Thing One and Thing Two

 

So let’s summarize most of the March and April posts I’ve done here. What are “Thing 1” and “Thing 2” here? Do you know? Does anybody else know? Are they being discussed in any reputable scientific journals, blogs, or any other forum beside this one? If they are and you know about it, please share this information with me.

Here’s a second picture. Now, what exactly are these “things”? Call em “Thing 3’s”, if you wish. They look all the world like a string of yeast cells and most scientists would agree with that. The only problem is that they were not there, initially. Now here is where the plot thickens a bit. Most scientists would say they that they were there to begin with and I just didn’t see them beforehand; in other words, poor technique and observation on my part. However, the simplest hypothesis is not always the best hypothesis. Scientists who engage in long term tissue culture generally will not use antibiotics for their main cultures because doing so only covers up bad technique which will eventually result in gross contamination of their entire cultures with antibiotic resistant bacteria and/or fungi. I avoided antibiotics whenever possible for that very reason. Let me reiterate: Anybody who has ever used tissue culture in their laboratories knows what eventually happens even when antibiotics are being used: They don’t get subtle, scattered contamination as seems to have occurred with Things 3 in the above photo. When the tissue culture flask is removed from the incubator, what they have is fungi trying to unscrew the cap to get out. The thing is totally loaded up with either fungi, bacteria or both; nothing subtle about it. Put a sample under the microscope and you wouldn’t be able to see the forests for the trees.

Let’s wrap this up with one more picture out of the many that are on this blog: There is so much going on here that I won’t even attempt to label everything. There are little circles of whatever flying away from a bigger circle of whatever encompassing an intricate network of “whatevers”. I could go on and on with this but I think you get the point: There is a hell of a lot going on here that nobody seems to be talking about but me. Again, if they are, I would appreciate it if somebody would let me know.

So here is my summation in a nutshell: The problem here is not scientific discovery per se, but censorship and dismissal of “inconvenient” scientific discovery. You know, kind of like climate change denial and drug studies that dispute drug side effects and effectiveness. This seems to be a deep and abiding problem that is exacerbated by the way scientists are rewarded or punished for their efforts. In fact, it has crossed the line into the realms of extortion, fraud, and reckless criminality. Instead of addressing the problem, our government continues to cut into the red meat of scientific funding, rewarding only those efforts that are little more than corporate commercials for drugs, oil companies, or whatever.  You know this is true. Real scientists are starved for money while the government can’t throw enough red meat at the military industrial complex and other unsustainable freeloading corporations who destroy the landscape for nefarious reasons that only make sense to the criminally insane.

I, for one, would like to understand what is going on with all of the structures shown here and on the rest of this blog. I think it is critically important to understand what they are, where they come from, and what function they have in a living cell. How are we ever going to cure diseases if we refuse to understand how cells are actually put together? I am hoping someone out there is willing to help me to do this or knows someone who might. After all, even the elite are but mere mortals. Old Rockefeller just kept butting his head up against a stone wall, thinking that if he just had enough heart transplants he could live forever. He was wrong. Quantity is no substitute for quality, and money is no substitute for the truth.

Advertisements

About frankabernathy

I am a retired cell biologist and alumnus of Ohio State University. I became interested in chromosomes as far back as the 1960's when I wrote a term paper on the effects of radiomimetic drugs on chromosomes. I was fascinated at how they could break apart and reform new structures so easily. I became further involved in the early 1970's after taking a cytogenetics course at the University of Arkansas. I took that knowledge with me to Ohio State in 1980 where I eventually worked on my research and completed my Ph.D. dissertation, "Studies on Eukaryotic DNA Superstructure". My studies and later research suggested that the DNA within the eukaryotic chromosome is not the simple, linear molecular thread so widely suggested in all the classic textbooks published today. Instead, it may be the culmination of a geologically rapid set of endosymbiotic events where microorganisms plug into each other to create something greater than themselves. Feel free to contact me at fabernathy@sbcglobal.net.
This entry was posted in endosymbionts, evolution, Fallacies in science, What are they?. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s