1. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Does this really mean what they say it means?...

    http://www.collective-evolution.com...can-be-reprogrammed-by-words-and-frequencies/

    (key disclaimer phrase -"scientific research directly or indirectly explains...")

    It gets a bit wild towards the end.

    How is it russian/german science is so different to english/american science?

    Is there really a basis for a potentially revolutionary medical application? (DNA repair)

    Summary of a german book.

  2. RolandD

    RolandD Active Member

    There's at least a dozen Noble Prizes, right there! Of course, they would have to construct reproducible experiments as proof of their findings. Some how I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.
  3. hemi

    hemi Senior Member

    Big red flag there. It's been known for a while now that 'junk' DNA (as it's been called), is anything but. Technically it's 'non-coding' DNA, and does serve a purpose.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNA
    • Like Like x 1
  4. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Less rigorous standards in Russia for sure.

    The part about DNA being a superconductor is only partially true. Apparently under certain conditions DNA has exhibited superconductivity in the form of a single nano-length strand between two superconducting electrodes with all cooled to below 1 Kelvin. I'm not sure if the experiment has even been replicated. That's far, far from proof of room temperature superconductivity of an entire double helix. The rest of the article is just as dubiously speculative. Good for a few lolz though.

    http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2001/jan/12/superconductivity-its-in-the-genes

    cheers
  5. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Link to a more comprehensive collection of articles, on which the other seems to be a brief summary. There *appears* to be some science here. And patents!
    http://www.rexresearch.com/gajarev/gajarev.htm

    Towards the bottom of the page...
    "Chief Scientific Officer"? What is this, Star Trek?
  6. Trailspotter

    Trailspotter Senior Member

    Well, in Russian wikipedia the Gariaev's "theory" is called a pseudo science. In another Russian wiki resource "Lurkmore" the article about Gariaev is preceded by a warning:

    • Like Like x 2
  7. Dan Wilson

    Dan Wilson Senior Member

    It's not just Russian and German scientists, there are plenty of scientists all over the world that will publish material on this kind of stuff. Pjotr Garjajev's claims have actually been around for a while and are known as the "Phantom DNA Effect." He claimed to be able to turn a frog embryo into a salamander using lasers. To my knowledge it has never been replicated. This would be huge news if it were true, but it remains in the realm of unscientific new age ideas.

    http://new-age.wonderhowto.com/how-to/understand-dna-phantom-effect-274363/

    Often these ideas take a truth and stretch it to a point that is very misleading. Emotions don't directly effect your DNA, but chronic stress can be very damaging to the body and bring on behavioral choices that are further damaging. The part about amino acids is just completely wrong, though. There are only 20 amino acids found in the genetic code that are used to make proteins, the number 64 the video is referring to are the codons (all of which are active in the human genome) that are used in translation to string amino acids together in a certain order. There are non-protein amino acids, but those play entirely other roles in processes like metabolism.

    Unfortunately, there is nothing to follow up on with the laser and DNA stuff. The idea of using the right frequency is interesting to me but there have been no experiments that I know of that suggests DNA can be precisely controlled by it. I think that kind of idea is stretched from studies like this: http://xlab.me.berkeley.edu/pdf/194.pdf

    Real DNA repair is done by proteins, but repair does not mean correction of disease-causing alleles.
    http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-damage-repair-mechanisms-for-maintaining-dna-344
    • Like Like x 2
  8. FreiZeitGeist

    FreiZeitGeist Senior Member

    Just read this http://www.collective-evolution.com...can-be-reprogrammed-by-words-and-frequencies/

    ... up to "By Grazyna Fosar and Franz Bludorf"

    these are two well known german Hoaxer - no need to read more of it.

