Debunked: Bruce Lipton and The Biology of Belief

[nanotchi]

It looks like for some reason trashing the work of a scientist with no real understanding of his work is considered "following the guidelines of this fórum". I'm sorry but what these two people had written so far about Dr Lipton is so misleading and false, that I coudln't care less about the guidelines of this site. The only thing I care about is that the people that really need this information don't give it a try because of the comments of this blog (fórum is way to big of a Word for the kind of remaks posted about Dr Lipton from people that didn't even read his hole book). Instant remission is a acientific fact and epigenetics together with quantum physics bring a new understanding that is not only necessary but mandatory to change a health system that is collapsing before our own eyes.

Ok, so maybe you could show us some examples? To convince us lol I read a page on it, and to be honest, I do not see it. Believing something? What is this, the secret all over again? Show us how it works too

 

[George B]

Spontaneous cures and remissions occur occasionally . . . I witnessed one myself . . . I worked in medicine for 30 years . . . however, the majority of terminal patients end up succumbing to the disease process in the time widow expected, as we all will of course unless we are terminated by accident, murder or act of war . . . when these unexpected cures happen there appears to be no rational explanation . . . prayer, meditation, miracle, the will of others, traditional healers , unknown coincidences of nature . . . the point is they appear to be random in nature and cannot be predicted . . . quantum physics does not In My Opinion explain their existence nor predict their probabilities . . . no scientific study to my knowledge has shown anything more than limited hints of improved recovery rates through prayer of non-fatal conditions . . . if that . . .

 

[Mick West]

Ethnically has a 1 day time out for PG and PP.

 

[Dan Wilson]

Can anyone show me a study that proves Bruce's statement about the mind (meditational focus) or whatever does NOT effect DNA and its affect on the body?

I dont think sufficient number experiments have been performed with this hypothesis to make any assumption that its true or false.

Also Bruce Lipton discuss on his testing with stem cell in petri dishes raise further questions, I have yet to research more on.

We can see how certain mental states and the chemicals associated with them effect the body in a certain temporary way. We can also see that those same chemicals have no effect on DNA. It's not hard to test the mutagenic properties of a substance.

Which stem cell tests are you talking about and what questions do they raise?

 

[Dan Wilson]

You didn't even read the book TBOB so how can you have the nerve to talk about it, you don't even understand it or, on the other hand, you do understand it and on purpose you want to confuse people based on your own interest that you don't mention in this blog. Epigenetics is real, is here and you can say whatever you want about Lanark, Lipton, quantum physics, the power of the Alpha and Theta brain waves, and so many proven resources that we have available today that contribute to the real well being of a human being.

Most of what I talk about in this thread is form his lectures and his book, Spontaneous Evolution. Like I said, The Biology Of Belief doesn't cover anything ground-breakingly different than his other sources, unless you would like to point out something important from the book. Of course epigenetics is real, I've explained how Lipton stretches the truth of it to fit his own views… Are you even here to have a conversation?

You've posted here on two separate occasions with nothing of substance. Can you show why what I'm saying is wrong? Can you explain any reasons?

 

[Rene]

If we suspect that there is an effect (one thing influencing another) then there is a well established "method" for testing that and demonstrating that it exists or not. Not sure what Lipton is selling here or why. If he is just trying to drum up funds to to support structured evidence gathering to assist in the understanding of things we currently don't understand - then great - however it doesn't sound like that - smacks of the muddying and reigniting continuing and tiresome debate about faith and reason - perhaps for some personal gain that has not been declared.

 

[Dan Wilson]

I don't know what Lipton's motives are, really. Whether he is knowingly giving out faulty information for monetary gain or is mislead in a way isn't this thread's place to say. He does seem to genuinely believe in what he teaches, though.

 

[Jemjemuk]

Yes it does. Misdiagnosis is something that you know happens. And a percentage of cancer cases experience spontaneous remission. We don't know why exactly, but that's not reason to start believing it's because people rewire their DNA with their brains.

....and those wrongfully misdiagnosed 'survivors' are the ones who remain with us to continue to promulgate and proselytise the 'miracle' of their 'recovery' - whereas the correctly diagnosed are perhaps no longer in a position to do likewise.

