George Lakhovsky

[Travis]

Hi people. I just want to post a book called The Secret of Life by George Lakhovsky. This man was a cross between Royal Rife and Nikola Tesla, and seemed to be the immediate forerunner to Wilhelm Reich. In chapter 5, he states that chromosomes are made up of a spiral oscillators that emit radiation. This book was written in the 20's long before Crick proved the structure of DNA.

And to his credit, DNA was recently found to be conductive, Here is a quote from an article called
DNA electronics:

Fink & Schonenberger (1999) were the first to measure current flow through DNA using a modified low‐energy electron point‐source microscope. Their technique used a gold‐coated carbon grid as the sample holder, consisting of an array of 2‐μm holes and 600‐nm‐long λ‐DNA to span these holes. A tungsten manipulation tip was used to contact the sample and to allow electric current to flow. The authors measured linear current voltage (I/V) curves in the range of −20 to +20 mV, and a resistance of 2.5 MΩ per DNA molecule at room temperature. Various other studies have confirmed that DNA can act as a molecular wire, with the phosphate bonds in the DNA backbone acting as tunnel junctions for electrons to move along.

So this would imply that DNA is capable of receiving and transmitting elecromagnetic radiation of high-frequency and low amplitude. There could be intercellular resonance between DNAs; a more efficient way of communicating than clumsy diffusion-limited cytokines and hormones. In fact, the authors of a retracted article from the journal of DNA Cell Biology in 2009 took this idea seriously. The paper was called DNA and cell resonance: magnetic waves enable cell communication.

DNA generates a longitudinal wave that propagates in the direction of the magnetic field vector. Computed frequencies from the structure of DNA agree with those of the predicted biophoton radiation. The optimization of efficiency by minimizing the conduction losses leads to the double-helix structure of DNA. The vortex model of the magnetic scalar wave not only covers many observed structures within the nucleus perfectly, but also explains the hyperboloid channels in the matrix when two cells communicate with each other. Potential vortexes are an essential component of a scalar waves, as discovered in 1990. The basic approach for an extended field theory was confirmed in 2009 with the discovery of magnetic monopoles. For the first time, this provides the opportunity to explain the physical basis of life not only from the biological discipline. Nature covers the whole spectrum of known scientific fields of research, and interdisciplinary understanding is required to explain its complex relationships. The characteristics of the potential vortex are significant. With its concentration effect, it provides for miniaturization down to a few nanometers, which allows enormously high information density in the nucleus. With this first introduction of the magnetic scalar wave, it becomes clear that such a wave is suitable to use genetic code chemically stored in the base pairs of the genes and electrically modulate them, so as to "piggyback" information from the cell nucleus to another cell. At the receiving end, the reverse process takes place and the transported information is converted back into a chemical structure. The necessary energy required to power the chemical process is provided by the magnetic scalar wave itself.

I wonder why this paper was retracted?

The resistivity of DNA measured in vacuum is similar to graphite. DNA likely has better conductivity in water; in the cell.
:

 

[sm1693]

"...emphasis on linking science to philosophy for living."

And,
"...creating a "Science of Happiness" in society."

Have me hooked for reading the rest of this. Good find.

 

[Travis]

The clarify the resistance value: Graphite actually has two values because of its' structure; parallel to the c-axis [4.1], and perpendicular to it [.98]. Hans-Werner Fink reported a DNA resistivity of 1 m(ohm)cm, which would make it nearly equivalent to the resistivity of graphite perpendicular to the c-axis. But Fink stated that...

This value includes a contribution due to a finite contact resistance and therefore constitutes an upper limit; the resistivity attributed to the DNA rope alone will be smaller.

So the resistivity of DNA in vacuum is even lower than graphite perpendicular to the c-axis, and therefore even more conductive.

Not bad for a biomolecule.

 

[noordinary]

@Travis which edition would you recommend?:
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_gnr...=Secret+Life+Lakhovsky&ie=UTF8&qid=1511724085
(prefer "paper" books)

 

[Travis]

@Travis which edition would you recommend?:

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_gnr_fkmr0?rh=i:aps,k:Secret+Life+Lakhovsky&keywords=Secret+Life+Lakhovsky&ie=UTF8&qid=1511724085
(prefer "paper" books)

I recommend the .pdf because its free, although I can see why some would prefer a hard copy. In that case, I'd go for the hardcover!