    German sceptical Wiki Psiram has an article about them

    http://psiram.com/ge/index.php/Fosar_und_Bludorf

    Google-Translation
    "Project Teddy" is unforgetable to me. They walked around Tempelhof airport with a Tape recorder recording white noise and claiming the lowpass-noise of their cheap casette player are the "Haarp-like Elf-waves"
    • Like Like x 1
  9. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  11. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

    Being obstinate doesn't make for good edification :) ...We live in an age where the entire human knowledge base is at our fingertips! and if we choose to debunk without personally looking deeper, well, that's just silly..
    Here is an excerpt from the article ~which, I think, would have prompted a search in the Journal of Psychoneuroendocrinology :)

    "To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice," says study author Richard J. Davidson, founder of the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds and the William James and Vilas Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

    "Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs," says Perla Kaliman, first author of the article and a researcher at the Institute of Biomedical Research of Barcelona, Spain (IIBB-CSIC-IDIBAPS), where the molecular analyses were conducted.

    The study was published in the journal Psychoneuroendocrinology."

    "
    An experiment by Lipton, Bensch, & Karasek (1991) illustrated the princi
    ple that cells are
    controlled by the environment rather than the genes by showing that the specialization of endothelial cells
    depends on the environment they are placed in. Endothelial cells were placed in different media in vitro,
    and it was observed tha
    t those cells changed their structure and function depending on the medium in
    which they were placed. When placed in an environment of inflammatory chemicals, those cells became
    similar to macrophages, for example. Interestingly, these changes took place e
    ven with a functional
    enucleation of the cells by destruction of their DNA with gamma rays (Lipton, 2008).
    Research in epigenetics has shown that it is not our genes that control us, but rather their
    expression. Epigenetics, therefore, concerns itself wit
    h the mechanisms upon which gene expression
    depends, and explores how our genes may be controlled by environmental factors. Environment in this
    context refers to exogenous factors such as nutrition, climate, and stressful life events, but it may also
    refer
    to factors that originate from the individual such as attitudes, perceptions, personality characteristics,
    that are often primed during early childhood. These endogenous differences may originate from changes
    in hormone levels and different individual pat
    terns of such changes.:

    http://www.plattsburgh.edu/files/686/files/KryzaVol 5p_45-62.pdf

    and there's more...


    "Research Epigenetics provides evidence against genetic determinism and demonstrates that
    different environmental circumstances can produce different phenotypic outcomes that are unrelated to
    the actual DNA blueprint.
    The various cells of the body share the exact same DNA even though a nerve
    cell is easily distinguished from a muscle cell. The “epi
    -
    genome” (epi = above, over; gr) is a mechanism
    that controls the expression of genes, and it allows for the differentiation
    of various cells as well as
    patterns of physiological responsiveness. Although such patterns of gene expression can be inherited, they
    are also primed during prenatal and early childhood development. Recent findings, however, are also
    suggesting that the
    epi
    -
    genome may be changed even in adulthood."


    and more still..

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889159112001894 20


    so I in turn, challenge you, provide actual papers and evidence to the contrary..
  12. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Neither of those excerpts say anything about thoughts causing genetic changes.
    • Like Like x 1
  13. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    Here's a link to the paper:

    http://www.investigatinghealthyminds.org/pdfs/KalimanRapidPNEC.pdf

    The very last sentence in the paper...



    There's nothing conclusive in the paper, they only used 19 test subjects and 21 control subjects. Basically they're trying to identify the pathway by which stress reduction, such as meditation can facilitate, results in changes in the bodies chemistry which can lead to a reduction in inflammation. It's fairly well known that how successfully one manages stress can be a significant factor in ones health and this is part of quantifying a certain aspect of that.




