Debunked: Bruce Lipton and The Biology of Belief

Not open for further replies.
Who and where is this "overwhelming majority" you're talking about? Certainly not on this site? And yes, Bill, it is hard being right most of the time. But its a burden I carry. :)
one of the reasons this site wants links and evidence is so its easier to get to the truth. you have written, in the last day or so, so many not quite right statements I don't even know where to begin.
The new study doesn't show that the premise that HIGH amounts of saturate fats are bad for you is wrong. It just shows more studies are needed.

I agree that the "low fat" craze was marketed in unhealthy ways to the general public. Marketed being the key word here. It's not the science that is flawed, it is the marketing. And/or lack of education given to the public. Many people do assume if they eat something that says low fat they can eat as much or more of it because its healthy, when in fact it may have as many calories , being wicked high in salt etc.

You lost weight because you cut out bad carbs, not because you eat a lot of fat. I eat a lot of fat too and I'm very thin, doesn't mean we're healthy or not clogging our arteries!

Misperceptions/ lack of full data by the public isn't sciences fault. scientists are responsible for the science. its the teachers and doctors etc job to educate us FULLY about the science.
The placebo effect to me, is the greatest example of how important our "beliefs" are to our physical health.

The placebo effect does not necessarily translate to "belief alters our bodies." Mood can have a superficial effect on our bodies. For example, people who are told they are getting morphine will feel better even when they are just receiving water. Most of the cases that are normally associated with the placebo effect are actually just cases where some other factor made the patient better, neither the dummy pill nor any belief has anything to do with it. If I have a headache and I take a sugar pill only to feel better the next morning, you might associate the sugar pill or my beliefs for me getting better. In reality, however, the headache would have probably just gone away on its own no matter what I believed.
So you have no reason other than your beliefs to support what Lipton says?

It seems that processed foods, GMO foods, and foods grown with the typical pesticides and herbicides do damage our bodies.

Again, you make very blanket statements. I ask you to back up what you say with, at the very least, reason and, preferably, evidence. I know that is asked for a lot here, but it's necessary. Giving anecdotes and such doesn't help the conversation in this thread.
I eat a lot of fat too and I'm very thin, doesn't mean we're healthy or not clogging our arteries!

I am personally familiar with a woman of our species who can eat just about anything she wants, and never gains excessive weight. I am also familiar with many males of our species, who are "lucky" in that way, as well.

When I was younger (a few decades ago), I too (as a male of the species) had not issues with weight gain, no matter my eating habits. Now, at my current age, I do have issues.

There simply is NO set "standard" for any one individual, within the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. This is an aspect of genetics, and doesn't mean that we aren't all one species, just that there are variations WITHIN certain DNA sub-groups, and this is still a going to be a puzzle for genetic scientists for (possibly) many years to come.

This is not directed at you, "dierdre"....but for general consumption ( see what I did there? ;) )

I think that perhaps this wonderful documentary might be useful, at this may seem to be "off-topic", but if watched in its entirety, it includes much of what I am clumsily trying to say:

"Journey of Man", by Dr. Spencer Wells:

(I think a few are out of sequence, but can be found on YouTube in the usual ways)...

THIS series, by Spencer Wells, humbled me in ways it's hard to describe.

I have the full video on DVD of course, and recommend it to others.
Last edited:
I know this thread is "biology of belief"...but, it is biology...and to amend my post #203 above, I have finally found the full program uninterrupted:

Edit: I might note also, to cross-reference other MB topics, this video has some stunning images of normal high-level clouds in the sky {about 50 minutes in} above very remote areas of Africa...areas that do not get much high altitude air traffic over-flies. Knocks the "chem"trail claims down to bits.

There are also some nice examples of contrails, at about 1:22:00 onward...from former Soviet tanks' exhaust, on the ground, in temperatures similar to those experienced at high altitudes, by modern passenger airliners.
Last edited:
So Bruce Lipton made a claim a while back that I think is worth mentioning here. It is not quite in line with his Biology of Belief material, but it is similar in the sense that the claims involve manipulation of your own genes. Here is a video where he states his claims.