It's an interesting book. I had first glanced over it at a coffee shop in Eau Claire about ten years ago. I had only vague recollections of it, and couldn't remember the title or the author. But for some reason, 'that book' had kept intriguing me—I would find myself trying to remember the title every so often.

So I finally had identified this 'memory mystery book' book after a little search. I would have found it a bit sooner, but had the name somewhat confounded with Christopher Bird's 'The Secret Life of Plants." After I had found it, I read it. I was excited about DNAs semiconductivity, but that was before I had read such things as:

➪ Ling, Gilbert N. A Physical theory of the living state. Blaisdell. 1962.
➪ Szent-Györgyi, Albert. Bioenergetics. Academic Press. 1957.
➪ Soderberg, Timothy. Organic chemistry with a biological emphasis. 2016.
➪ Kasha, Michael, and Bernard Pullman. Horizons in biochemistry. Academic Press, 1962.
➪ Nicholl, Desmond ST. An introduction to genetic engineering. Cambridge University Press, 2008.
➪ And many relevant articles on Google Scholar

I had originally though that DNA could have biologically-relevant electrical conductivity, but that was before I knew about microtubules. Through reading a few Szent-Györgyi articles, one will see that he had tried to discover electrically-conductive proteins that could explain long-range information transfer. He did some studies on casein, an had hypothesized that some structural proteins would be more conductive. He had even hypothesized that methylglyoxal could make them more conductive by electronically-desaturating their peptide backbone.

This book below has an article on the topic of protein semiconductivity from the '60s, to give you an idea of the state of knowledge in that time period.

➪ Kasha, Michael, and Bernard Pullman. Horizons in biochemistry. Academic Press, 1962.

But after examining the structure of microtubules, it's clear that they were designed to transmit light. This resolves the problems encountered in trying to explain long-range energy conduction while all proteins are experimentally, and almost embarrassingly, found to be semiconductors—at best. The only polymers suitable for long-range electrical flow would be conjugated; the peptide backbone has only partial double bond character.

But so necessary was the concept of a 'molecular wire' for explaining nerve conduction that you'll find serious articles from the '60s, by serious scientists, adducing mathematical manipulations with logical gymnastics in attempt to theoretically‐force the protein backbone into becoming semiconductive.

The microtubules are found in the center of nerves, and therefor must be the long-range molecular wire.

The nerve contains a core of microtubules surrounded by an insular layer composed primarily of pregnenolone, progesterone, phospholipids, and a few microtubule-associated proteins. I thought steroids were involved after looking at taxol, and the other microtubule-stabilizing drugs. They are large and floppy saturated ring structures. Steroids are also large saturated ring structures.

Pregnenolone and progesterone stabilize microtubules, just like taxol—only not to a pathological extent.

Steroids are generally depicted in two dimensions—viewed from above. This above-perspective leaves out quite a bit of information. Only aromatic rings are flat. When rotated about 90°, steroids look more like the image on the right:

Moss, G. P. "Nomenclature of steroids." Pure and Applied Chemistry (1989)

Now its easier to understand how such small alterations on the steroid ring can have such dramatic effects. Just the difference between an α-steroid and a β-steroid is profound: the α-steroid has what could almost be considered a seersucker texture; the β-steroid has that, and more: it is also somewhat pringle-shaped. I really makes one wonder what steroid shape stabilizes microtubules the most.

Estradiol has one planar ring, the A-ring. This is the only steroid with a planar ring.

So after reading about microtubules, I've stopped worrying about the long-range energy transfer problem; micortubules solve this problem, and there is no need to be over-optimistic about the electrical conductivity of proteins.

I would bet anything that had Szent-Györgyi known about the microtubule inner structure back then, the fluorescent tryptophans, he would have forgotten all about peptide-bond semiconduction. Albert Szent-Györgyi was a photochemists as well, and certainly knew about molecular fluorescence; many of his experiments were on this very topic. I think had he seen the X-ray structure of tubulin, the protein sequence, a few electron micrographs of microtubules, and the how the polymer can be grown in vitro, he would have immediately realized that these structures were exactly what he'd been looking for.