    Don't get too excited there Krista. That study had nothing to do with frequencies, words, chanting or anything of the sort.
  14. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

  15. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

    Sorry, but actually it does ~and what's more, it has everything to do with the individual and their belief systems -I guess this bunk stuff won't be working for you :(
  16. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

    Sorry, but actually it does ~and what's more, it has everything to do with the individual and their belief systems -I guess this bunk stuff won't be working for you! :(
  17. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

    Maria E
    .
    Kryza
    Department of Psychology
    State University of New York, College at Plattsburgh
    ABSTRACT
    After being subject to Descartes’ fallacy for the past few centuries, it has now again been recognized that the mental
    state has an impact on health and disease, and it is becoming increasingly more evident that DNA alone does not predict health
    trajectories. Psychoneuroimmunology and epigenetics are two fields of science whose research supports those ideas.
    Psychoneuroimmunology aims to discover the mechanisms that connect our mind to the rest of our nervous, endocrine, and
    immune systems while epigenetics
    demonstrates that different environmental circumstances can produce different phenotypic
    outcomes that are unrelated to the actual DNA blueprint. An integration of the findings of those two fields may allow for a
    more accurate and complete understanding o
    f individual health trajectories and may generate pathways to a more
    individualized treatment approach.
    INTRODUCTION
    Traditionally, orthodox medicine has viewed the patient as a passive victim of disease and a
    passive recipient of treatment. But this tre
    nd did not start until the 17
    th
    century with the dualistic
    worldview of René Descartes’ who postulated that the mind and the body were two independent units.
    Psychology and medicine were, therefore, until recently, two separate fields for two separate enti
    ties

    the
    mind and the body. However, long before Descartes, in about 400 BC, Hippocrates
    already
    said that it is
    more important to know the patient than his or her ailment (Ray, 2004). It is now again recognized that
    the mental state has an impact on hea
    lth and disease. In addition to the notion of being victims of disease,
    a more recent development in science with its increasing focus on genes as the blue print of our bodies,
    has led to a sense of genetic determinism, or the idea that our genes have best
    owed us with an inescapable
    heritage of good or ill health. Recent research in two groundbreaking fields of science, namely
    psychoneuroimmunology and epigenetics, provides evidence against those ideas.


    The mechanistic view of life is DEAD.
  18. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    • Like Like x 1
  19. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    The mechanistic view does not view the mind as a separate entity outside of the body, that's the dualistic view of most spiritual beliefs actually.
    For the mind to be affecting the body, there by definition is a mechanism and interaction there, physically. How does that make the 'mechanistic view' dead?
    Your gloating is premature.
    • Like Like x 1
  20. solrey

    solrey Senior Member

    No it does not, nor does it have anything to do with belief systems. There is nothing in the paper about frequencies of any sort. It's all about stress management, which works quite well for me thank you very much, considering I do and/or have practiced yoga, tai-chi, qi-gong and various forms of meditation and relaxation techniques. It's well established that meditation can reduce stress and that the bodies chemical response to stress can lead to inflammation. Reducing stress can help reduce inflammation and they're trying to find out why, that's pretty much it. And I have read and understood the entire paper already.


    Word of advice...
    Don't pretend to know someone you've never met.
    • Like Like x 4
  21. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

    Gloating does not get one anywhere...

    Over all ~I must digress... apologies to anyone feeling a sense of hubris from me...

    Quantum mechanics shows quite clearly that there is far more going on than the mechanistic or dualistic views ...science on this level (here) can only go so far -and we will continue to beat ourselves silly with studies and interpretations of those studies.. ...yet evermore, the larger picture will continue to show up and throw a monkey wrench into all we think we know...
  22. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    How will the "larger picture" show up if studies are not performed? And why can science only go "so far" on "this level"?
  23. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

  24. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

    Rupert explains it all so very well.. :) ...see the link below..
  25. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

    I'm not saying not to preform studies ~we just need to keep our limited perspective in mind and refer to quantum mechanics when we can perhaps ...I definitely don't claim to have the answers..
  26. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    I've tried to watch Rupert - on reflection and reading what actually happened at TEDxWhitechappel he was not banned and his videos remain available through the TED website.

    So no, I am not going to visit Rupert any more - if you can explain "it" yourself in a more sensible manner than he can then that would be most appreciated.

