So that with DNA complexes in
      clouds, you would have a sort of control device and living controller
      on cloud microphysics based on the specific size, shape, charge and
      mass of the sample. And that is how life first became complex.
      Became designer.

      So the context of the discussion, again, was anti-oxidants and
      cancer. The doctor began to discuss a double blind study that showed
      some significant result respecting anti oxidants. What it showed,
      ironically, was that an increase in anti oxidants increased cancer
      incidence. Which doesn't seem to make sense. So if you stop eating
      oranges -- you have a better shot at surviving cancer??? Well, as it
      turns out, maybe not. What the studies did not address is that
      during chemotherapy and radiation treatments, that the anti-oxidants
      were counterproductive of the purpose of those treatments. What the
      doctor prescribes, then, is during chemotherapy and radiation
      treatments--anti-oxidants are a no-no. But afterwards . . . is
      another story.


      My theory of abiogenesis first requires life to be defined. Life, in
      my view, requires metabolism and repair, or as you may hear from a
      biologist, anabolism and catabolism. I make the case, here, that the
      earth was alive before life forms of smaller scale evolved.

      You had in fair weather zones areas where UV light struck the ocean
      surface and combined with formaldehyde to produce sugars. And under
      clouds the UV light is blocked, and, there, the sugars are oxidized
      back to CO2 exothermically. That CO2 bubbles up to the surface, and
      nucleotide complexes would have a tendency to be lifted on the
      surface tension of the CO2 gas and then be whisked into the air with
      winds associated with the convection and clouds to become part of
      microphysics processes. Such was the first symbiotic relationship of
      life--that between metabolism and nucleotide complex. Obviously, if
      DNA can be damaged by oxidation, and at the same time oxidation is
      required to turn a sugar to CO2, the emergence of antioxidants would
      have been a powerful evolutionary advance. At the same time, in the
      sorting process where nucleotide complexes where in the clouds and
      subject to these DC fields -- put these same complexes into regions
      where radiation levels, exposure to toxic chemistry may occur. While
      clouds would protect the complex from UV light and radiation, and
      clouds would contain fewer if any chemicals that were toxic, UV light
      was required for the creation of sugars.

      Today, the oceans are too saline for any organized cloud microphysics
      with nucleotide complexes. That's because in the DC field the salt
      ions will move and create more noise than a nucleotide complex
      commutation would achieve in signal. There could be no cloud
      modulation. Today, modulation occurs with life by cellular life.
      Cellular life contains chemistries over diffusion. Cellular life, in
      accumulation, on the ocean surface, causes the capacitate couplings
      to increase with direct decreases in resistance, plus localization of
      CO2 from out gassings dropping conductivities, plus life like diatoms
      which aid cloud nucleation rates.

      But somewhere in between, cellular life had its electrical role and
      bare nucleotide complexes could move inside a cloud by shape, charge,
      mass and size--altering cloud microphysics, and would have had an
      equal role. Cells, on the other hand, would not be able to 'sort'
      inside a cloud or move depending on the 'model' of what they were by
      size, shape, mass or charge. In my view, a symbiotic relationship
      makes perfect sense in this modulating context, and is where, I
      think, sexual reproduction evolved. Sexual reproduction is
      inefficient and takes longer than other forms of reproduction, but by
      maintaining a tap into intelligent design, was able to evolve against
      other forms of reproduction.

      And in so tapping into design, sexual reproduction taps into
      intelligence. If you look at our brains using modern imaging, you
      can see resonances called Schumann resonances. Those same resonances
      are found in the atmosphere. Every time a lightning strikes it rings
      the ionosphere like bell . . . Such frequencies vibrated with the
      nucleotide complexes in the clouds, and would have allowed the
      complexes to communicate with the EMF conditions, and act in
      community, and then, later, in community, communicate with each
      other. And in such communication, allow chemical feedbacks that
      would have further allowed complex responses to the on coming EMF
      conditions. Such complexity mimics our own thinking processes!

      So, to answer my first question, a virus did indeed, like the 'male'
      aspect of a symbiotic relationship with a 'female' cell, hold
      symbiotic relationship with a cell, but in that instance, the use of
      the cell ended essentially with the virus. To answer my second,
      cancer was a surviving trait on a living earth. Increases in
      selective mutations that enhanced a living earth. For instance,
      smoke from your cigarette causes deadly cancer but at the same time
      caused, on a living earth, specific increases in mutation rates that
      would have allowed changes to continue to modulate toward a living
      earth.