George Lakhovsky has a few interesting things to say. That book got me wondering about non-classical functions of DNA.

[Perhaps the microtubule cytoskeleton is connected to the nucleus?]

 

[noordinary]

In that case, I'd go for the hardcover!

Thanks, got myself a hardcover copy.

George Lakhovsky has a few interesting things to say. That book got me wondering about non-classical functions of DNA

All sounds fascinating! if only had more time to read...

 

[Travis]

Old hardcovers are the best, in my opinion, as they match the other books on my bookshelf. You either need either 100% old books or 100% new glossy books or else the entire bookshelf looks ridiculous as they clash thrice in hue, saturation, and reflectivity.

I'd always tear off the dust‐covers and just throw them away.

And with the hardcover you don't have to deal with all the extraneous and ostentatious graphics placed on the cover by the editors—things they thought would grab the shopper's attention but also have the effect of making it look garish.

And they're more durable.

 

[noordinary]

Old hardcovers are the best

they are the best!

You either need either 100% old books or 100% new glossy books or else the entire bookshelf looks ridiculous as they clash thrice in hue, saturation, and reflectivity.

well, looks like I'm not posting the pic of my piles of books all mixed up crowding on the floor around book shelves LOL

 

[BigYellowLemon]

@Travis , your posts are great!

Firstly, I want to drag in @tyw because I am sure he'd have something interesting to say.

So about the DNA: do you think this could be a way DNA could more easily be read by the cell? I know you are familiar with Miles Mathis, do you think the charge field given off by DNA could be used as a quick way to read it by the cell?

Think of this: maybe second messengers and stuff like that, maybe the charge field it gives off triggers the uncurling of the histones or something and allows the charge field of a specific gene relevant to said messenger protein to be released.

Or maybe the charge field of a second messenger simply makes the DNA uncurl at a specific spot and allows mRNA to know where to go.

And methylation of DNA could be a simple way of slightly altering the energy given off from the DNA.

Now, about microtubules: very good theory.

I especially liked what you have said about the differences in structure in steroid hormones. I've been confused how such simple differences in the molecule can have such dramatic effects. But the perspective changes everything.

Kinda off topic, but how exactly do you think psychedelics interact with the microtubules? Do they add information? Could they actually be considered nootrpic? How do you think this relates to intelligence?

Do you think most neurotransmitters interact with the microtubules?

 

[Travis]

So about the DNA: do you think this could be a way DNA could more easily be read by the cell? I know you are familiar with Miles Mathis, do you think the charge field given off by DNA could be used as a quick way to read it by the cell?

I'm not quite sure, I'd have to look at the structures of the enzymes which replicate them to see it seems feasible; there's a good amount of work that has already been done, if we'd just take the time to read it. It's certainly true that nearly all matter interacts with electromagnetic waves—biomolecules being no exception.

Many small planar molecules—such as adenosine, flavin, tryptophan, niacin, histidine, et cetera—interact with visible and ultraviolet light. The specific bands of light absorbed and emitted by such molecules are constant, and reliable enough to be used to detect and characterize them (UV spectroscopy). On the other end of the spectrum is infrared radiation: longer wavelengths which also interact with molecules. Chemical covalent bonds all have characteristic infrared frequencies they absorb; this is also used the characterize them (i.e. Raman spectroscopy; IR spectroscopy.) This is how the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere is determined: it's carbon–oxygen double bond absorbs infrared radiation only at specific frequencies—facilitating detection by the very same mechanism it causes global warming.

Any table of Raman frequencies will inform you that the lower energy bonds (C–S) will absorb infrared radiation at longer wavelengths that shorter bonds higher in energy (C≡N). In an analogous manner, entire molecules have characteristic frequencies which correspond to the stretching and twisting of the entire molecule—not just a single bond. These can be considered tertairy, or polyatomic absorption modes—the longer molecules absorbing electromagnetic radiation at a longer wavelength (shorter frequency).