The gist is, miRNA are small pieces of RNA that plays roles in regulation of gene expression. Lipton claims that miRNA from vegetables can pass through the lining of your gut, into the bloodstream, and into your cells to regulate your genes. His message: watch what you eat, eat organic, and avoid GMO's. The GMO story goes that since we modify the genes of the crop, we modify their miRNA which, in turn, changes the expression of our genes. He cites this paper as his reference.
Confirming this hypothesis, the concentration of plant miRNAs was higher in the serum of rice-fed mice compared with chow diet-fed mice. Moreover, adding plant miRNAs to chow diet resulted in an increase of plant miRNA concentration in mouse serum. Interestingly, cooking did not impair the accumulation of plant miRNAs, indicating that they are resistant to heat and thus could be acquired from both raw and cooked meals.
Content from External Source
So multiple questions come up in regards to Lipton's claims. What kind of genes are regulated by this miRNA? How much food do you have to eat to in order to get a "proper" dose of miRNA? Will genetic modification really tamper with this process?

These are important questions, so let's answer them. What kind of genes are regulated by this miRNA? To find out, we need the original paper that is referenced by Lipton's reference. This paper describes levels of plant miRNA in mice blood after they are fed rice. They conclude that this miRNA down regulates a gene that helps liver cells remove low density lipids (LDL, "bad" cholesterol) from the blood.
LDL is the major cholesterol-carrying lipoprotein of human plasma and plays an essential role in the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis 34. Downregulation of LDLRAP1 in the liver causes decreased endocytosis of LDL by liver cells and impairs the removal of LDL from plasma 35, 36. ... The rice-induced elevation of mouse liver MIR168a (Figure 6H) and, more importantly, MIR168a-mediated reduction of liver LDLRAP1 (Figure 6I and and6J)6J) was largely blocked by the administration of anti-MIR168a ASO but not negative control oligonucleotides.
Content from External Source
This doesn't actually seem like a good thing. Too much LDL in the blood can lead to heart problems.

In regards to my second question, another paper challenges the significance of the results shown in the one posted above.
Here, we have found that a number of higher order animal organisms, including honey bees, mice and humans, routinely ingest substantial quantities of plant-specific and animal-specific miRNAs. In spite of such ingestion, we find little evidence of significant steady-state expression of those miRNAs in recipient organisms (< 1 copy per cell in various organ tissues). Furthermore, based on prior observations that poorly expressed miRNAs (< 100 copies per cell) do not repress target-containing transcripts,36 it is unlikely that dietary miRNAs are routinely spread to plasma or organ tissue in quantities that are adequate for pervasive engagement of direct mRNA targets. These results dampen our enthusiasm regarding the widespread potential for miRNA-based cross-kingdom modulation of gene expression, at least via normal dietary intake and through canonical modes of action of miRNAs.
Content from External Source
When it comes to my third question, it can be partly answered by the answer to my second question. If the amounts are insignificant, what does it matter? But reasoning that this process would be interrupted by genetic engineering is flawed. Genetic engineering selects for mutants with one mutation and one mutation only, the one that the researchers wanted to engineer. This change very likely would not affect a small region of DNA that codes for an miRNA. This argument is based on nothing but fearful presumptions. There is no reason to believe that genetic engineering destroys some inherently beneficial part of the plant.

In light of a little literature searching, Lipton's claims are found to be, at best, extremely premature and, at worst, complete misrepresentation of the science. It is important to point this behavior out, as he is very influential to a lot of people yet his information is full of bunk.
Last edited:
Lipton claims that miRNA from vegetables can pass through the lining of your gut, into the bloodstream, and into your cells to regulate your genes.
Typical bunkum. I've heard the same said of homogenized milk.

Many people must be aware by now of the mechanics of cell walls, and the way they closely control the size and type of the very simple molecules they will allow in - but obviously not enough to deter this, er, gutless wonder.

Or am I wrong? (Goes into moment of self-doubt…) - nuts.
Sorry to come so late to this party, but I only just discovered this forum today while doing a little research on the good "Dr. (PhD)" Lipton. While I am not a physicist, I do have a pretty good grasp and great deal knowledge on Quantum Mechanics in general and experimental particle physics in particular. The idea that Quantum Mechanics supports "Eastern" medicine and philosophy, as well as a whole host of other "phenomenon" (ESP, Telekinesis. faith healing, power of prayer or anything else where the thoughts of the mind alone have a direct physical effect on anything other than an electronic sensor attached to the scalp), is total and complete nonsense. So, you hooked me from the #13th comment...