    If not then ...well...I'm not interested in woo.
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  27. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

    Besides that, there are so many special interests with the funding and sway within studies.. So many of our institutions are corrupt.
  28. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Please focus on the actual evidence. Krista, what exactly do you think has been demonstrated?
    • Like Like x 1
  29. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

    Well ...your OPINION speaks volumes to me ~AND this site in that you won't even consider some very rational work - Obviously there are a PLETHORA of phenomenon that CANNOT be explained by science! ~for decades now ~NO rational explanation .....OBVIOUSLY there is more to life than meeets the eye dear man... but this, is clearly not for your to experience. I will excuse my self from your site so as not to shake up your precious world, that sits in such perfect order. ..good luck !
  30. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Yes there is a plethora of stuff that is not explained by science.
    (to which I add "yet")

    That does not mean there is a need to invent assumptions and fiction to explain it. I am perfectly happy to understand that something is not yet understood!

    And yet paradoxically Sheldrake claims on "Skeptical Investigations" that psychokinesis, fraudulent mediums (such as Eusapia Palladino), ghosts, reincarnation, telepathy and various other phenomena have all been scientifically proven - which is it??
    • Like Like x 1
  31. Dan Wilson

    Dan Wilson Senior Member

    Krista, if you were to sum up your main point in a couple of sentences, what would it be? I think that would help organize things here.

    That doesn't seem strange to me. When we take cells out of the body, they are no longer receiving the signals they normally would from all of the other cell types that would be around them. They have the potential to transform into different cell types. In the lab we can turn leukemia cells into macrophages. We can also take mesenchymal stem cells (found in barrow) and, just by letting them grow in the flask, they can turn into cartilage, muscle, nerve, and many more cell types. Of course, the odd thing about what is said in the paper you are referencing is that the DNA was supposedly destroyed using Gamma radiation. Did he check to make sure the DNA was destroyed and not just mutated? I can't find a paper written by Lipton in 2008, do you know where I could read it?

    Remember that proteins do the work of acting on the genome to regulate its expression, those proteins come from the DNA. So the DNA of each species has a pattern of expression already written into it, a pattern that has been molded by evolution (the environment). There are, however, environmental factors that can dramatically change gene expression, sometimes permanently. This is where epigenetic research is focused now, finding epigenetic causes for certain diseases. To talk about epigenetics as a means of phasing out the importance of genes is incorrect.

    Gene X leading to disease Y is only a certainty in certain cases. Most of the time it's a probability situation where the presence of certain genes increase chances of a particular outcome. How much epigenetics we can change about ourselves is not clear yet, nor is the extent of its significance.

    I don't quote know what you're arguing here. Epigenetic mechanisms do not cause changes in the DNA sequence, it does not change the gene. The epigenetic mechanisms are also largely set in place by the cell tissue itself. As the cells divide, they produce proteins to send each other signals and silence/modify gene expression based on the concentration and kinds of signals they are receiving (essentially figuring out where they are in the tissue) in order to differentiate and perform their proper function.

    On the topic of gene expression changes observed in experienced meditators, we know that certain breathing and calming techniques can have strong temporary effects on the stress mechanisms of the body. So what? It is very interesting and demonstrates that it is a good practice to get into, but the idea of it being some mind over matter quantum mechanical mechanism that scientists hide in their closet is far outside of its implications. So what is your main idea? What do you think most scientists and the people here on Metabunk are missing when it comes to epigenetics?
    • Like Like x 5
  32. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

    I find it interesting that after digging and posting a great deal of "evidence", that no one was able to answer ANY of MY questions.. Where is the evidence? Where is the actual paper, and what data does it contain? I received no professional peer reviewed data, only a regurgitation of theories and spewed opinions.