"A molecule has translational and rotational motion as a whole while each atom has it's own motion. The vibrational modes can be IR or Raman active. [...] molecules undergo more complex vibrations that can be summed or resolved into normal modes of vibration. The normal modes of vibration are: asymmetric, symmetric, wagging, twisting, scissoring, and rocking for polyatomic molecules." ―https://chem.libretexts.org​

Most long‐chain polymers wouldn't be expected to have a definite polyatomic bending mode because they are simply too floppy. The only long chain polymers which you'd really expect to have definable polyatomic infrared bending modes would be the stable tubular and helical structures such as microtubules and DNA (but microtubules are always firmly attached to something, making any in vitro‐determined resonant mode irrelevant). The bending modes for DNA have been determined:

Lewis, Roger J. "Transient electric birefringence measurements of the rotational and internal bending modes in monodisperse DNA fragments." Macromolecules (1986)​

This experiment used a pulsed electromagnetic field to excite a DNA strand. The coiling and uncoiling motions which resulted from this pulse were measured by birefringence, the change in light polarity; this works here because DNA is helical and will rotate plane‐polarized light in proportion to its twist. Birefringence is neat, and can even be used to measure to velocity of certain chemical reactions.

'The next normal mode consists of a coupled rotational-bending motion. The frequency of this mode increases as 2 is increased. As the first mode decreases in frequency with Z and the second increases, the spacing of these modes is a sensitive function of the strength of the restoring force at the center bond.' ―Lewis​

'The Rouse-Zimm model is most applicable for very long DNAs because of their extreme contour length.' ―Lewis​

They noticed polyatomic bending mode, but also an 'untwisting' effect. I am left with the impression that a certain frequency of far infrared, at enough power, could uncoil a short double‐stranded DNA segment:

'Figure 2 shows the CONTIN analysis of birefringence data from the 762-bp fragment. With a 300·μs orienting pulse we detected two significant decay processes. The rotational peak occurred around 75 μs and constituted 51% of the decay amplitude; the next faster process at 18 μs made up another 45% of the amplitude. The small peak around 0.5–2 μs is probably an artifact, as the data collection sample time was 1·μs. The small peak at the largest decay time appeared intermittently during the fitting of data from this DNA but did not affect the location of the two principal peaks. With a 20-μs pulse we excited three modes, the first two being identical with those found with the 300-μs pulse. The fastest mode occurred around 2–5 μs, but its location was variable. It probably represents the second internal bending mode in the DNA. With a 2·μs pulse it was not possible to obtain data of sufficient precision to reproducibly resolve the decay modes. The last panel in Figure 2 shows a typical result. The small peak at 20-50 μs probably represents the very slightly excited rotational and first internal modes.'―Lewis​

So, what frequency of of the electromagnetic spectrum resonates with DNA strands? This would, of course, depend on the strand length, but it has been determined for certain lengths of polyadenosine hybrodized with polythymidine:

Bykhovskaia, Maria. "Prediction of DNA far-IR absorption spectra based on normal mode analysis." Theoretical Chemistry Accounts: Theory, Computation, and Modeling (Theoretica Chimica Acta) (2001)​

In a more straightforward study than the above, these chemists simply measured the IR resonant frequencies of DNA.

'For each resonance mode we examined deviations in the dipole moment, Pᵏ. The period of the dipole moment vibration for the strongest mode with the frequency near 60 cm⁻¹ is shown in Fig. 2. We chose this mode as an example because both (dA)₁₂·(dT)₁₂ and (dA‐dT)₆·(dA‐dT)₆ demonstrate a strong resonance frequency of 60 cm⁻¹. This mode was previously assigned to vibrations along the helix axis (z); however, Fig. 2. demonstrates that the transverse component, Pₓ, has comparable amplitude.' ―Bykhovskaia​

These used short segments of DNA, totaling twelve base pairs in length. You would expect longer DNA segments to resonate at lower frequencies. Infrared values are usually given by the wavenumber (ṽ), which is the inverse of the wavelength. For this reason, the wavenumber is more analogous to the frequency than to the wavelength.

A wavenumber of 60·cm⁻¹ equals a wavelength of.. . . λ=(¹⁄₆₀)·cm . . ..