Bruce Lipton does a very good job of explaining quantum energy theory to Western minds

Sorry, but no, no he doesn't. Murrry Gell-Mann, Richard Feynman, "BJ" Bjorken, John Bell, Sheldon Glashow, Wolfgang Pauli, Paul Dirac, Niels Bohr, Max Born, Max Planck, Albert Einstein, J.J. and George Thomson (father and son who both won the Nobel Prize for proving two seemly completely contradictory explications of the nature of light - turns out they were both right!), Robert Oppenheimer, John Wheeler, David Bohm, Julian Schwinger, Freeman Dyson, Werner Heiseberg and the guy with the cat can/could do a pretty good job of explaining QM to Western, Eastern, Southern or Northern minds. When Bruce wins a Nobel Prize in Physics, let me know.

“The field effects of quantum physics and in particular the widely accepted notion of entanglement should make one pause and reconsider the materialist, Newtonian view of our Universe. Specifically in regards to health, well-being, and medicine, the Western approach of better living through chemistry has been shown to be lacking in many instances. We now know that the Universe is not made up of matter as we once thought. Indeed, it is made up of energy that expresses itself in the form of fields and vibrations. This is not “woo woo” science. This is cutting edge, quantum mechanics

Ahh, the biggest falsehood of them all, and so totally, perfectly and succinctly worded, it seems like it was written with knowledge of how utterly inaccurate it is. On the small scale, when things are very very tiny and have very very little mass, sometimes none at all, the Newtonian Laws do indeed totally fall apart and have been replaced by QM. But on the macro scale of our Universe, the Newtonian Laws do not only still apply, but in fact are used every day by physicists to explain and predict natural phenomena. Once you get above the nano-scale it is QM that breaks down and can no longer be counted on to provide accurate measurements (not because QM can't, but because the variables become too complex to measure accurately). What is true for Atoms is NOT what is true for you or me or a bird or a planet or anything else on the macro scale. The effects on matter of measurement or "observation" (where the leap is made to the mind and consciousness), uncertainly and probabilities that define QM have such a tiny effect on anything you can see, that they might as well have no effect whatsoever. Oh, and the energy that "matter" is made up of is not free energy that can be released or used at will. It is "at rest" energy that is more than very difficult to get to turn back into energy that could be used or have any effect on anything, other than the Newtonian Laws that govern mass.

“…I’m sure you don’t need to be reminded of the plight of Galileo or the fact that a short time before Einstein’s paper on relativistic theory was published, the leading physicists of the day were exclaiming that we had “discovered everything there is to know” about physics and that the only new knowledge was likely to come from more precise measurements.

YES!! And that is exactly where all new knowledge of physics has come from since! The physicists of the day were right!

“The din of Randiesque debunkers is slowly being drowned out by the latest discoveries in quantum mechanics that show conclusively, in my non-scientific opinion, that the influence of fields and quantum non-locality is by far the most promising avenue for future discoveries, not only in medicine, but every other area of science.”

Okay, this is a good one. Firstly the use of a the phrase "conclusively, in my non-scientific opinion" is an oxymoron. How on earth can anything be conclusively proven, not only by a non-scientist, but more importantly, by an opinion? Opinions have no place in proving objective reality, or even non-reality. And as far as James Randi is concerned, if you know of a "discovery" that "drowns out" his pseudo-science debunking, I hope you and the discoverer enjoy the million bucks. With Radni, it is 100% put up or shut up. When I see James write the check, then we can start talking about promising avenues for future discoveries...

“… an excuse used by the traditional doctors of alopathic medicine to cover up the misuse of chemicals and their ignorance about nutrition, the power of the mind and the emotions and quantum physics.”

The "power of the mind", "emotions" and "nutrition" have absolutely nothing to do with QM AT ALL, except for the last one which is comprised of particles that do obey the odd rules of QT individually, but not collectively. Oh and by the way YOU are made up of nothing BUT chemicals...

“Instant remission is a acientific (sic) 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.”

Oh christ, seriously? Saying "... epigenetics together with quantum physics bring a new understanding to... x", is like saying "... cats along with long division bring a new understanding to...x" The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other, they are not "together" in any manner whatsoever.

“Belief in science is a "belief" in itself. Particularly today in a world where science has been completely politicized and is controlled by the same who control Congress. Sorry. I don't have a lot of faith in what is bandied about as "science" today”