    Ultimately, what I'm arguing is that, not only are there holes in my argument, but there are huge holes, in your argument as well; that science as we know it, lacks something massive, and it is looming and ever more present. That increasingly, studies are giving a peek beyond the tenants of the scripture ha, or dogma; studies like this one above, and the numerous ones I listed.. The scientific dogma that Sheldrake lists is very straightforward and logical. And yes, very scary for those clinging to their certainties about reality itself. We must be open minded to phenomena and consider it WITHIN our assertions or given work ---

    In his book, Science Set Free ~Sheldrake brings to bear 10 major scientific dogmas and MAJOR inconsistencies -he lays them our systematically and with pure laymen logical sense, clearly displaying the grossly illogical and-UNSCIENTIFIC premises of the discipline itself... "Oh, but let's just ignore these things shall we??" ~sorry... no can do... -from a "true scientific perspective -it all MUST be considered; logically.
    And this is not limited to Sheldrake, but other pioneering or "subversive" scientists are seeing the gross inconsistencies and vital data being "pushed under the rug" as well.

    To me, this original article put into question, and a growing number of them like it, is a lovely demonstration of this new frontier for science.
    And I think it's coming whether we like it or not ~IMHO

    Quantum mechanics, and specifically it's "spooky action" is showing us exactly how flawed we are in our convictions, and the fear of letting them go is exactly why we will create sites like MetaBunk and beat ourselves silly with our data and INTERPRETATIONS of that data. Sciences discovery of quantum spooky action must be considered if we are going to have any hope of evolving past this sort of circus and the corporatist's/scientist's dogma... frankly, I see it all falling apart as we speak.. And folks like you guys, are rattled -to all hell, because we are all truly beginning to see that reality is far more conceptual than we ever imagined.

    Isn't it interesting that this expansive Quantum theorem is big enough to contain the standard scientific model, but the standard scientific model is not big enough to even begin to see, that "facts" are born out of the observer...
  33. Dan Wilson

    Dan Wilson Senior Member

    I covered as much I could in my last post. Anything in particular you would like answered?

    It's not unreasonable to ask. I just want to read that paper you said Lipton wrote in 2008.

    That's pretty broad. Anything more specific? This thread is about genetics and genetic bunk. Not quantum mechanics or philosophy of science. Sheldrake is not relevant to this thread. Science certainly doesn't know everything. Science also has proven to be a consistently good way of knowing. It's best to talk about evidence. What do we know, how do we know it, and what are the implications?

    So please, what about epigenetics do you think science and Metabunk is missing?
  34. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    Exactly what scientific dogma do those papers (which are scientific studies themselves, so it's weird you're saying science is obsolete by using what science discovers to say so),
    expose?
    Have they proven a scientific principle wrong?
    Can you make your argument more specific - at the moment it seems like you think the scientific method should give up because quantum physics = magic or something.
    • Like Like x 1
  35. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member



    No, those were MY questions back at you ~you did not provide any peer reviewed data to argue your points. NADA.

    ...and as far as Lipton's paper goes, you can search and bring it up to view, as easily as I can...

    OK ...And WHY?? is quantum mechanics not a factor in our observations??
    Are you saying that it's scientific findings of "spooky action" should just be IGNORED while you make your argument??
    As LONG as I ignore THAT scientific evidence ~your argument will remain valid. ...talk about meta bunk!


    Sheldrake is relevant because his extensive work challenges basic tenants of science, or dogmas, which also happen to be the basis for your arguments. You can read his amazing book for yourselves, if you care to attempt to understand further..
    I'm not exactly going to read it to you, but here at least, are the 10 dogmas he exposes:

    Everything in nature is essentially Mechanical
    All matter is unconscious
    The total amount of matter and energy is always the same
    The laws of nature are fixed
    Nature is purposeless
    All biological inheritance is material
    Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains
    Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death
    Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory
    Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works

    As a matter of fact, you want me to suspend -a great majority, if not ALL of the evidence and logic -that these above tenants are proven assumptions
    ~~while you argue your point. ....sorry. I respect REAL science too much for that.