      Today, such information is telling about climate. When Central and
      West Africa burned last winter, the spring was followed by a category
      one hurricane striking Brazil. Such are the design backgrounds, of a
      living earth.
    • XK
      With the internet, the purposes of viruses are pretty random spanning from a bored kid in study hall to network testing. The end result is the same as what you
      Message 2 of 2 , Apr 27 1:45 PM
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        With the internet, the purposes of viruses are pretty random spanning
        from a bored kid in study hall to network testing. The end result is
        the same as what you are talking about: evolution of virus scanners
        and computer security


        >Last night I spent some time talking with an oncologist personally,
        >not professionally, as I am fortunately in good health. We spoke in a
        >relaxed setting. It is more difficult to talk one on one about this
        >material because when you talk orally to someone, there is no chance
        >to weigh your words, edit, and so forth. The discussion began over
        >anti-oxidants and cancer.
        >
        >I am not sure whether I should try to put the conversation to you
        >verbatim, or describe it with my eyes. For fair readers who have
        >been tracking this discussion on a living earth and climate, tropical
        >storm behaviors, you may find our conversation fascinating. But for
        >the reader who is unfamiliar with what the heck I am talking about,
        >they may find a discussion about oncology on a climate bb . . .
        >well . . . crazy. Not relevant. So some explanation is required.
        >
        >Some basics. Oncology is the study of cancer. An oncologist is a
        >cancer doctor. One of the first questions I asked the oncologist was
        >how much time she spent treating patients and how much time she spent
        >in 'research'. Her answer IMHO was typical of doctors today who are
        >good and very busy--that most of her 'research', if you want to call
        >it that is clinical and individual patient driven. IOWs, she spends
        >a great deal of time thinking, researching about her individual
        >patients and their cancer.
        >
        >What I asked the oncologist was if she was familiar with the debate
        >over design and evolution. Her response was I suppose expected. An
        >oncologist would deal with death all the time, with families in their
        >grief, and so forth. She said that design was a religious question.
        >I said, no, that's not what I was talking about. I am not talking
        >about religion. I was asking a 'scientific' question, making a
        >scientific point--about design. I asked her, specifically; what
        >about cancer is part of design? I said, for example, what is the
        >greater purpose of a virus? A virus and a host cell do not seem to
        >share a common goal, or purpose. The virus destroys a cell in order
        >to exist--you would think that after 3 billion years of evolution
        >that the host cell would get the message and off the virus. Why is a
        >virus part of design? What good, symbiotically, is a virus to a
        >cell?
        >
        >So the same question, I asked, about cancer. What about cancer is
        >part of design? If you know the purpose of cancer, you can
        >appreciate what cancer IS and it's design function, you can treat
        >your patients better.
        >
        >Then I tried to explain that question better.
        >
        >I explained about my brother doing DNA research. How electrophoresis
        >works, and how that ties in to cloud microphysics and abiogenesis.
        >The idea is that with DNA, you can sort out individual sequences by
        >putting a sample in a gel and putting a voltage potential on the gel,
        >with a cathode and an anode creating a static field. The nucleotide
        >complex then moves through the gel depending on the size, shape, mass
        >and charge of the DNA complex. If you add a dye, the movement of the
        >DNA shows up in 'bands' and that is how you can tell DNA samples
        >apart. That's electrophoresis.
        >
        >Likewise, between the ionosphere and ocean there is a voltage
        >potential and there were DNA complexes in water droplets that were
        >super cooled. The ionosphere acts like a cathode and the ocean
        >surface like an anode and the air like the gel. And that the China
        >paper tells us that in a DC field ion water that is super cooled
        >freezes with relative asymmetry. So that with DNA complexes in
        >clouds, you would have a sort of control device and living controller
        >on cloud microphysics based on the specific size, shape, charge and
        >mass of the sample. And that is how life first became complex.
        >Became designer.
        >
        >So the context of the discussion, again, was anti-oxidants and
        >cancer. The doctor began to discuss a double blind study that showed
        >some significant result respecting anti oxidants. What it showed,
        >ironically, was that an increase in anti oxidants increased cancer
        >incidence. Which doesn't seem to make sense. So if you stop eating
        >oranges -- you have a better shot at surviving cancer??? Well, as it
        >turns out, maybe not. What the studies did not address is that