Point zero one six‐six‐six‐six‐et cetera centimeters—corresponding to a wavelength, in nanometers, of 1.6×10⁵. This puts the DNA resonant frequency in the microwave region—but this is just an exemplary one; there are many frequencies:

click to embiggen

Even stronger, in amplitude, is one at 2.69·cm⁻¹ (corresponding to 3.7×10⁶·nm). This is still considered the infrared, but approaching radio wavelengths.

'The two low‐frequency modes of (dA)₁₂·(dT)₁₂ (2.64 and 2.69·cm⁻¹) have strengths 3–4 times greater than the average strength for the other modes. These two low‐frequency vibrations have strong P components perpendicular to the helical axis and may reflect helical bending." ―Bykhovskaia​

These long wavelengths readily permeate the skin, and may have some relevance. Below is a study detailing chromosomal breaks upon exposure of lymphocytes to radio waves at a frequency of 27.120 megaherz, corresponding to a wavelength of:

λ=c/27(10⁶)·s⁻¹

λ=3(10⁸)m·s⁻¹/27(10⁶)·s⁻¹

λ=3(10⁸)m/27(10⁶)

λ=3(10²)m/27

λ=11 meters
​

Which is about 1,000 times longer than the experimentally‐determined resonant frequency for 12·bp DNA. Nonetheless, they did find chromosomal breaks using this particular frequency:

Holm, Dan A. "The effects of non-thermal radio frequency radiation on human lymphocytes in vitro." Experientia (1970)​

You would think that with longer DNA strands, you would have longer corresponding resonant wavelengths.

"On the other hand, cultures radiated continuously for 72h demonstrated almost 7 times more chromosome breaks than did control cultures. Chromosomal aberrations (bridges) have also been observed in garlic meristematic root cells as well as increased mutation rates in Drosophila melanogaster when subjected to radio waves of similar frequency to those employed in the present investigation." ―Holm​

Are these frequencies relevant for humans? Well.. . ..the Earth does emit characteristic radio waves—as measured via satellite—of about 22 kilohertz.

Gurnett, Donald A. "The Earth as a radio source: The nonthermal continuum." Journal of Geophysical Research (1975)​

'The frequency spectrum of this radiation has a distinct peak in the 22.0-kHz channel and decreases in intensity at higher frequencies.' ―Gurnett​

But these are too long, and probably cannot be thought to interact with DNA directly. There are frequencies which come from space which are both near‐identical to those experimentally‐determined to cause chromosomal breaks (Holm, 1970) and of the resonant frequency of short double‐stranded DNA (Bykhovskaia, 2001):

Cane, H. V. "Spectra of the non-thermal radio radiation from the galactic polar regions." Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (1979)​

Radio waves can penetrate the atmosphere, and are given‐off by solar flares. George Lakhovsky has some interesting data correlating human behaviour with solar flares.

Nita, Gelu M. "Statistical study of two years of solar flare radio spectra obtained with the Owens Valley Solar Array." The Astrophysical Journal (2004)​

After averaging the radio output of 412 solar flares, Nita Gelu has determined that the maximum flux occurs at 10 GHz. This corresponds, in nanometers, to a wavelength of:

λ=c/10(10¹²)·s⁻¹​

λ=3(10⁸)m·s⁻¹/10(10¹²)·s⁻¹

λ=.3(10⁻⁴)m

λ=.3(10⁵)nm​

Which is on the order of the cosmic microwave background radiation and the experimentally‐determined resonant modes of double stranded DNA (Bykhovskaia, 2001).

The cosmic microwave background appears to peak at 5·cm⁻¹, corresponding to a wavelength of 2×10⁶·nm. This is near identical to the DNA resonant mode determined by Maria Bykhovskaia in the year 2001 for double‐stranded polyadenosone–polytyrosine of twelve base pair length.

Is this relevant? Well, you'd have to compare intensities. You'd have to compare the fluxes experimentally‐shown to interact with DNA with the cosmic microwave background and/or the solar flare intensity flux. Maria Bykhovskaia and Roger Lewis have equations which would allow you to estimate the resonance frequencies of DNA of any length, and the fluxes of cosmic microwave background and solar flares have been determined—and are easily sourced.

