What does it mean to have an “open” mind?

A friend of mine once said that having an open mind is like having an open sewer. I assume what he meant by that was all that unfiltered raw data just flows right in and becomes randomly assimilated into some kind of unrecognizable, grotesque intellectual morass. I suppose that could happen, but it’s still a risk we have to take because otherwise, we have to assume a closed mind is better.  A closed mind means many or all topics are strictly off limits, unless of course those with the closed minds are the ones proselytizing to you. A closed mind usually begins early in life when young brains are very much open to new ideas and experiences. Once input is received and synaptic connections are case hardened, it becomes extremely difficult to re-wire them with any conflicting ideas no matter how innocuous those ideas may seem to be in the eyes of the presenter. To a closed mind, such ideas or trigger words are merely trojan horses that can only lead them down the road to perdition. This can lead to reflexive inflammatory rhetoric that, more often than not, is directed at the messenger rather than the message in order to intimidate and shut him up, i.e. censorship. It can even lead to violent confrontation and war.

But what about scientists, aren’t they trained to be open minded? Uh, this also happens to people who call themselves scientists. Unfortunately, they have an added layer of protection because they presume themselves to be “educated” and hence immune to the stifling confines of a closed mind. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We all suffer from this malady, with a tendency to gravitate toward the baseline of having a completely closed mind as we calcify with age. The more you surround yourself with like minded people and their opinions, the more closed minded you become. Striving for an open mind is extremely hard work. You need to be able to look at unvarnished facts in a honest way with no preconceptions. Of course, this is impossible to do for a number of reasons: How do you find “unvarnished” facts? Where do you look for them? When you “find” them, how do you know just how unvarnished they really are? The short answer is you don’t know any of this. Even the most brilliant, honest open minded scientist cannot be sure of his own data, much less anybody else’s data. They tell you this fact in the discussion section of every research paper they get published via peer review.

So what to do? You must be skeptical, not only of others, but of yourself as well. Who is presenting this “data”? Do they have an agenda beyond trying to get at the truth? What, if anything, do they gain by converting you over to their way of thinking? Are they just arguing to win a verbal contest or does anything they have to say resonate with truth?

I’m almost 70 years old, so I’ve been around the block a time or two. This much I can say with a reasonable degree of accuracy: If what some people are doing makes absolutely no sense, somebody is probably making a lot of money off of it; and chances are they’re not coming by it honestly. Worse still, some people want to burn the world down and remake it in their own image. If they ever took the time to look into a mirror with an open mind, they would see what a horrendous mistake that would be.

Best regards,

Frank

Advertisements
Posted in Fallacies in science, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Liberals can be intolerant to science just like conservatives

I’ll let this article speak for itself.

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/study-liberals-deny-science-just-much-conservatives

Posted in Fallacies in science | Leave a comment

There are no dumb questions.

This post is about one of the many comments I have been receiving regarding certain posts that strike a chord with people. Here is the link to that post: Can the Linear Chromosome Model Be Saved?

“Fantastic post however , I was wanting to know if you could write a
litte more on this subject? I’d be very grateful if you could elaborate
a bit further. Thank you!”

The author to that comment has been labeled “Anonymous” because they either placed links in the “Author” heading or some kind of commercial verbiage.  Since all of my posts are free to the public, (I make no money from ads put on here by WordPress), I have to insist that authors refrain from pushing products or services in their comments. Otherwise, I will simply strip them out prior to posting. The reason I don’t delete them completely as spam is because most of them seem to have an air of authenticity. Perhaps this is merely a commercial ruse to get me to post them, I don’t know. But if that’s the name of the game, so be it. You post, I strip or delete. In any case, here is my comment to this post:

“Have you perused any of the other posts and pages on the blog? I would be happy to address any questions you may have, but you need to be more specific. As a former teacher, I realize it can be hard for some people to put their thoughts and concerns on a public forum for fear of looking “dumb” or some other such nonsense. My philosophy of teaching is quite simple: There are no dumb questions, just struggles for knowledge. When you ask me questions from your perspective, you are also teaching me how to respond. We learn from each other. That’s how it’s supposed to work. If you are shy about this, just send me a private e mail at fabernathy@sbcglobal.net. I may post our conversation, but I will maintain your anonymity if that’s what you want.”

Thanks for your nice comment.

Posted in cancer, cell cycle, cellular differentiation, endosymbionts, evolution, Fallacies in science, mitosis | Leave a comment

It’s November, 2017 and still no follow up!

This is a pic I downloaded from pixacopy.com and modified with additional text. Note that as the chromosome unwinds and is released from proteins, etc., it becomes a single strand of linear DNA. If the process continues, the whole chromosome will unwind leaving behind one giant, continuous linear DNA molecule, up to one meter long! This is the classic model for how our chromosomes are put together.

Pixabay.com

Now compare this to what I found over 20 years ago at Ohio State University. Do these structures look anything like what you see above?

2

If you have been following my blog or even if you’re a first timer, it should be apparent that I seem to be at odds with mainstream science when it comes to how our chromosomes are actually put together. The casual browser might ask the following question: “What difference does it make to me?” My answer is as follows: None, as long as you are born physically perfect and healthy, have healthy children, and die at a ripe old age still healthy. How many people can do that? You see, chromosome structure is YOUR structure as well as mine and everybody else’s on the planet. It’s about as personal and relevant to YOU as you can get! There are things called genetic diseases as well as many other genetic factors that determine how well you will interact with environmental influences. Simply breathing second hand cigarette smoke can kill some people while having little or no effect on the smokers themselves, at least a very small percentage of them, anyway. Still others get sick whether they have been exposed to cigarette smoke or not. We can list all kinds of examples of this in a wide variety of areas but you get the point, right?