 

[Bob]

I'm not sure how he qualifies as a snake oil salesman. You don't have to spend a dime to read or listen to his ideas. The only cost is an open mind. Furthermore, what harm could adopting that sort of mindset cause? Would it cause the litany of side effects that accompany modern medicines? Does it cost an exorbitant amount like modern medicine? Now I'm not saying science is wrong. I love science. But science, especially medicine, is becoming influenced more and more by money and politics. How is it that science's only suggestion to a terminally ill cancer patient is chemo and radiation, processes that indiscriminately kill the rest of the body and speed up the process of the patients death. And meanwhile anybody that offers any other sort of option is labeled pseudoscience and a quack. Just look at how medicinal marijuana has been kept down. We all know of the proven anti inflammatory properties of the plant. Its also known that you can utilize those properties without getting high. You cannot tell me that science has not been corrupted by big corporations and government meddling. You cannot tell me that science is the pure pursuit of knowledge any longer. Science has become completely close minded and spiritually devoid. Actually, it sounds just like an organized religion now.

 

[Mick West]

Furthermore, what harm could adopting that sort of mindset cause?

See here:
http://whatstheharm.net/

 

[Bill]

You cannot tell me that science is the pure pursuit of knowledge any longer. Science has become completely close minded and spiritually devoid. Actually, it sounds just like an organized religion now.

This and "Science doesn't know everything" are frequently the mantras adopted by people that don't like what science has to tell them about things they want to believe are true.

 

[NoParty]

I'm not sure how he qualifies as a snake oil salesman. You don't have to spend a dime to read or listen to his ideas. The only cost is an open mind. Furthermore, what harm could adopting that sort of mindset cause? Would it cause the litany of side effects that accompany modern medicines? Does it cost an exorbitant amount like modern medicine? Now I'm not saying science is wrong. I love science. But science, especially medicine, is becoming influenced more and more by money and politics. How is it that science's only suggestion to a terminally ill cancer patient is chemo and radiation, processes that indiscriminately kill the rest of the body and speed up the process of the patients death. And meanwhile anybody that offers any other sort of option is labeled pseudoscience and a quack. Just look at how medicinal marijuana has been kept down. We all know of the proven anti inflammatory properties of the plant. Its also known that you can utilize those properties without getting high. You cannot tell me that science has not been corrupted by big corporations and government meddling. You cannot tell me that science is the pure pursuit of knowledge any longer. Science has become completely close minded and spiritually devoid. Actually, it sounds just like an organized religion now.

The tone of your post interests me…but I'll focus just on the bold, because it strikes me as a remarkable assertion.

What evidence have you that science was "purer" before (when?)…that it once was "the pure pursuit of knowledge" ?

 

[Dan Wilson]

But science, especially medicine, is becoming influenced more and more by money and politics.

How so? Can you give some examples?

Just look at how medicinal marijuana has been kept down. We all know of the proven anti inflammatory properties of the plant. Its also known that you can utilize those properties without getting high.

We already have more selective compounds that do the same thing as marijuana derived molecules, compounds that are easier to obtain and don't make researchers go through the trouble of obtaining an illegal substance. Marijuana has its potential as a medicine but there are much better and easier things to use, which is why researchers generally aren't very interested in it. Not because of politics or money, but because it isn't demonstrated to be as effective or as safe as other medications used for the same thing.

 

[Andrew]

Which stem cell tests are you talking about and what questions do they raise?

If I'm not mistaken, that user was referring to a claim that Lipton makes about how he took 3 identical cultures of stem cells and, based on what he says, the exact same and the only factor he changes is the environment. In this experiment, he finds that one culture turned into muscle cells, one into bone cells, and the last into fat cells.

I actually came upon this forum looking for information either crediting this experiment or discrediting it. A buddy of mine had me watched a 20 minute video that has him spout, what seems to me, pseudoscience and malarkey. I am not a professional, so I am not certain. And I'd like to think I'm open to knew ideas, but I feel the main bit his claims lack is evidence. And that seems to be something that is lacking more and more I'm around the people I am. :/

My main complaint about the stem cell experiment is I don't know what these environment changes were because he doesn't say.

Anyway, happy to hear ANY input on this.

And some sources:

Stem cell experiment with Bruce talking about it:
The 20-minute video I mentioned with Bruce:
(whoops, it's actually 22 minutes. )

 

[Dan Wilson]

My main complaint about the stem cell experiment is I don't know what these environment changes were because he doesn't say.

Anyway, happy to hear ANY input on this.

