It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Global Pandemic of the Positive Kind.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Having been involved in research into the human Genome project there are a number of discoveries that have not been released as of yet.

The biggest of these discoveries is that all the methods known to produce extension of life span all have a common link.

That link is the reduction of free radicals, the waste products created by the mitochondrion

Free radicals cause damage to DNA and so can cause mutation - it is this mutation that causes the effects of old age.

Life forms that have long life spans in proportion to their body size all exhibit enhanced ways of destroying free radicals.

Now for the BIG NEWS.....

We have identified a gene that is present in all mammals, when this gene is switched on it produces an Enzyme that will hunt and soak up excess free radicals within the body.

This method does not reduce the amount of free radicals the mitochondrion produces but will seriously reduce the amount that enter our bodies through our food / drink and everyday living.

The effects of this???

Double or even triple Life span....

It has already been tested on mice and shown to work.

Will it work on Humans???

Well if it works for mice then it normally means that it would work for us too so I am willing to bet yes it will work.

Now for the BEST NEWS EVER!!!!

This is something that can happen to all that are alive today. It is possible to create a proto virus that will enter the body and literally switch this gene on.....

now for the mind blowing stuff......

So will this ever happen??

YES!!! and there is nothing the governments of the world or the rich or any body can do about it. why???

Because this proto virus once released could not be contained, it will be transmitted around the world without the need for a conscious effort. a global pandemic of the positive kind.

This is not fantasy, this is potential of an actual true to life discovery. Now is the best time to be alive in the history of the world.

HOWEVER.....

Our society has to change, life has a very different meaning the moment you could live to 160 - 250 years....

One thing is for sure, we would have to have better control over our population and our environment to be able to make a success out of it.

But just think, what if people such as Einstein could have lived just a little longer, what would his discoveries have been?

How much more accelerated our development as a species would be???

That is the exciting part about all this, we could all achieve so much more the moment we live longer.

I hope that puts some spring in your steps and a smile on your faces just one thing.... PLEASE PLEASE BE CAREFULL it would be an awful shame to die by an accident at this point, take good care of you in this moment and you will have the chance to do all the things you want to.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe




posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 07:15 AM
link   
I read about the experiments with the mice. But do we have a great enough knowlage of bio technolagy to create such a virus?



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
I've read up on some of Aubrey degrays work and Ray Kurzweils articles and I do believe that an extended lifespan and possibly even immortality is within the grasp of the human species. Even if we are only able to add 20 the current lifespan this in effect would allow people to perhaps live long enough until the next breakthrough is discovered which could add 40 years, which would allow people time until the next breakthrough which could add another 40 and so on and so on, until virtual immortality is attained.

Obviously if you die in a skydiving accident at 158 years old you'll still be dead so you wont be immortal in the sense that you cannot die, it's just that you will not die from the effects of aging and decaying organs.

Another interesting thing that has been discovered about the nature of ageing is that it is reversible. This sounds like complete nonsense but according to the Scientists that are studying in this field you could literally grow backwards and then halt at an age which suits you. You could have the body and appearance of a 21 year old but actually be 158 years old.


This is a topic that I enjoy reading about, it gives me hope that I even if I cannot enjoy a long healthy lifespan (although at 31 I'd like to hope for at least some sort of health extension), my daughter might. I only hope this information isn't suppressed and made only available to the Elite and the super-rich which is a huge possibility seeing as that's how it works for mostly everything else on this planet.


Here's a good video on the subject, it's a lengthy 1hour 45 minutes but it's worth the time if you are interested in this subject.

video.google.com...



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
This method does not reduce the amount of free radicals the mitochondrion produces but will seriously reduce the amount that enter our bodies through our food / drink and everyday living.

That is not possible.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Why don't you tell us about the structure of the enzyme or simply its name ? i have my own thoughts on the subject and i can't rule it out.

btw, there is one enzyme which would come in handy for humans at least: L-gulone lactone oxidase



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
It was brought to my attention (from another website) that this post was here.

I'd love some sources, but most of all I am curious as to the technical information regarding this.

What chromosome is the gene on, at what university is this research occuring, and what is the enzyme?

