A Curriculum For Self-education In Biological Nutrition

EndAllDisease

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
195
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.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
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...?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
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.
:lol: 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

EndAllDisease

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
195
Sorry for the delay guys, it's been a long week!
I'm still trying to figure out how to properly quote people on this forum. I see the quote button but now sure how to link it to a specific member. I'll do my best below.

narouz wrote:
Ya got any names of people Peat has learned from
in that regard...?

I'm not sure who Peat has learned from when it comes to evolution, I think the answer lies in a radio show I heard him on, I believe this is it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5ifkUY2YYE

There's lots of books debunking evolution, the fraud and deception behind the history of the religious theory of evolution.
Here's a good video outlining some of the main points:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1ufK04tjOI
 

EndAllDisease

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2014
Messages
195
Fear_of_invisible_COVERONLY.jpg

FEAR OF THE INVISIBLE by Janine Roberts
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0955917727/?tag=rapefo-20

In the book Fear of the Invisible, Janine Roberts reports the political history of Virology which consisted of a bunch of childlike scientists trying desperately to make a contribution to science to satisfy their egos. Long story short... IF she's correct, and I think its EXTREMELY likely, viruses are solvents, produced BY the cells, to clean the cells, when exposed to toxic chemicals.

If the invisible virus is the cause of massive deaths in the case of, for example, polio, then the chemical-producing companies instantly become free of liability.

“When I dug back further, to the origins of virology and the great hunt for the poliovirus, I found the story was scandalously much the same. Powerful evidence was presented to Congress linking the summer polio epidemics to summer-used heavy metal pesticides. These scientists suggested remedies, reported curing polio – and were ignored. Instead parents were told to be scared of a yet undiscovered virus.” – Janine Roberts

Bechamp%2Bor%2BPasteur%2B-%2Blarge.jpg

BECHAMP OR PASTEUR? A LOST CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF BIOLOGY by Ethel D. Hume[/b]
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0955917727/?tag=rapefo-20

When you read this book you'll find out Pasteur was a complete fraud who plagiarized and distorted the work of brilliant french scientist Antoine Bechamp. The invention of that viruses 'infect' people was not only a myth but politically inspired to keep people in fear of airborne disease and to get people to accept toxic injections of vaccines.
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
A poetic way to bring a topic up:
When we think how people had the balls to use those bizarre powdered wigs we forget that in a near future we will wonder the same thing about what we do today. If men want to look cool, we dress in these victorian suits. Just step back for a moment to consider how extravagant and weird they are. The details are thinning as time passes, such as ties, collars, etc; decluttering to eventually become obsolete. But there are still too many folds, seams, layers, and unnecessary details. But what can we say? Coins are still in use. Coins, lords. It makes me wonder if nutrition is following the same pace..
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
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.

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.
 

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,583
Location
Not Uganda
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.

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.
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.
Do you have any specific material in mind when it comes to physiology and endocrimology?
Do you have formal education in any related area?

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
 
Last edited:

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
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.
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.

I consider every textbook idea true until I find information that one-ups that. 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."
Do you have any specific material in mind when it comes to physiology and endocrimology?
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 formal education in any related area?
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.
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
Because it's even better than the other one I had read, and it's free.
 
Last edited:

Ideonaut

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
499
Location
Seattle
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.
What does that book say, in a nutshell? Or what are a few striking things it says?
 
L

lollipop

Guest
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."
So interesting. Thank you for pointing this out @Travis. I can see that scramble for funding happening in virtually most scientific fields. Sad really.

What happened in the “biochemists no longer being good chemists” scenario? Did specialization take over thus narrowing focus and sacrificing breath of knowledge for synthesizing metatheoretical clarity?
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
What does that book say, in a nutshell? Or what are a few striking things it says?
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.
 

