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.

 

More Disinformation from "Reliable" Mainstream Sources about Prion Disease?

page: 3
20
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


I read an article a while back, one where I had to look up a lot of specialized words, about these changes that we cause to occur in our lifetime. This article explained how we have three copies of genetics, our primary one including all changes from the parents inherited to that point, a secondary mitochondrial copy that can be utilized if we mess up our copy, and an ancestrial copy which can have several problems because it is sort of chopped and mixed. The last copy is pretty messed up some times.

It seemed like the person who wrote the article knew quite a bit about this having references of research, that I verified some of, attached to the article. Although this is an interpretation of the evidence, I think there is a lot of truth to it. The article said that when we mess up our own genome, the copy requires going back a generation in how we process what we eat. The ancestral copy is what causes genetic hopping where we inherit traits from our grandparents and skip our parents genetics if it is found inferior or messed up.

The author said this is one of the reasons we tend to go back to eating like our ancestors ate when we get old. I thought this actually made sense. We screw up enough and we wind up losing the ability to metabolize the foods properly that we gained. I am thinking that this article was addressing epigenetic changes, not necessarily changes in the DNA.

I read another article not long back about actual DNA differences within our body. It was found that the DNA of a person's liver may be different than the DNA of the body. This was causing rejections in organ transplants. I feel the first article may explain this article, the DNA may have actually reverted back to the mitochondrial or ancestral version in the organ. This article addressed the problem with identifying people by DNA if there is different DNA present in a body, a possible legal issue. This actually does make sense to me that DNA changes in some part of the body can occur but it would have to be a familiar DNA to not be rejected.

So if you screw up from poisoning yourself, the epigenetic changes may be able to change the legal DNA is what I conclude.

You will see may or might a lot in my interpretations unless I see evidence that directly proves this being real. My consideration of evidence is when I see the evidence from the researcher and parameters of the research...which I do not always have access to.




posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


I read an article a while back, one where I had to look up a lot of specialized words, about these changes that we cause to occur in our lifetime. This article explained how we have three copies of genetics, our primary one including all changes from the parents inherited to that point, a secondary mitochondrial copy that can be utilized if we mess up our copy, and an ancestrial copy which can have several problems because it is sort of chopped and mixed. The last copy is pretty messed up some times.

... I am thinking that this article was addressing epigenetic changes, not necessarily changes in the DNA.


I vaguely recall the hypothesis - maybe an amalgamation of homology and endosymbiotic theory. As I recall, it was very much about tracking back the origins and layers of genetic inheritance to ancestral organisms NOT epigenetics. Any chance you can find the article and link? We need it.



I read another article not long back about actual DNA differences within our body. It was found that the DNA of a person's liver may be different than the DNA of the body. This was causing rejections in organ transplants. I feel the first article may explain this article, the DNA may have actually reverted back to the mitochondrial or ancestral version in the organ.


I think you may be right about the DNA reverting back to an earlier mitochondrial or ancestral variant - but suspect it's genetic not epigenetic. The original paper doesn't say anything about epigenetics although that might not mean much.

ED. to ADD: Because the "somatic mutations" tracked were non-random and occurred in different, unrelated individuals, the evidence points directly to (shared ancestral) genetic inheritance, NOT epigenetic change.

Recurrent Tissue-Specific mtDNA Mutations Are Common in Humans

…You're making lots of leaps here (not a bad thing) and need the actual references - to share and reread.








edit on 19/2/14 by soficrow because: delete wd

edit on 19/2/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


I'm probably over 50,000 articles over the last six or so years. It is hard to save and organize these articles. I may have saved a few articles to reread since they were very interesting, but I often go back and reread them to make sure I got them right then toss them out. I wasn't up on Epigenetics when I read that original article, so I am thinking I may have mixed up the genetic and epigenetics into the same soup pot at that time. They are very different things though. I first researched nutrigenomics, it is different than Epigenomics because the point of origin of the perspective seems to be different. I am going to see if I saved that article.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


...I may have mixed up the genetic and epigenetics into the same soup pot at that time. They are very different things though. I first researched nutrigenomics, it is different than Epigenomics because the point of origin of the perspective seems to be different. I am going to see if I saved that article.