U2U me if need be, thanks.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Is disturbing the natural flow of life and death a good thing? - After all, if people last longer on this planet and the same amount of newborn are added, its kind of obvious that the world would get overpopulated much, much sooner.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:11 PM
link   
no, in fact longer youthful lifespan would greatly reduce the pressure on people to have families early seeing as they'd simply have more time, and the net effect would be that people on average are older and therefore more experienced, which is a good thing.


The only downside of age is physical degradation, get rid of it and....


PS: using a virus is imho a primitive and hazardous way to do it, ever heard of horizontal gene transfer? similar methods would come in handy. as for disturbing hte natural flow, i don't think altering ourselves counts as such, doing it to plants and animals otoh...



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Sorry that isn't possible. I can now im a molecular biology student ok?
You totally misread literature. Plz read slower and mor carefull. The "virus" can't infect anything but the cells the get into contact with because they have been weakened. They can't replicate so can't spread.

If they replicated they would kill every cell they genetically modify or cause the immune system to attack those cell. What would be the point?

Also no mouse have been made to live 2x or 3x their lifespan by increasing antioxidants. At most 1.3X if I remember correct.

Also, free radicals usually are not found in your food. Some substances can generate free radicals in your body though, especially water peroxide and oxygen.

To make matters worse; free radicals might actually be necessary. NO* is a free radical which the body uses as a messenger molecule. If you would terminate this completely it would not be good. Othe free radicals are used by the immune system to attack pathogens, cancer cells and infected cells.

People that take large dosages of anti-oxidants have actually been found to have a worse disease outcome than people without anti-oxidants! Why? Supposedly because the cancercells use the very antioxidants as protection agaisnt the immunesystem.

Even people that are heavy smokers or have any extreme risk on cancer have a higher chance to get cancer if they take high dosages of antioxidants. Because even healthy people get little non-malevolent cancergrowths throughout their life, or at least most people should. your immune system terminates those pre-malevolent cancer cells before they turn truely dangerous. Antioxidants in high dosage will protect those very same cancer cells, and there might be other factors involved too.

There are ways you can make organisms live longer but this is not the right path. You need to get cells to repair damage; that will work.



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Kipman - Yes we do actually have the techniques necessary to engineer from scratch viruses. These viruses will infect cells and create RNA which would produce the amino acids necessary for the enzyme.

Bramski – Thank for your contribution – Yes you are completely right, the emphasis here is on what to do with the life once we have it, and of course we should always plough back in what we sow (so to speak). If you follow me.


Thain Esh Kelch – That was quite a short post…. Why do you think it is not possible?? Do you have some information?? What I can tell you is that there are a lot of people working on this right now as we speak, so I would not be so quick to dismiss the idea. It may take some people a while to get used to the idea but believe me its coming.

Long Lance – The name of the gene in mice is P66shc – The name of the enzyme I am unsure of, but I do know that it has a very similar effect to Oligomeric proanthocyanidins.

Quest – Interesting that you were directed here from another site. If you like u2u me the site, would like to read that one 

Check out this: -

LEF

Reallynobody – Thank you for your contribution, but by your own admission you are a student. I do read very carefully believe me, I have done 7-8 years of solid reading on the subject. What’s more is, you have to learn to read in between the lines, or zoom out to a bigger picture. Sounds cliché but it is the only way to progress.

Firstly let me address your virus issue. There is a risk with using viruses to alter cells, that risk is the immune system is adept at attacking what it knows should not be there. However… There are many ways to overcome this, such as allowing the virus to mutate in a controlled way, the immune system would not be able to generate the correct antibodies fast enough.

The danger with experimentation on this type of proto virus is of course global pandemic of the negative kind… But aren’t we already facing that with so called bird flu……..????

I would also like to address what you said about free radicals… I’m afraid to say you are wrong. Free radicals enter our bodies almost as readily as they are produced by it.

This is a short list of free radical sources…

1. Foods subjected to high heat (especially animal products (chickens and other birds, cows, pigs, fishes, lambs, eggs, dairy products, animal fats and proteins, and metabolic waste products contained in animal tissues and organs) and refined foods such as white sugar, white flours, hydrogenated oils, etc.)

2. Environmental pollution (from air, water, household chemicals, asbestos, pesticide residues, & other man-made pollutants including the out-gassing of plastic and other synthetics)

3. Preservatives, Colorings, and other food additives

4. Smoking and passive smoke

5. Exposure to excess heat or cold

6. Metabolism

Hope that is of interest.

