http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yandell_Hendersonnarouz said:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yandell_Hendersonnarouz said:
FlatEarth said:post 114558 Amazing to me how people who obviously conduct evidence-based research could somehow be fooled by the notion of Darwinian evolution. I see an enormous intellectual blindspot with that one. There is zero evidence to suggest evolution happened, and yet it's forced on us in schools and treated as fact.
Yeah. And all those people who insist on teaching that little imaginary bacteria and viruses can make people sick,when it's obvious that they just annoyed the gods. They seem to have thrown out the good old plum pudding theory of molecules, too, for some new-fangled sub-atomic physics mumbo jumbo.FlatEarth said:post 114558 Amazing to me how people who obviously conduct evidence-based research could somehow be fooled by the notion of Darwinian evolution. I see an enormous intellectual blindspot with that one. There is zero evidence to suggest evolution happened, and yet it's forced on us in schools and treated as fact.
Ya got any names of people Peat has learned from
in that regard...?
Thanks.Don't read Lehninger!
Sure, I linked a free .pdf but it's basically like giving yourself a partial lobotomy. In it, you will be confronted by such obscene depictions as Fischer projections, and unicorns such as membrane pumps.
- Nelson, David L., Albert L. Lehninger, and Michael M. Cox. Lehninger principles of biochemistry. Macmillan, 2008.
I just looked at it and the new edition isn't all that bad, really. I shouldn't be so hard on it. I was thinking about the older edition.
A bottom-up approach could be good—reading about organic chemistry, as seen here in this nice free book. Linus Pauling was a chemist first and foremost; he started with such things as crystallography and quantum mechanics.
He is credited for elaborating the first molecular mechanism for a disease: sickle-cell anemia. He also figured-out much of what causes cardiovascular disease, although he's not generally given credit for this by the establishment and mainstream press.
Biochemistry is basically just organic chemistry.
It depends on what level of organization you want to look at, from biology, physiology, endocrinology, biochemistry, down to biophysics. Some people are more interested in certain areas than others.
Here is a free book on genetic engineering. This might seem off-topic but it gives clarity to many experiments, it's good to understand how things like PCR, microarrays, and Western blots work for this. You can learn alot about how a cell reacts to a stimulus by examining the mRNA is produces afterwards.
The chemistry can be considered more truthful. Not only is it an older science, but it's almost totally divorced from politics. This represents an almost totally pure science—even physics has more unicorns than chemistry. The Department of Defense and energy industries corrupt physics, and the Copenhagen school of quantum mechanics has spawned untold confabublations; as anything that stems from the initial one is likewise wrong—and even more so since they compound errors of the first.Thanks.
I guess we have to weight in how much we can learn from a source and how much we'll need to unlearn later.
I find the Ray Peat website nice for determining where the textbook ideas could be wrong or incomplete. I find the large review articles good for reading about specific hormones. This article on prolactin could almost be considered a textbook(let) in itself:Do you have any specific material in mind when it comes to physiology and endocrimology?
Chemistry, but I also took many physics and calculus classes. Most university classes basically just present things in the textbook—in the same order. I have always learned more by simply reading the textbooks. Nobody here should think having a book described by a professor is any better than reading the book directly. Nobody can possible know everything there is to know about biochemistry—there are just too many details. There are millions of articles on biochemistry on GoogleScholar and nobody has read them all. The unicorns are on the loose, and nobody can form a complete picture until they are penned and euthenized. Besides Ray Peat's website, Gilbert Ling's is back online. There are some classic Harold Hillman YouTube videos, which are interesting in themselves, on an anatomical level, but even more interesting for understanding the sociological forces that suppress clarity and understanding in biochemistry. Middle-aged men have egos and don't like being told they're wrong—even when they are.Do you have formal education in any related area?
Because it's even better than the other one I had read, and it's free.I remember that you already recommended the biochemistry one by Timothy Soderberg before. Why? Chemistry Faculty Publications | Faculty and Staff Scholarship | University of Minnesota Morris Digital Well
What does that book say, in a nutshell? Or what are a few striking things it says?I recently managed to buy "Krebiozen: key to cancer?". It is more of a journalistic investigation though. I also have this feeling I got put on some kind of watchlist for buying it.
So interesting. Thank you for pointing this out @Travis. I can see that scramble for funding happening in virtually most scientific fields. Sad really.Most of the basic biochemical framework was laid-out before 1960, when biochemists were really good chemists. Something happened started in the 70s which nobody can fully put into words. Most research before then was publicly funded, but privately funded afterwards. Much of the newer information is just what people accidentally discovered, or had thought they had, while finding ways to make money. You can even see scientific headline sensationalism as researchers vie for top journal publications; and many articles seem to be "fishing for funds" with ostensibly offhand mentions of "promising drugs," "new developments," and the ubiquitous: "more research is needed."
It's just the story of Krebiozen, you see it slowly die over the course of a few hundred pages, while also reading the episodes of the rather famous people it has cured.What does that book say, in a nutshell? Or what are a few striking things it says?
I think that it's nice that many people commit so much energy to one thing, but there doesn't seem to many people who actually fit it all together. It's true that everyone's perception of the organism is constantly getting refined the more they know, but there aren't too many people who bring a coherent picture out of it. I don't think you can describe the cell properly by including membrane pumps and ignoring taboo subjects like the glyoxylase system and biophoton fluorescence.Did specialization take over thus narrowing focus and sacrificing breath of knowledge for synthesizing metatheoretical clarity?
thanks!It's just the story of Krebiozen, you see it slowly die over the course of a few hundred pages, while also reading the episodes of the rather famous people it has cured.