    I myself, am happy to read anything you gentlemen might have to present by such credentialed peers! - -and since I highly doubt you will find such a man -feel free -anyone! explain -point for point why these 10 major ASSUMPTIONS WITHIN CLASSIC PHYSICS CONTINUES TO BE PERPETUATED BEYOND LOGIC. Beyond what is measured even. ~THIS is dogma folks.

    as well, If even one of you guys can come up with a fraction of these credentials, then perhaps I'll consider why his work should be stricken from this argument.



    Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist and author of more than 80 scientific papers and ten books. He studied natural sciences at Cambridge University, where he was a Scholar of Clare College, took a double first class honours degree and was awarded the University Botany Prize (1963). He then studied philosophy and history of science at Harvard University, where he was a Frank Knox Fellow (1963-64), before returning to Cambridge, where he took a Ph.D. in biochemistry (1967). He was a Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge (1967-73), where he was Director of Studies in biochemistry and cell biology Clare College . As the Rosenheim Research Fellow of the Royal Society (1970-73), he carried out research on the development of plants and the ageing of cells in the Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge University.

    While at Cambridge, together with Philip Rubery, he discovered the mechanism of polar auxin transport, the process by which the plant hormone auxin is carried from the shoots towards the roots.

    From 1968 to 1969, as a Royal Society Leverhulme Scholar, based in the Botany Department of the University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, he studied rain forest plants. From 1974 to 1985 he was Principal Plant Physiologist and Consultant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Hyderabad, India, where he helped develop new cropping systems now widely used by farmers. While in India, he also lived for a year and a half at the ashram of Fr Bede Griffiths in Tamil Nadu, where he wrote his first book, A New Science of Life, published in 1981 (new edition 2009).
  36. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    You didn't ask those questions - Mick did.
  37. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Krista is clearly out to get sales for Sheldrake -

    No Kristen - you came here and claim something about his theories - YOU make them understandable.

    Sheldrake's theories have been subjected to empirical testing - which have shown no evidence to support them according to everyone except Sheldrake. It is only AFTER "science" failed to support his ideas that he started claiming "science" is wrong and rigged against him.

    As has been pointed out the irony of claiming that Sheldrake's theories are proven by science while at the same time condemning science is particularly poignant!

    There is plenty of material debunking Sheldrake all over the 'net - there is no need to spend your own money on any of his products.
  38. krista vogt

    krista vogt New Member

    Still didn't answer ANY of my questions (what? I'm not ALLOWED to pose the same questions in return??) Not ONE:
    not a paper, not a single peer ~Just plenty of "websites" debunking him ~well ~
    That was the first thing I learned in college in seeking credentialed citation; Wikipedia is NOT it.
    so.. I'm still waiting... Peer reviews, papers EVEN ONE? -showing these assumptions are NOT assumptions..
    You do realize, there are probably TRILLIONS of dollars that stand to be lost bu his work,
    and what's more frightening (for those of you afraid); perspective of reality ~en mass.
  39. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Senior Member

    You want papers proving these claims?



    They're plausible observations based on what we know so far, so basically the whole history of science up to this point is evidence for them.
    Nothing proving the contrary of these positions has ever been produced, so they will remain reasonable assumptions to make about the universe.

    What scientifically reviewed papers prove the opposite of any of this, what observational data that is replicable shows that memories are not stored in the the brain for example? Or that nature is purposeful?
    Because he said so, and some shamans, witch doctors and religious authorities said so?

    These are mostly just contrary opinions with nothing other than stories and philosophies to support them.
    He's just selling an opinion and rhetoric that align with your need to believe in something, it's nothing more.

    How exactly does his 'work' threaten trillions of dollars?
    This is madness.
    • Like Like x 3
  40. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    Probably because you haven't asked a question about any particular topic

    Ah...you've been in high school since Wiki started...:cool:

    No wiki is not a citation - however many of the references wiki includes are citations


    What assumptions? Who says they are assumptions - what is the evidence for that conclusions?

Share This Page