All the best people.

NeoN HaZe.

[edit on 5-7-2006 by Neon Haze]



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Reallynobody – Thank you for your contribution, but by your own admission you are a student. I do read very carefully believe me, I have done 7-8 years of solid reading on the subject. What’s more is, you have to learn to read in between the lines, or zoom out to a bigger picture. Sounds cliché but it is the only way to progress.

No offence but I know how to learn thank you very much.



Firstly let me address your virus issue. There is a risk with using viruses to alter cells, that risk is the immune system is adept at attacking what it knows should not be there. However… There are many ways to overcome this, such as allowing the virus to mutate in a controlled way, the immune system would not be able to generate the correct antibodies fast enough.

The danger with experimentation on this type of proto virus is of course global pandemic of the negative kind… But aren’t we already facing that with so called bird flu……..????


When did I say I wanted to do that! I posted remarks saying it was NOT possible.

The so called "viruses" used to alter genetics of cells are no longer capable of reproducing, they are only a very small genetic code derived from viruses. The most used type of derivate are called transposons. They can't start any epidemic, each transposon particle can only infect a single cell at max, with a high chance it will fail. It doesn't insert any virus genes other than the relevant gene and perhaps a few assistance splicing into the cells genome.

There is no way you will get an epidemic from a transposon.


I would also like to address what you said about free radicals… I’m afraid to say you are wrong. Free radicals enter our bodies almost as readily as they are produced it.


It seems unlikely to me. Sure heating can cause free radicals in food, but many foods, (even cooked meat) has natural antioxidants in it as well. I think the majority are produced in the body, not entering the body through food. And I was talking about food, not smoking, which does more damage through other chemicals than any free radicals it causes.

[edit on 5-7-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by reallynobody
When did I say I wanted to do that! I posted remarks saying it was NOT possible.

The so called "viruses" used to alter genetics of cells are no longer capable of reproducing, they are only a very small genetic code derived from viruses. The most used type of derivate are called transposons. They can't start any epidemic, each transposon particle can only infect a single cell at max, with a high chance it will fail. It doesn't insert any virus genes other than the relevant gene and perhaps a few assistance splicing into the cells genome.

There is no way you will get an epidemic from a transposon.


Don’t want to get into an argument about things such as transposition as it just doesn't work that way.

With the kind of virus I’m talking about we are in control over every aspect of it and all the properties the virus has. It would not need to replicate it's self more than is necessary, only enough to cause a cascade genome change in the organism.

Your remarks about not causing an epidemic are short sighted and frankly incorrect. Have you not yet studied the multiple versions of viruses that exist in nature?

Why do you think the SARS scare was so scary?

Why do you think that there is a constant watch on the AIDS virus to ensure it doesn't suddenly mutate into a small enough form to become air born?

Why do you think we expect a bird flu epidemic??

I am happy that you read this post but please refrain from saying NOT or CAN'T just because a prof or whoever said it can't be done.

Man kind has only ever moved forward by beating Can’t and Doesn’t and won't and making them into Yes's and Do's and DOES.

Hope that makes sense.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
Don’t want to get into an argument about things such as transposition as it just doesn't work that way.

With the kind of virus I’m talking about we are in control over every aspect of it and all the properties the virus has. It would not need to replicate it's self more than is necessary, only enough to cause a cascade genome change in the organism.


There is no such thing as a virus you are in control of at every step. One single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), can radically change the virus, and you have no way of controlling whether this occurs or not. This is the reason we still monitor H5N1. It had made 12 key mutations, and there aare I believe 5 other key mutations it may make which would allow it to transmit from human to human.


Your remarks about not causing an epidemic are short sighted and frankly incorrect. Have you not yet studied the multiple versions of viruses that exist in nature?


I think you're being a bit critical of reallynobody here. He/She has actually presented some fairly solid logic here, based on modern scientific research. It coincides with all my undergrad and doctoral virology work.


Why do you think the SARS scare was so scary?


Because, as I mentioned earlier, we can never contorl or predict a virus or it's SNP events.


Why do you think that there is a constant watch on the AIDS virus to ensure it doesn't suddenly mutate into a small enough form to become air born?