Okay, so the first video is another example of taking a true scientific concept and then saying something that does not follow from the conclusions made by that concept. Stem cells growing in culture will eventually start to differentiate into different cell types. This is exactly what happens during development. As the stem cells grow, certain cells will start to receive different signals and genes will be silenced or turned on. So if he kept that first petri dish of stem cells growing, he would eventually have gotten muscle, fat, and bone cells. Researchers have identified which signals trigger the necessary chain of events to create a particular cell type and all you need to do (all Bruce did) was add signals to influence their fate.
Doing this in the lab does not mean we are masters of our genes. To illustrate, think of a developing embryo. The cells in an early embryo can turn into any cell type. As the cells multiply and their DNA is read and proteins are produced from it, the kinds and concentrations of those proteins will influence things like whether or not that organism develops a tail or webbed fingers. Cells at one end of the embryo will be receiving different signals than cells on the other end. This pattern of growth and protein expression is already written into the DNA and once development has happened, those embryonic stem cells have now turned into tissue-specific stem cells. In other words, cells that could once become any cell can now become a limited number of cell types. Tinkering with the fate of those cells has been a topic of study in regenerative medicine for a while, but that involves manipulating a patient's cells in a lab and then putting them back into the body. Saying that we can become "masters of our genes" through consciousness does not follow the lab results that we get studying stem cell fate in the lab. One example of this is using platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in to influence mesenchymal stem cell fate.
http://www.nature.com/emm/journal/v45/n11/full/emm201394a.html

His 22-minute video is just full of bunk. Aside from what I already addressed which was repeated in the video, evolution can certainly be measured via genetics and natural selection of genes certainly has been a driving force in evolution. Genes do have control over their expression via biofeedback systems and whether or not the DNA produces the proteins necessary to detect environmental signals in the first place. Evolution never stops, as he says at one point, some events are simply more dramatic than others.

He stretches the truth about modern biology a lot, hopefully this helps clear some things up.

 

[fasahd]

Interesting thread. I was really more interested in the concept of adaptive mutation and much of the conversation has been centered on conscious control of gene expression. Perhaps tht's a stretch. We know whether we're trying to make a sale or woo a potential mate, orland a job or any other aspect of life that attitude is important. That "laughter is the best medicine'" is used in cancer clinics and a patient's attitude is vital to his/her recovery. Maybe there is something there. I'm curious how Cairn's work was flawed. It seems to blur the distinction of hereditary vs. environmental with regard to say alcoholism or gayness. Pretty profound stuff. Darwin says short giraffes couldn't reach the leaves and died off. Lipton seems to be saying they grow longer necks. I'm curious, having hiked to machu pichu; when you land in Cusco in a plane pressurised to 10.000 ft it is at an elevation of 12,500 ft so the air rushes out and you are short of breath. The bodies immediate response is to breath heavier. After a few days you develop more hemoglobin to transfer oxygen more efficiently. Is this trait passed genetically? If you took say, sherpas from Everest that had lived there for generations and you moved them to sea level, and they had offspring, would the children retain the trait of higher levels of hemoglobin? Lipton does a pretty good job of explaining the inner workings of a cell. I found it hard to refute his claim that the brain of the cell is not the nucleus but rather the environment. And I've yet to find a decent peer review of that claim. James Watson was criticised for being a bigot. That doesn't diminish the work he did with Crick.

 

[Jazzy]

Is this trait passed genetically?

Yes. How else?

The question is "When?", and the answer is likely to be when animals first spread to high altitudes, and the answer is likely to be several hundred million years ago. Not that I know what it actually is.

In other words, it's not some sudden recent trick at all. Just a natural consequence.

 

[Alhazred The Sane]

Science has become... spiritually devoid.

Science is meant to be spiritually devoid, in that spirituality is about faith, and science is about evidence. Personally, I'd rather not believe, I'd prefer to be convinced.

 

[Bill]

Yes. How else?

The question is "When?", and the answer is likely to be when animals first spread to high altitudes, and the answer is likely to be several hundred million years ago. Not that I know what it actually is.

In other words, it's not some sudden recent trick at all. Just a natural consequence.