Uhm. No, science is certainly NOT a belief. It starts as an idea or observation, turns into a hypothesis, and then if, after many experiments all get the same results, it becomes a theory. There science stays until repeatable experimental data contradicts the previous results – in which case the theory is modified to include the new data or information – or abandoned completely. “Belief” is thinking something is true, despite the fact that it can not be proven, “Science” is the exact opposite, believing something is true only when it can be proven, and actively looking for ways to disprove it. Science demands that you don't have "faith" in it. It is true whether you believe it or not. Don't have faith in Gravity? Jump off a tall building and your faith will be quickly, even if momentarily depending on how tall the building is, restored.
You may have come late to the party, but that was a lovely refutation. Of course, as a Paddy you had me with the inclusion of John Stewart Bell ...
I was lucky enough to know him, as a child and years later was old enough to ask him a lot of crazy questions at a vegetarian restaurant in San Franciso. I questioned him until I got the "free will is an illusion" answer, which he admitted he didn't really believe was true, but he'd found it was the best way to get people to stop asking him what his theory ( actually in his case a fairly simple mathematical proof!) really means! He told me "I did the math, I don't care what it means, just that it is correct. "
Do you mean what better treatment for disease can there be than believing an idea which may not be true?
Actual medical procedures.
Is this a trick question?
So, if what he is saying is not true, what better ideas do you have for the treatment of disease?


First of all just because he is a snakeoil salesman, and lying about the connection of physics to eastern medicine and faith healing, doesn't mean that there is a "treatment" for some kinds of diseases. Some just plain kill you. I have a little more than a lay-persons understanding of Quantum Mechanics and Particle Physics, only due to the chance of birth. I don't have degree in either, and do not claim to. So to say just because I know someone else is wrong, doesn't mean that I therefore must know what's right. You are a painter and you build a new house and as you attempt to move in you discover it has a 45% tilt to one side which is causing all your stuff to slide down in that direction. You call your contractor and say "Hey! You made a mistake, I don't think you even know how to build houses at all!!" and the contractor replies "Oh yeah, well if my way of building houses is wrong, you have any better ideas of how to do it?" Why should you? You're a painter, not a contractor!

I'm not a Medical Doctor, so I would never claim any treatment of disease to be "my idea". But if you go find a REAL Medical Doctor, and they are not difficult to find, they usually hang around clinics or hospitals, I'm sure depending on the disease in question, they would have multiple options better than "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can"
I had a wonderful massage therapist that works with top athletes and has done wonders with my back. I only needed to see her every 3 months to remain pain free. After nursing my sister with a terminal illness my back was hurting a bit so I went to see her. She was having trouble pinpointing the problem and asked if I had read Biology Of Belief. I told her yes and watched the DVD, I didn't tell her what I thought of it. She thought my back may have been sore due to my sister dying. I didn't agree. I went to the Dr, got a scan and have 2 bulging discs and a possible ruptured disc. I now go to a physio and she is strengthening my core and working on other issues. I am pain free if I keep up my daily exercises but no mountain climbing or surfing until I am stronger. As much as I loved that therapist I wont be going back.
The sensors of your membranes are proteins produced by the sequences of your genes. The activating/inhibiting agents are produced by other genetic sequences. If either of those are wrong then environmental signals (beliefs) can't tell the cell what to do. Even when those are right, the activated gene could be mutated and incapable of producing a good response to the environment. You can NOT rewrite your genes to fix these problems.
What Bruce Lipton says on video 6 of this series ( from 2:35 - 2:46 is where he claims you can change your DNA (not just the expression of it).
Read the referenced "The origin of Mutants" 2001 paper by John Cairns which states that the effect is merely that of cells going into hyper mutation mode when stressed. Most likely because less metabolism is directed to DNA repair. He further states that this hyper-mutation state was likely a result of Darwinian processes.
This is the paper BL cited as supportive of his bogus claims that cells can rewrite & engineer their genes.... "The origin of Mutants" 2001 paper by John Cairns If you have a subscription to Nature or go to a university which does then you can DL the pdf here otherwise it's $32
For those who ask, in order to [intelligently] rewrite your genes there are several things you would need which we don't have. First and foremost you would need some mechanism that can alter genes. This is observed in activities of the immune systems fabricating scads of novel moeties to present on the cell membranes to search for any "non-self" molecules. You would also need a means of knowing what the effects of the altered DNA would be (what protein or siRNA would be produced and whether it would help or hurt the bodies systems). Then you'd need a way to alter the DNA in that specific way. Needless to say this all would involve a huge cache of molecules which to date have never been observed (not even hinted at through any observations). Would that it were not so. I think we could all agree that reverse engineering that technolgy would make for the biggest biology boom ever. (if it existed) Imagine being able to know what proteins would do before they are made?
As the top poster, Dan, has said repeatedly, it's not the claims concerning gene expression, nor the placebo effects that Bruce is being called out on. It's his assertion that you can rewrite your DNA which needs to be exposed as bunk.
Not open for further replies.