Think of this: maybe second messengers and stuff like that, maybe the charge field it gives off triggers the uncurling of the histones or something and allows the charge field of a specific gene relevant to said messenger protein to be released.

Or maybe the charge field of a second messenger simply makes the DNA uncurl at a specific spot and allows mRNA to know where to go.

And methylation of DNA could be a simple way of slightly altering the energy given off from the DNA.

That's interesting, considering it has been shown that certain resonant frequencies act to unfurl DNA. It does make you wonder exactly how replication is done inside the nucleus. Polyamines are well‐known to interact directly with DNA, perhaps by 'stabilization', and glutathione needs to be translocated to the nucleus for mitosis to occur.

Smirnov, Ivan V. "Polyamine-DNA interactions. Condensation of chromatin and naked DNA." Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics (1988)

Deng, Hong. "Structural basis of polyamine–DNA recognition: spermidine and spermine interactions with genomic B-DNAs of different GC content probed by Raman spectroscopy." Nucleic acids research (2000)​

Now, about microtubules: very good theory.

Well, a few physicists have promoted this idea in the past, that light does transmit through microtubules. The only part I disagree on is the details: They try to explain consciousness using the somewhat dubious concept of 'quantum nonlocality,' which I consider 'quantum woo." Famed science philosopher Karl Popper thinks the same:

Popper, Karl R. "Quantum mechanics without “the observer." Quantum theory and reality. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, (1967)​

And so does Miles Mathis.

I think that the physical light transmission should be modeled first—before any subsequent elaborate theory—based on the intermolecular distances between the fluorescent tryptophan residues in the microtubule centre, using Förster Resonance Energy Transfer equations. These are routinely used to measure the distance between trypophan residues on proteins based on the time (and the angle) it takes for light to transfer from one tryptophan indole to the other:

Ghisaidoobe, Amar BT. "Intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence in the detection and analysis of proteins: a focus on Förster resonance energy transfer techniques." International journal of molecular sciences (2014)​

I think this probably needs to be done at some point, and then compared to the experimentally‐determined nerve conduction velocity of 100 meters per second. Nothing besides microtubules can explain this high velocity, as nothing else inside of nerves is conductive. Progesterone and pregnenolone are insulators, while the peptide bond a semiconductor (at best). One is basically forced into this after having eliminated all the other, frankly impossible, scenarios.

It's not as new of an idea as one might think; I just found this article today:

Hameroff, Stuart Roy. "Ch'i: A Neural Hologram? Microtubules, Bioholography, and." American Journal of Chinese Medicine (1974)​

I especially liked what you have said about the differences in structure in steroid hormones. I've been confused how such simple differences in the molecule can have such dramatic effects. But the perspective changes everything.

Yes. I remember looking at steroids and wondering how such small modifications can have such dramatic effects. Take for instance the conversion of cortisone into cortisol: when this is modeled in two dimensions, and when viewed from the top, there appears to be very little difference at all—not enough to account for much differential affinity with the glucocorticoid receptor. By considering the geometry, this becomes comprehensible.

Kinda off topic, but how exactly do you think psychedelics interact with the microtubules? Do they add information? Could they actually be considered nootrpic? How do you think this relates to intelligence?

Do you think most neurotransmitters interact with the microtubules?

I think that the catecholamines donate electrons, while acetylcholine accepts them: splitting in two while discharging the nerve's resting potential. The catecholamines and acetylcholine are the only neurotransmitters which quickly change materially as they act.

I think serotonin forms the medium through which fluorescent light travels at microtubule junctions, or synapses. There is a protein which forms solid links between the microtubules of one cell and another called connexin. This is how I think the insides of nerves are wired: They are networks of microtubules running through mitochondria of one neuron, through it's cell membrane, attached to connexin, and then through another neuron's membrane. The protein connexin completes the circuit. Serotonin could be necessary for creating a transient junction between the microtubule structure of one cell, and that of another; this could be done through G‐protein‐coupled‐receptors, which attach to G‐protein (which, in turn, attach to microtubules). Serotonin distribution in the brain is controlled by the raphe nuclei. Drugs which lower serotonin in one part of the brain often raise it in another, and the compartmentalization seems to matter more than anything.