It doesn't even take that long. Ethiopian, Andean and Himalayan populations have all adapted to life at higher altitudes and each has developed different adaptations. For the Andean and Himalayan populations these adaptations to higher altitudes have occurred within at most a few tens of thousands of years. It is a natural consequence of living in an oxygen deficient environment because if you can't breathe you can't breed and if you can't breed your genes don't get passed on.
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/152702901750265332
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1876443/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/02/0224_040225_evolution.html
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content/46/1/18.short

 

[Jazzy]

Ethiopian, Andean and Himalayan populations have all adapted

You may have missed my point.

I was talking about a world preceding the Andes and Himalayas, where the animals preceding mammals had already adapted and passed their genetic history on to the first mammals. From which we are descended, of course.

 

[Mick West]

You may have missed my point.

I was talking about a world preceding the Andes and Himalayas, where the animals preceding mammals had already adapted and passed their genetic history on to the first mammals. From which we are descended, of course.

It's kind of a multi-layered thing, mammals in general evolved the ability to adapt to changing environments (like temp and altitude), and some of that more limited adaptation is itself by evolution.

i.e. we evolved the ability to evolve more rapidly and usefully.

 

[WeedWhacker]

The concept of multi-millions of years and multi-generational adaptations and random mutations....the sheer SCOPE of the time spans required tend to not resonate in the minds of "creationists".

 

[Jazzy]

See here: http://whatstheharm.net/

Gosh. Harm quantified. Wonderful!

 

[WeedWhacker]

i.e. we evolved the ability to evolve more rapidly and usefully.

At the risk of seeming "off-topic", this recalled for me a particular episode of "Star Trek: Voyager" that was quite interesting, as it postulated that one species of dinosaur (as we call them today) might, millions of years ago, evolved intelligence, and space flight capability. Then, lost the knowledge of their "home" planet of origin.

It is titled "Distant Origin"

Also at IMDb

Available to view for those who have NetFlix streaming accounts, or who have purchased the DVD boxed sets. (Season 3, Episode 23).

(This is why I LOVE science fiction!!)

EDIT: For those who can find this "Star Trek: Voyager" episode and watch it, there is a take-away quote: "I cannot deal with the level of ignorance that I am facing."

I think, that sums it up, quite succinctly.

 

[Bill]

You may have missed my point.

I was talking about a world preceding the Andes and Himalayas, where the animals preceding mammals had already adapted and passed their genetic history on to the first mammals. From which we are descended, of course.

You are correct sir! I missed your point. I stand abashed.

 

[Bill]

The concept of multi-millions of years and multi-generational adaptations and random mutations....the sheer SCOPE of the time spans required tend to not resonate in the minds of "creationists".

Along with lot of other things - the time necessary for geologic change for example.

 

[Jazzy]

I wouldn't say I'm sure as I do think there is room for discovery, but as far as the evidence goes, I don't see any for it. -- Even though stress certainly doesn't help ill patients or healthy individuals, when it comes to a causal link between cancer and mental states, there doesn't seem to be one.

Room for discovery, Certainly. I knew someone who forty years ago was given six months to live (cancer).

He sold up, bought himself a Land Rover and drove himself and his family overland to Australia, arriving there perfectly fit and healthy. Earth's magnetic field? LOL, not a clue. Perhaps it was going to go into remission anyway.

What on earth was that?

 

[Quantumbeliever]

Gosh. Harm quantified. Wonderful!

I've been to this site before. The apparent aim is to quantify harm done by those who don't believe as the promoters of the site do. Some of the topics listed and/or posts are a bit of a stretch. By listing transcendental meditation as a topic, they are claiming that it is somehow "harmful". I would think that even this group would agree that the positive benefits opf transcendental meditation have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
I would argue that society has been harmed more by beliefs that were once held as "truths" by science and popular culture than beliefs that are currently held as "woo woo".
I bet Mick wants examples.
Ok. I will offer just one now, although I could write a book of them. This claim was completely accepted by science. The person who originally offered the research supporting the claim was named the Time Magazine Person of the Year. I offer this one in particular because it deals with a special area of study. I am a Chef and I was also 75 lbs. overweight at one point and suffered from a variety of health issues. My own journey to find out about and practice a healthy lifestyle is why this particular claim is significant to me. The claim is simply; Fats (in particular saturated fats) are the leading cause of obesity and directly contribute to or lead to heart disease and a variety of other ailments.
I am paraphrasing, but I believe everyone remembers the absolute acceptance this idea found in our culture. Food manufacturers began producing thousands of "low fat" or "reduced fat" foods. We, the general public, swallowed this garbage hook, line, and sinker. The "harm" caused by this flawed way of thinking cannot be overstated. There is no way to judge how many deaths could be attributed to this belief, but I and others who instruct people in healthy eating, STILL struggle to get some to believe that there are certain fats that are essential to our health and well being. In addition, statin drugs have been shown, to my satisfaction, to be dangerous. Thousands still take them in the belief that they must lower their cholesterol. I have had the good fortune to interview Uffe Ravnskov, a leading, published researcher and outspoken critic of statin drugs.
In addition, my sister is Chief Medical/Scientific Officer for a major pharmaceutical firm in New York. She just admitted to me this morning that the thinking about cholesterol in relation to heart disease has completely changed, even though she herself takes Lipitor, but she claims she takes it to reduce inflammation.I know there are those at Metabunk that will argue that saturated fats are dangerous. Fine. I suggest you Google Ancel Keys and/or saturated fats and heart disease. The evidence that I am correct in my assertion is pretty solid. I believe that saturated fats DO NOT contribute to heart disease and are not any more likely to cause obesity (other than the fact that they are calorie dense) than any other food. IN fact, I postulate that certain saturated fats such as unprocessed coconut oil are an essential part of a healthy diet.