        >during chemotherapy and radiation treatments, that the anti-oxidants
        >were counterproductive of the purpose of those treatments. What the
        >doctor prescribes, then, is during chemotherapy and radiation
        >treatments--anti-oxidants are a no-no. But afterwards . . . is
        >another story.
        >
        >
        >My theory of abiogenesis first requires life to be defined. Life, in
        >my view, requires metabolism and repair, or as you may hear from a
        >biologist, anabolism and catabolism. I make the case, here, that the
        >earth was alive before life forms of smaller scale evolved.
        >
        >You had in fair weather zones areas where UV light struck the ocean
        >surface and combined with formaldehyde to produce sugars. And under
        >clouds the UV light is blocked, and, there, the sugars are oxidized
        >back to CO2 exothermically. That CO2 bubbles up to the surface, and
        >nucleotide complexes would have a tendency to be lifted on the
        >surface tension of the CO2 gas and then be whisked into the air with
        >winds associated with the convection and clouds to become part of
        >microphysics processes. Such was the first symbiotic relationship of
        >life--that between metabolism and nucleotide complex. Obviously, if
        >DNA can be damaged by oxidation, and at the same time oxidation is
        >required to turn a sugar to CO2, the emergence of antioxidants would
        >have been a powerful evolutionary advance. At the same time, in the
        >sorting process where nucleotide complexes where in the clouds and
        >subject to these DC fields -- put these same complexes into regions
        >where radiation levels, exposure to toxic chemistry may occur. While
        >clouds would protect the complex from UV light and radiation, and
        >clouds would contain fewer if any chemicals that were toxic, UV light
        >was required for the creation of sugars.
        >
        >Today, the oceans are too saline for any organized cloud microphysics
        >with nucleotide complexes. That's because in the DC field the salt
        >ions will move and create more noise than a nucleotide complex
        >commutation would achieve in signal. There could be no cloud
        >modulation. Today, modulation occurs with life by cellular life.
        >Cellular life contains chemistries over diffusion. Cellular life, in
        >accumulation, on the ocean surface, causes the capacitate couplings
        >to increase with direct decreases in resistance, plus localization of
        >CO2 from out gassings dropping conductivities, plus life like diatoms
        >which aid cloud nucleation rates.
        >
        >But somewhere in between, cellular life had its electrical role and
        >bare nucleotide complexes could move inside a cloud by shape, charge,
        >mass and size--altering cloud microphysics, and would have had an
        >equal role. Cells, on the other hand, would not be able to 'sort'
        >inside a cloud or move depending on the 'model' of what they were by
        >size, shape, mass or charge. In my view, a symbiotic relationship
        >makes perfect sense in this modulating context, and is where, I
        >think, sexual reproduction evolved. Sexual reproduction is
        >inefficient and takes longer than other forms of reproduction, but by
        >maintaining a tap into intelligent design, was able to evolve against
        >other forms of reproduction.
        >
        >And in so tapping into design, sexual reproduction taps into
        >intelligence. If you look at our brains using modern imaging, you
        >can see resonances called Schumann resonances. Those same resonances
        >are found in the atmosphere. Every time a lightning strikes it rings
        >the ionosphere like bell . . . Such frequencies vibrated with the
        >nucleotide complexes in the clouds, and would have allowed the
        >complexes to communicate with the EMF conditions, and act in
        >community, and then, later, in community, communicate with each
        >other. And in such communication, allow chemical feedbacks that
        >would have further allowed complex responses to the on coming EMF
        >conditions. Such complexity mimics our own thinking processes!
        >
        >So, to answer my first question, a virus did indeed, like the 'male'
        >aspect of a symbiotic relationship with a 'female' cell, hold
        >symbiotic relationship with a cell, but in that instance, the use of
        >the cell ended essentially with the virus. To answer my second,
        >cancer was a surviving trait on a living earth. Increases in
        >selective mutations that enhanced a living earth. For instance,
        >smoke from your cigarette causes deadly cancer but at the same time
        >caused, on a living earth, specific increases in mutation rates that
        >would have allowed changes to continue to modulate toward a living
        >earth.
        >
        >Today, such information is telling about climate. When Central and
        >West Africa burned last winter, the spring was followed by a category
        >one hurricane striking Brazil. Such are the design backgrounds, of a
        >living earth.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >



        http://swezlex.com
        aim: wallrall
        "Know how to listen, and you will profit even from those who talk
        badly." -Plutarch
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.