The 'neurotransmitters' which are fluorescent, and do not donate or receive electrons, could have this function—simple facilitators of fluorescence: molecules bridging a gap an allowing thought. Melatonin, with it's O‐linked methyl group, could perhaps quench fluorescence at the synapse. Methoxy groups quench fluorescence in the ultraviolet an visible, as they dissipate light transfer first by absorption and then emission at longer wavelengths (the labile O–C bond dampens the energy).

So I think consciousness would be better understood by studying photochemistry than by studying physics or psychiatry. Although Hameroff certainly appears to be on the right track, a good deal should be known about physiology and biochemistry before accurately modeling this light transfer. There is a small field of chemists who routinely measure tryptophan‐to‐tryptophan Förster Resonance Energy Transfer in proteins, and even more who publish articles about chemiluminescence.

Moens, Pierre DJ. "Detection of tryptophan to tryptophan energy transfer in proteins." The protein journal (2004)

Chen, Guo Nan. "Electrogenerated chemiluminescence for determination of indole and tryptophan." Analytica chimica acta (1997)

Imoto, T. "Fluorescence of lysozyme: emissions from tryptophan residues 62 and 108 and energy migration." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (1972)​

As having fluorescent bases, double‐strands of DNA could interact with light in the visible and ultraviolet range. To find‐out if this is feasible, it could be helpful to find‐out if the nucleus linked to the mitochondria through microtubules. If so, then you'd have to wonder why?

'Microtubules within cells meet at the microtubule-organizing center located adjacent to the cell nucleus' ―Junghae Suh (Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins)​

 

[Travis]

they are the best!
well, looks like I'm not posting the pic of my piles of books all mixed up crowding on the floor around book shelves LOL

At least you have books, nearly all mine got destroyed by water. But I don't mind, since there's probably about.. . ..one million times more books online—for free.

I was reading some aluminum studies today and came across this:

Good, Paul F., Daniel P. Perl. "Neuromelanin-containing neurons of the substantia nigra accumulate iron and aluminum in Parkinson's disease: a LAMMA study." Brain research (1992)​

There is an analytical technique (LAMMA) named after the llama (not really, it's an acronym for laser microprobe m**** analyzer) and I was wondering if the alpaca had an similar acronym (to not be outdone by a llama, the alpaca should win). The best I could think of was LPAC (for low‐pressure affinity chromatograpy). This has the four inner letters of the word alpaca but it is, of course, missing the outer letters.

It seems as though five letters is the limit for acronyms for chemical techniques. There appears to be no ALPACA.

And this gives me the opportunity to warn people about aluminum. This essentially causes both Alzheimer's and Parkinson's by crosslinking phosphorylated microtubule associated proteins such as tau, as well as displacing iron from it's binding sites leading to subsequent lipid peroxidation and further crosslinking (i.e. neurofibrillary tangles and Lewy bodies). There is so much evidence for this, really, that I wonder why ALCOA hasn't been banished from this planet yet (well, I suppose we do need aluminum for airplanes). Perhaps the most immediately‐convincing studies are:

Garruto, R. M. "Low-calcium, high-aluminum diet-induced motor neuron pathology in cynomolgus monkeys." Acta neuropathologica (1989)
Beal, M. F. "Neurochemical characteristics of aluminum-induced neurofibrillary degeneration in rabbits." Neuroscience (1989)​

...Because it's plainly shown to cause Alzheimer's directly—and nothing besides aluminum has ever been shown to do this.

There is also a veritable mountain of data from the fields of analytical chemistry and epidemiology for anyone not immediately convinced...

 

[Amazoniac]

The serif would be handy so that we avoid the artificial intelligence content of foods..

 

[Inaut]

bumping this thread. for @Travis

 

[Jam]

bumping this thread. for @Travis

Nice one! Fascinating thread by one of the greats.

 

[RealNeat]

Wow this is a crazy relevant thread to what's happening today. This knowledge is probably being used against us in the vaccines, as much of it is being deployed without recognizing its existence in mainstream dogma.

This slide by cowan talks about the DNA and its role and composition, similar to what is being said here;


View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Z8vGonf2UzPl/