This statement is very telling of your expertise. The key to the virus becoming airborne is not a matter of size, it's a matter of the viral coat. THAT is why we watch and stufy HIV-1 and HIV-2 so closely. They both mutate very rapidly; one bad SNP and the virus could toughen up enough to survive outside the body for more than it's current ability.


Why do you think we expect a bird flu epidemic??


I wasn't aware we were "expecting" it. As far as myself and the rest of my newly graduated medical class, we are simply watching, not expecting, H5N1. It has infected a relatively small number of people, and hasn't shown any positive signs of human-human transmission other than the one report out of Indonesia, which has yet to be confirmed.


Man kind has only ever moved forward by beating Can’t and Doesn’t and won't and making them into Yes's and Do's and DOES.


I think it would be mroe accurate to say we have moved forward by putting more stipulations on "can't" and "doesn't". There are some ver hard and fast boundaries in science which I doubt will ever be rewritten, such as controlling nature and viruses, but there are certainly fields where the "can't"s could be turned into "possibly"s.

Mariella



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Free radicals, of course, are also involved in the bodies anti-cancer system. They're not merely waste.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsl4doc

There is no such thing as a virus you are in control of at every step. One single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), can radically change the virus, and you have no way of controlling whether this occurs or not. This is the reason we still monitor H5N1. It had made 12 key mutations, and there are I believe 5 other key mutations it may make which would allow it to transmit from human to human.


We cannot be in control of viruses that occur in nature because its is exactly that nature. You can no more predict mutations in a natural occurring virus for the exactly same reasons you cannot accurately predict many other aspects of nature.

However, I am not talking about a virus that is naturally occurring. I am talking about a synthetic virus. a Virus that has been constructed in the lab. This would have the ability to mutate but only in a limited range of iterations of itself. any other un authorised mutation would produce an incoherent pattern and the virus would simply decay.

This is not something that you would have learned about in any medical class as it is something that is totally cutting edge. And forgive me for being a little rude but my understanding on this subject is not at question here, by my own admissions I cannot know everything, however I am in the loop with some very in touch people. And trust me from what I do know this stuff has very very big potential.


This statement is very telling of your expertise. The key to the virus becoming airborne is not a matter of size, it's a matter of the viral coat. THAT is why we watch and stuffy HIV-1 and HIV-2 so closely. They both mutate very rapidly; one bad SNP and the virus could toughen up enough to survive outside the body for more than it's current ability.


It is true HIV can't survive for long outside the body in its current form. But I said AIRBORN which not only requires length of time spent outside the body but also the physical size of the AIDS virus would have to shrink to a smaller size to be transmitted through the air like FLU.


I wasn't aware we were "expecting" it. As far as myself and the rest of my newly graduated medical class, we are simply watching, not expecting, H5N1. It has infected a relatively small number of people, and hasn't shown any positive signs of human-human transmission other than the one report out of Indonesia, which has yet to be confirmed.


I think most respectable authorities on this subject resign themselves to saying its a matter of WHEN not IF....

as I said before... ZOOM OUT start to look past today at tomorrow. Look at the trend and follow your instincts... are you SURE that you can say you are not expecting a pandemic???


I think it would be more accurate to say we have moved forward by putting more stipulations on "can't" and "doesn't". There are some very hard and fast boundaries in science which I doubt will ever be rewritten, such as controlling nature and viruses, but there are certainly fields where the "can't"s could be turned into "possibly"s..


The very reason Mankind has been able to get so far in the past 150 years is by proving the can'ts are cans!!!

I mean how many people do you think said to the right brothers "you can't fly"? or to the Maid of Orleans that she couldn't fight? or to the person that ran a mile in 4 mins etc etc etc....

When ever mankind has pushed against a boundary, what happens?? Of course we find a way. it defines us, Its who we are. If not for that then we would have given up the moment we hurt our hands trying to make a stone knife back in the Stone Age.

Now the boundary is our own age and I say we will overcome it.

That is the Bigger picture - look at that not the tiny obstacles in our way cause sure enough we will overcome them.

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Free radicals, of course, are also involved in the bodies anti-cancer system. They're not merely waste.


Hey there Nygdan,

Good to see you.

It is true that some free radicals are needed by the body. just as the body has bacteria working for it on the inside too.

But it's the excessive amounts of free radicals that causes the damage to DNA. And unfortunately for us our every day life ensures there are more than enough free radicals in our bodies to cause ageing.