So why is the belief that "fat is bad" not listed on "What's the harm?"
Like I said, this is just ONE example of flawed science leading to GREAT harm. I am not suggesting that science in general is "bad" or that most research is flawed. What I AM suggesting is that history has shown countless times that scientists often publish research that the media touts as "proof" of something that turns out to be wrong. and in some cases harmful.

As a man much smarter than me once said:

"Every truth goes through three distinct stages before it is accepted.
1. It is ridiculed
2. It is ignored
3. It is regarded as be self-evident"

Or as Max Plank said:"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."

 

[Mick West]

"Every truth goes through three distinct stages before it is accepted.
1. It is ridiculed
2. It is ignored
3. It is regarded as be self-evident"

While that might be accurate in some cases, you would have to admit that the following is equally accurate:

"Every falsehood goes through two distinct stages before it is discarded.
1. It is ridiculed
2. It is ignored"

Hence being in the first two stages is not a good indication you will reach the third.

Being ridiculed is not an indicator of accuracy.

 

[WeedWhacker]

I would argue that society has been harmed more by beliefs that were once held as "truths" by science and popular culture than beliefs that are currently held as "woo woo".

I would agree.

The statement "society has been harmed more by beliefs"...is, a CORRECT STATEMENT.

 

[Pete Tar]

How could avoiding saturated fat kill people?

 

[Svartbjørn]

I've been to this site before. The apparent aim is to quantify harm done by those who don't believe as the promoters of the site do.

Unfortunately @Quantumbeliever I dont quite think this statement is accurate. There are things on this site that I agree with, and things that I dont. The vast majority of the posters here are the same way. With that said, Science, unlike belief (most of the time) allows for inaccuracies and being incorrect. Science actually enjoys being wrong because it allows for learning, for changing how the world and the universe is seen. Now.. the bad thing about that, honestly, is the way its delivered. Science tends to be presented as THIS IS HOW IT IS STFU.. when in reality, its THIS IS HOW IT IS...as far as we understand things right now aaaaaaand that may change when technology changes, or a new discovery is made.

Hubble (the man, not the machine), for example, proved that the universe is expanding (red shift). Up until that point, science believed the Universe was static or even shrinking. Hubble also proved that a lot of the Nebulae that Scientists had observed were actually entire galaxies. Science loves being wrong.. scientists may not always enjoy it, but they do accept it.. eventually. Look at all the crap Einstein went through with Relativity. It took decades. Einstein also said that Black Holes didnt exist... yet they have been show to exist.

This is where belief and science (as well as believers and this web site) butt heads Quantum. Belief requires no proof, therefore it can never be wrong. Science requires proof and -wants- to be wrong.. two sides of the same coin

 

[Bill]