Travis

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
3,189
I just think that it's a different overlapping of "fields." A person who reads primarily biochemistry texts and biology texts will have a different outlook on cellular events that someone who reads primarily biochemistry texts and organic chemistry texts. When patents and drug research gets involved, descriptions can be worded optimistically—sacrificing veracity by substituting wishful thinking for an honest description of events. I am fairly certain that only a minority of readers actually read the Materials & Methods section, and some seem to limit themselves to carefully-crafted abstracts. In this way, events get distorted until perhaps it lands in a textbook—which could perhaps be fatal. Once an idea really gets moving it won't stop even if proven incorrect. I think this is most often done for fear of embarrassment. You only have to read a few Gilbert Ling articles and Harold Hillman videos to realize this, although many other people point-out the singularities and unicorns in biochemical textbooks. Ray Peat talks about the estrogen receptor as if it's an artifact, a confabulation of the mass researcher's mind. Perhaps he's right? I haven't looked into this yet. I assume that the standard nuclear receptor theory is correct at the moment since I have yet to see enough contrary evidence.

I also think that the entire society has become a little less logical and rigorous. I think science had traditionally been stimulated by necessity—the idiomatic "mother of invention." I think there came a point where any more progress became threatening to the status quo. You saw a rise in tuition, and a dumbing-down of education. I think that if people truly understood biochemistry, there would be little need for the medical establishment. You would always need some of it, like surgeons, but the fields of oncology and cardiology could be reduced tenfold by simple education and an honest appraisal of experimental findings.
Did specialization take over thus narrowing focus and sacrificing breath of knowledge for synthesizing metatheoretical clarity?
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.
  • Thornalley, Paul J. "The glyoxalase system in health and disease." Molecular aspects of medicine 14.4 (1993): 287-371.
    • Massive 85-page article describing the glyoxylase system. This seems so integral to cancer that I can only wonder why it's never mentioned in textbooks. I just searched Lehninger's and it doesn't appear once.
  • Van Wijk, Roeland. "Bio-photons and bio-communication." Journal of Scientific Exploration 15.2 (2001): 183-197.
    • I just found this, but I have to admit that I haven't read it yet. I have read other articles on this topic. but this one has a free link and looks even better. In Lehininger's, microtubles are assigned a subsidiary role:
      • "Motor proteins underlie the contraction of muscles, the migration of organelles along microtubules, the rotation of bacterial flagella, and the movement of some proteins along DNA. Proteins called kinesins and dyneins move along microtubules in cells, pulling along organelles or reorganizing chromosomes during cell division." ―Lehninger
    • ...in which the reader in invited to think of them as simply a structural assembly, which somehow allows the transport of proteins along it's length; imagine and inchworm crawling along a pipe for the type of description commonly found in textbooks. You are often told that this motion is also somehow caused by ATP, although nobody has been able to show how this could work. No mention is made of the fact that they form the structural basis for the insides of nerves. It has been shown that microtubules are assembled, and then progressively myelinated by pregnenolone and progesterone. Pregnenolone has the highest binding affinity for microtubules, and it is produced by the cells which lay-down myelin:
      • Murakami, Koichi, et al. "Pregnenolone binds to microtubule-associated protein 2 and stimulates microtubule assembly." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97.7 (2000): 3579-3584.
        • This is it, the article which shows it. After reading about how methoxyestradiol destabilized microtubules, and how all the microtule-stabilizing drugs somewhat resemble steroids (large saturated carbon ring(s)), I formed the hypothesis that some steroids stabilize microtubules. This is indeed the case, and you can confirm in any one of dozens of articles that pregnenolone and progesterone are the primary components of myelin.
        • So microtubules are inside of nerves; nerves conduct information at an extremely high velocity; yet no mention is ever made of the fact that microtubules themselves would be expected to conduct information at an extremely high velocity. It's not the myelin, I can guarantee you. Myelin is a non-conductive lipid sheath composed of pregnenolone, progesterone, and phospholipids.
    • I don't think you can explain nerve conduction by a "signalling protein" inching along the microtubule in the lack-of-space found between it and the myelin; but for some odd reason, actually seeing that explanation in a textbook wouldn't particularly surprise me at this point.
  • Sytnik, Alexander, and Igor Litvinyuk. "Energy transfer to a proton-transfer fluorescence probe: tryptophan to a flavonol in human serum albumin." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 93.23 (1996): 12959-12963.
  • Ghisaidoobe, Amar BT, and Sang J. Chung. "Intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence in the detection and analysis of proteins: a focus on Förster resonance energy transfer techniques." International journal of molecular sciences 15.12 (2014): 22518-22538.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom