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

Re: [Methane Hydrate Club] Last night's conversation with an oncologist

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 2 , Apr 27, 2005
      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
      >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
      >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

      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.