I've been to this site before. The apparent aim is to quantify harm done by those who don't believe as the promoters of the site do. Some of the topics listed and/or posts are a bit of a stretch. By listing transcendental meditation as a topic, they are claiming that it is somehow "harmful". I would think that even this group would agree that the positive benefits opf transcendental meditation have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
I would argue that society has been harmed more by beliefs that were once held as "truths" by science and popular culture than beliefs that are currently held as "woo woo".
I bet Mick wants examples.
Ok. I will offer just one now, although I could write a book of them. This claim was completely accepted by science. The person who originally offered the research supporting the claim was named the Time Magazine Person of the Year. I offer this one in particular because it deals with a special area of study. I am a Chef and I was also 75 lbs. overweight at one point and suffered from a variety of health issues. My own journey to find out about and practice a healthy lifestyle is why this particular claim is significant to me. The claim is simply; Fats (in particular saturated fats) are the leading cause of obesity and directly contribute to or lead to heart disease and a variety of other ailments.
I am paraphrasing, but I believe everyone remembers the absolute acceptance this idea found in our culture. Food manufacturers began producing thousands of "low fat" or "reduced fat" foods. We, the general public, swallowed this garbage hook, line, and sinker. The "harm" caused by this flawed way of thinking cannot be overstated. There is no way to judge how many deaths could be attributed to this belief, but I and others who instruct people in healthy eating, STILL struggle to get some to believe that there are certain fats that are essential to our health and well being. In addition, statin drugs have been shown, to my satisfaction, to be dangerous. Thousands still take them in the belief that they must lower their cholesterol. I have had the good fortune to interview Uffe Ravnskov, a leading, published researcher and outspoken critic of statin drugs.
In addition, my sister is Chief Medical/Scientific Officer for a major pharmaceutical firm in New York. She just admitted to me this morning that the thinking about cholesterol in relation to heart disease has completely changed, even though she herself takes Lipitor, but she claims she takes it to reduce inflammation.I know there are those at Metabunk that will argue that saturated fats are dangerous. Fine. I suggest you Google Ancel Keys and/or saturated fats and heart disease. The evidence that I am correct in my assertion is pretty solid. I believe that saturated fats DO NOT contribute to heart disease and are not any more likely to cause obesity (other than the fact that they are calorie dense) than any other food. IN fact, I postulate that certain saturated fats such as unprocessed coconut oil are an essential part of a healthy diet.

So why is the belief that "fat is bad" not listed on "What's the harm?"
Like I said, this is just ONE example of flawed science leading to GREAT harm. I am not suggesting that science in general is "bad" or that most research is flawed. What I AM suggesting is that history has shown countless times that scientists often publish research that the media touts as "proof" of something that turns out to be wrong. and in some cases harmful.

As a man much smarter than me once said:

"Every truth goes through three distinct stages before it is accepted.
1. It is ridiculed
2. It is ignored
3. It is regarded as be self-evident"

Or as Max Plank said:"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die."

The old "science has changed its views as new evidence has been developed therefore what I believe in must be true" argument. Run Lipton's stuff past your sister, see if she supports you and ask her why.

 

[fasahd]

[QUOTE="Bill: It doesn't even take that long. Ethiopian, Andean and Himalayan populations have all adapted to life at higher altitudes and each has developed different adaptations. For the Andean and Himalayan populations these adaptations to higher altitudes have occurred within at most a few tens of thousands of years. It is a natural consequence of living in an oxygen deficient environment because if you can't breathe you can't breed and if you can't breed your genes don't get passed on.
[/QUOTE]
This was what I was questioning. I am in Florida. Going to highlands will not kill me or keep me from breeding. Random, natural selection, according to Darwinism wouldn't be a factor in wiping me out for only more attuned genetics to survive. If geneology enables this trait to continue through expression, It would be a product of the environment rather than survival of the fittest Natural selection implies cruel death culls the herd as the only means of evolution. Adaptive evolution implies otherwise. I remain perplexed.

 

[MikeC]

Going to very high lands permanently in days before modern technology might mean you lack energy to provide adequately for yourself.

 

[Mick West]

I'm off to Machu Picchu next week. So I may observe this in action

 

[cosmic]

Unfortunately @Quantumbeliever I dont quite think this statement is accurate.

I'll take it a step further and assert the same applies to the bulk of that post. Addressing those issues probably spans four separate topics though, which would unnecessarily derail this thread.

(TM®​, modern scientific epistemology, the intent of Tim Farley's website, and fad diet claims.)

 

[cosmic]

I'm off to Machu Picchu next week. So I may observe this in action

Hopefully you'll bring us lots of pictures!

 

[NoParty]

I'm off to Machu Picchu next week. So I may observe this in action

I couldn't be more jealous...
make the most of the opportunity, my friend.

 

[MikeC]

My mum sent me a txt from Machu Picchu 3 yrs ago!