I am not proposing we destroy all free radicals, this would be harmful, We only need to soak up the excess to be able to extend our lives.

all the best,

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
It is true that some free radicals are needed by the body. just as the body has bacteria working for it on the inside too.

But it's the excessive amounts of free radicals that causes the damage to DNA. And unfortunately for us our every day life ensures there are more than enough free radicals in our bodies to cause ageing.

I am not proposing we destroy all free radicals, this would be harmful, We only need to soak up the excess to be able to extend our lives.


Dude, you can't just soak up free radicals selectively. The best approximation would be additional high expression antioxidant genes which shut down locally whenever there is an infection or cancer. But how do you make certain that the cancer doesn't reactivate those genes?

And there are other uses for free radicals still. According to one study, free radicals are required for the differentiation of muscle stem cells, who need to replace, or fuse with, muscle fibers in order to repair muscle damage. That kind of damage causes a surge in free radicals, so that makes sense. That means that you need to keep surges in free radicals in muscle cells. And who knows how many systems exist that monitors free radicals in order to decide when to become active?

You need to be aware of all these systems before you can plan to get rid of free radicals all together.

Besides, free radicals are not the only cause of aging. Muscle stem cells in elderly people stop dividing so they can't repair damage, and loose muscle quickly. Interestingly those same stem cells (muscle satelite cells) are still capable of dividing in vitro (in cellculture), which means that apparently the conditions in elderly people are a bigger factor for aging of muscle than the damage to the cells themselves. Certain chemical signals produced by the body seem to increase, others decrease.

Who knows how many other tissues are more affected by a changing environment than the actual damage done to the cells? Although that damage would still matter ofcourse, it could very well be that aging is directly programmed into human bodies rather than merely the result of gradual damage over time.

So perhaps we should gather some more information before making extreme freaky changes ok? If you want to do something you can take small amounts of antioxidant. That is indeed healthy as long as you do not suffer from increased cancer riskfactors. I think additional antooxidants can slow healing of bonefractures as well, but I'm not certain and am too busy to check it right now.

Stopping aging is possible I'm sure, but you really have to be an biotech expert or academic to even begin to understand how difficult it is. Sorry, no matter how much or long you read on the subject, you can't understand the process because you only read about your interests; a very limited amount of processes which is blamed popularly for aging.

Academics are taught subjects that they might never want to bother with initially but later understand how much it increased their general understanding of all biological processes. Not to mention that we are trained how to read, how to study and how to understand, not just to memorize facts.

Totally unrelated I happen to start an intership in two weeks on the aging of muscle in elderly people and the influence of free radical stress. When the results get published in 9 months i can sent you a copy of the article.




[edit on 6-7-2006 by reallynobody]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
However, I am not talking about a virus that is naturally occurring. I am talking about a synthetic virus. a Virus that has been constructed in the lab. This would have the ability to mutate but only in a limited range of iterations of itself. any other un authorised mutation would produce an incoherent pattern and the virus would simply decay.


Unfortunately, you are a bit out of the loop on this one. Yes, we can "create" viruses in laboratories, but that are not wholly new creations. They are T-even phages that have had their genetic package altered through transfection, thus allowing us to confer resistance or other genetic information on bacteria. Some work has been done on using a similar method for mammalian cells. The only problem is, we cannot control the mutations. I worked on this for three years at the post-graduate level, up until about 2 months ago. Even though we alter the genetic package to your liking, we do not b any means have the ability to control the SNP that occur within the virus. This is why whole batches have to be thrown out when a mutant is shown to exist.


This is not something that you would have learned about in any medical class as it is something that is totally cutting edge.


Actually, it is not cutting edge, it's about 7-8 years old theory and technology and is VERY commonly taught in medical schools worldwide. The "cutting edge" part is making the leap from bacteriophages to human and mammalian viruses.


And forgive me for being a little rude but my understanding on this subject is not at question here, by my own admissions I cannot know everything, however I am in the loop with some very in touch people. And trust me from what I do know this stuff has very very big potential.


Riiight....I always love it when people use the "trust me, I know people" line when they are backed into a corner.


It is true HIV can't survive for long outside the body in its current form. But I said AIRBORN which not only requires length of time spent outside the body but also the physical size of the AIDS virus would have to shrink to a smaller size to be transmitted through the air like FLU.