Yes, genetic and epigenetic are very different things - nutrigenomics and epigenomics are also very different (apples and oranges different). Hope you can find that article - I suspect (hope) you may have posted a link on ATS?

....I applaud your interest in Nutrigenomics - and understand (I hope correctly) you are looking for treatments/solutions to all that ails us, including proteopathies. Just did a quick refresher on the field and yes, I see a great deal of merit in the approach, especially because it leads us closer to personalized medicine. However, I give it a total fail in its inability to deal with environmental assaults (contamination of any type) - as far as I can tell, nutrigenomics is entirely focused on inheritance and nutrition, which leaves out the larger environment as context - and context is critical to systems analysis. So my concern with Nutrigenomics is that yet again, "science" is blaming the victims by ignoring critical factors and offloading liability for disease onto victims by saying "health is a Personal Responsibility."

I do believe we have a lot of personal power to maintain -and regain- our health but also know that we're fighting an uphill battle. Still, any tips and tools are useful - as long as we don't make the mistake of thinking one piece of the puzzle represents the whole picture.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Yes, genetic and epigenetic are very different things - nutrigenomics and epigenomics are also very different (apples and oranges different). Hope you can find that article - I suspect (hope) you may have posted a link on ATS?

....I applaud your interest in Nutrigenomics - and understand (I hope correctly) you are looking for treatments/solutions to all that ails us, including proteopathies. Just did a quick refresher on the field and yes, I see a great deal of merit in the approach, especially because it leads us closer to personalized medicine. However, I give it a total fail in its inability to deal with environmental assaults (contamination of any type) - as far as I can tell, nutrigenomics is entirely focused on inheritance and nutrition, which leaves out the larger environment as context - and context is critical to systems analysis. So my concern with Nutrigenomics is that yet again, "science" is blaming the victims by ignoring critical factors and offloading liability for disease onto victims by saying "health is a Personal Responsibility."

I do believe we have a lot of personal power to maintain -and regain- our health but also know that we're fighting an uphill battle. Still, any tips and tools are useful - as long as we don't make the mistake of thinking one piece of the puzzle represents the whole picture.

I am looking at preventing disease, not curing it once it has become a problem. I have to study what the drugs do to find out how to prevent it. I read a scientific article and try to find the chemical they are talking about. I then research where they got the idea from, most times going back to nature. I studied where chloroquinones are found in nature, finding them in certain plants. I also saw where these work in a petri dish but not in the body well to fight prions, because of chemistry that we consume that stops their action. I looked up how to inhibit the production of this chemistry and where chloroquinones are found...a plant is the basis of this. Another fruit we commonly eat causes the breakdown of this chemical. some inhibit it. Grapefruits and oranges are involved as are sesame seeds, I would say more but I need to research this more to make sure that the articles I read are right and to try to understand more about negative side effects to this. That will be in the future.

You have to remember that these environmental changes are still part of nutrigenomics. So are the changes in the way we pick our foods. A growth hormone for forming roots during drought is missing from much of our commercial food. This chemical makes the plants grow smaller so picking plants that have mutated to not possess this chemical makes the plant have bigger yields. This is desired by industrial farmers and gardeners alike, they can brag about the big fruit they have. Our ancestors ate foods that were hardy and drought tolerant so they contained this chemical, we were all designed to have some of this in our bodies over our history on earth. Now we have lessened the concentrations of this, we cannot make it, we have to consume it or the animals we eat have to consume it. Now the animals are eating food without this special growth hormone also, so they grow bigger and fatter without the blood vessel growth that this chemical promotes in the brown fat. You see, I take these things into consideration. Not only the chemicals that we have added but the chemicals that we have subtracted from our food. So what I study is a cross between nutrigenomics and epigenomics knowing that changes in these promote changes to DNA after a while.

My interest is not necessarily to memorize names of things, it is to learn to loosely and diversely apply what I learn to the real world. I believe in evolution yet I do not believe in the theory of evolution they teach, probably because I know that environmental factors can very quickly cause evolution to occur...both positive and negative changes. I also know that desire and belief is to be considered in this, we can believe our way out of some health issues by mentally correcting the frequency we vibrate at.