Flu virus ranges in size from 80-120 nm.Linky

HIV is roughly 105-125 nm. Linky

Same size. So, in short, you are wrong. It is not SIZE that determines airborne ability, it is the virus's ability to survive outside the body. Please don't make assumptions you cannot back up with basic science.

As an interesting aside, just to FURTHER prove my point, take a look at this.
Smallpox, which is able to be spread via droplets in confined spaces, which HIV cannot, is actually almost THREE TIMES LARGER than HIV (302-350nm).

So, can you please explain to us all how size is an issue if a 300% larger virus can be spread via droplets, but the smaller one cannot? Didn't think so.


I think most respectable authorities on this subject resign themselves to saying its a matter of WHEN not IF....

as I said before... ZOOM OUT start to look past today at tomorrow. Look at the trend and follow your instincts... are you SURE that you can say you are not expecting a pandemic???


There is a HUGE difference between being prepared for and expecting a pandemic. Expecting would imply clinics being stocked, people being vaccinated, drugs being stockpiled, that sort of thing. We are simply prepared in CASE it were to happen. We, meaning the medical staff, have been trained in emergency triage regardless of discipline, basic viral support care, and the related medical material. This is much different than seeing the dark shadow of avian flu slowly creeping over Europe. That is not expected. We are no more expecting a pandemic than we are war with China. Sure, it's a possibility, but a remote one.


The very reason Mankind has been able to get so far in the past 150 years is by proving the can'ts are cans!!!


Actually, I'd always been told the reason was serendipitious discovery...


I mean how many people do you think said to the right brothers "you can't fly"?


And I wonder how many people told the wrong brothers that, as well? But, I guess they wouldn't make the history books, hehe.



or to the Maid of Orleans that she couldn't fight? or to the person that ran a mile in 4 mins etc etc etc....


I fail to see what either of those have to do with basic tenents of biology and chemistry. Oh, wait, you're going for the pointless sympathetic "we can do it if we try" angle. You know, my parents always told me I could be anything I wanted to if I tried hard enough, which is exactly what you are saying. I can't be a bird, no matter the fact that I wanted to badly to be one when I was a child. Same goes for your subject, you can't invent laws of biology just by wanting to.


When ever mankind has pushed against a boundary, what happens?? Of course we find a way. it defines us, Its who we are. If not for that then we would have given up the moment we hurt our hands trying to make a stone knife back in the Stone Age.


We've been trying for how long to break the light speed barrier? Or to create gold from lead? Or to bring peace to the Middle East?


Now the boundary is our own age and I say we will overcome it.


That's great. Don't hold your breath, though.


That is the Bigger picture - look at that not the tiny obstacles in our way cause sure enough we will overcome them.


So now basic laws of biology/chemistry/physics are "tiny obstacles"? Wow, Einstein is spinning in his grave...

Mariella



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
These last two posts are totally indicative of the type of obstacles Science has from within.

I am totally tired of people saying you can't do this you can't do that.

example -

Lightspeed? hmmmm interesting.. matter cannot go faster than light?? but what if matter could travel a physical distance faster than light by travelling sub luminar speeds??

I.E Wormhole... Hence we travel faster than light without being hit square in the face by e=mc2.... So we find a WAY... it's not physically possible today as we have to harness massive power to do so but there IS A WAY... it IS Possible..

I also find that here on ATS there are so many people that are there to totally trash a thread by just taking the exact opposite view to the original post.

I would say that this thread is suffering from this somewhat.

my best advice is stop being so negative!! Stop trying to prove you are cleverer than others and most of all stop trying to mislead others by saying that things are not true when you have no evidence of any consequences to back up your negative replies firmly enough.

The Key is beyond reasonable doubt.... so you can conclusively say that it is not possible?

If however you wish to check out what I'm saying... why not try by typing some of the things I have discussed here straight into Google....

No matter what I say there are those who will take the total opposite view and quote so called reasons why not.

My message to those people would be --- OPEN YOUR MIND --- perhaps information that goes beyond your established views is valid.

NeoN HaZe.


[edit on 7-7-2006 by Neon Haze]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
So, in short, you can't disprove anything I have said. Am I right in assuming that, since your post didn't address the fact that I proved you wrong about airborne ability being related to size or any of the other very basic virology you apparently don't really know?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join