Everything I read or have experienced in my life is considered in how I evaluate this information. I lost automatic with the TLE so now I am investigating what automatic is. My cravings were altered. This has to do with newly introduced types of attractants in food throughout the food chain. People do not understand that our bodies are so complicated that we will never truely understand the automatic responses necessary to correct the chemistry that goes awry. With all the changes occurring in our food chemistry on a broadform basis, only a few can tolerate these changes. If you ate a big variety of food when you were young, you have a better chance of there being protective knowledge in the primordial regions of the brain, what we call the subconscious. If we do not connect with this region and understand a little of what it is trying to tell us, it will have negative consequences. I think when we get old, we lose the ability to automaticly find the antidote. We get set in our ways which means we do not try new chemistry to correct this problem. Now the young are open minded, having experimented with ways to neutralize adverse effects. We need to watch what the kids are consuming.

Take for instance taurine in energy drinks. It is needed along with sodium and chloride to clean toxins out of the cells. Medicines are based on the knowledge of what taurine does. we cannot make this unless we can live symbiotically with the microbes that convert it or if we make the enzymes that can take apart NAC. We can also consume it but it means we must eat raw meats. Chicken soup makes NAC if prepared right, even though it is cooked, but not necessarily taurine. Now the missing taurine makes us more susceptible to insulin resistance and bloating, it is also needed to help us pee. So, the energy drinks contain this. WHO has extensively tested the synthetic version that is used in these drinks and does say it is safe. I trust WHO more than the FDA but even the FDA does consider it safe if used in moderation. Moderation is critical, we cannot consume raw meat on a full time basis or we will always be peeing out electrolytes, causing deficiencies. I think this falls apart at about somewhere about a hundred twenty degrees F.

All of these things have to be considered, even the desire of the young when evaluating health. It is important to understand that some of this new chemistry requires neutralizing, and it can be done. Fads get in the way of logical thinking but you can learn from fads also, mostly of what goes wrong.

Sorry for getting off topic. I could write ten books on metabolic pathways and neutralizing and balancing chemistry. The subject is continuously being altered too, every time they find a chemical causes problems, they silently take it off the market and introduce something that has no evidence to prove it is bad...most of these chemicals are used to keep fresh foods from oxidizing.



















edit on 20-2-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


soficrow
reply to post by rickymouse
 


...I may have mixed up the genetic and epigenetics into the same soup pot at that time. They are very different things though. I first researched nutrigenomics, it is different than Epigenomics because the point of origin of the perspective seems to be different. I am going to see if I saved that article.


Yes, genetic and epigenetic are very different things - nutrigenomics and epigenomics are also very different (apples and oranges different). Hope you can find that article - I suspect (hope) you may have posted a link on ATS?

....I applaud your interest in Nutrigenomics - and understand (I hope correctly) you are looking for treatments/solutions to all that ails us, including proteopathies. Just did a quick refresher on the field and yes, I see a great deal of merit in the approach, especially because it leads us closer to personalized medicine. However, I give it a total fail in its inability to deal with environmental assaults (contamination of any type) - as far as I can tell, nutrigenomics is entirely focused on inheritance and nutrition, which leaves out the larger environment as context - and context is critical to systems analysis. So my concern with Nutrigenomics is that yet again, "science" is blaming the victims by ignoring critical factors and offloading liability for disease onto victims by saying "health is a Personal Responsibility."

I do believe we have a lot of personal power to maintain -and regain- our health but also know that we're fighting an uphill battle. Still, any tips and tools are useful - as long as we don't make the mistake of thinking one piece of the puzzle represents the whole picture.


lol. Read your response thinking, "Didn't I write that?" Turns out I did (the first 3 paragraphs anyway).



posted on Feb, 21 2014 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


I am talking more about the distant past when genetics were being steered. This I know from personal experience and have heard deep research into the subject. I love the east, the people are astoundingly beautiful.



posted on Feb, 22 2014 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Reread my previous response to your questions. Realized I misspoke when I said, "We're in the middle of a chronic disease pandemic that has nothing to do with peoples' genetic bloodlines; 85-90% of the protein mutations causing these diseases are epigenetic, not genetic."

In fact, 85-90% of the protein mutations causing these diseases are not inherited. Of the 10-15% that are inherited, a good percentage are not inherited genetically; the protein mutations are inherited epigenetically without any changes to the genetic code.

Again, protein mutations can and do occur without mutations in the genetic code.



new topics




 
20
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join