So the bottom line is this: How chromosomes are put together is extremely important in understanding how they work, because sometimes they don’t work right. In fact, many times they don’t work right. Look around you. How many perfect people do you see?  Look in the mirror while you’re at it. You want to understand everything we need to know about genetic abnormalities, cancer, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, heart disease, diabetes, etc etc? Or is just some knowledge good enough?  Most of what ails us begins in our chromosomes. You know it and I know it.

Well funded, highly branded scientists have been going at all of these diseases for quite some time now. Burned up a lot of time and money doing it too. So why do they keep asking for more donations? Could it be, perhaps, they are overlooking something? Well, that’s hard to say when they deliberately refuse to look at everything, don’t you think?

Look, I don’t have all the answers here, but I do know one thing: When something is staring right back at you under a microscope that practically screams “Hey buddy, you’re WRONG”, it may be time for a serious course correction. Based on current chromosome models, the structures I found under the microscope over twenty years ago should not even EXIST; but they do and they are practically screaming at tone deaf scientists to explain what they are. The scientists have not responded to their calls, or if they have, they are keeping it a big secret which is even worse.

So let me ask you, the general public, what you think about all of this? Should this research be pursued, or should it stay swept under the rug? I, for one, am willing to continue with this research but it takes funding and a place to do it. If I can find the funding, I believe it is possible to find a laboratory in which to do it. Money talks, you know. I set up a Patreon account just for this purpose, but right now it is bone dry. No money, no research, simple as that.

I know, I know. There are no celebrities hawking their wares here; just an old retired scientist who thinks we can do better if we only half try. However, if it’s entertainment you insist upon, I can do that too. I’m no name brand but I do play the piano since I’ve had quite a bit of spare time to bone up on it. I even have a you tube channel you can check out, if you like. I’ve only gotten better since then. So, if basic research is not enough to get you to open your wallet and throw in a few bucks, how about I throw in a few diddies for your entertainment pleasure? It gives me an excuse to make a video which seems to be the only way to go these days. I appreciate all the comments, such as they are, but if you’re seriously interested, send me an e mail at fabernathy@sbcglobal.net.

Frank on piano 3

You thought I was just kidding, didn’t you!

Posted in cancer, cell cycle, cellular differentiation, endosymbionts, evolution, Fallacies in science, Funding research, mitosis, Stem Cells, virus | Tagged | Leave a comment

Talk’s cheap. How about some results?

I’ve posted a lot of stuff here about my 20+ year old research on chromosome structure for over seven years now and the lack of any overt follow up by the mainstream scientific community has been amazingly underwhelming. Perhaps there is a top secret diabolical laboratory somewhere working on it, heh heh!  If so, its main product must be highly classified because I can’t find out anything about it anywhere and I’ve been looking, believe me!

Ok, enough with the levity, already. There is something seriously wrong with mainstream science when classic dogma has been brutally challenged with withering data and no champions come forth to beat the infidel down. Is it because it’s just too “beneath them” to do so? Would it be too costly? Gag! Yeah, right! It could be very costly indeed! It may just blow their comfortable, complacent, collective butts right out of the water! Or not. But why take the chance? This is a case of David taunting Goliath here, daring him to come out and fight. That’s right. No more Mr. nice guy here. Seven years is plenty of time. I want a fight and I want a good one!

But why should they fight? They have what they want. Cozy jobs, a nice salary with benefits, a comfortable lifestyle, respect, a stable income stream maintained by indentured servants (graduate students and postdocs) who fawn over them and write up whatever it is their little hearts desire. Why would they ever do anything to jeopardize that? After all, they’re not stupid! Could it be they have become intellectually lazy; safety in numbers as they scratch each others backs?  Why would they ever rock such a sweet little boat? The simple answer to these questions is as obvious as it is devastating: They won’t. Not now. Not ever. Not in a million years, or at least not while they are still alive. Peer review is also peer censorship, especially when it is seen as a threat to the status quo.

So, is this the end of the story? The guys in charge win another one for the team by pocket veto like they always do? Is that what you as a reader want? More censorship, more glossing over of facts? More cookie cutter research that goes nowhere? Do you really want that? You know, you can do something about this. The amount of funds required to follow up on my research is actually minuscule compared to what is being thrown in the trash and poured down the sink everyday by mainstream science. Minuscule!

Ok, you say. You have my attention…at least for a little while. Tell me, what needs to be done here, and remember I’m looking at my watch even as you write.

Ok, here goes…

1)  I need to reproduce what I actually did at Ohio State University. In science, reproducibility is everything. By that I mean reproducing the myriad kinds of circular structures I took photomicrographs of under the microscope. This requires growing up the same mouse cells I used before which will require the use of a laboratory that has tissue culture facilities.

2) I need to “fix” these structures onto microscope slides so they can be stabilized and investigated further.

3)  I need to use immunohistochemistry to probe these structures to find out what kinds of DNA, protein, etc. may be associated with them. This involves the use of DNA probes for different kinds of DNA sequences like those involved with origins of replication (see blog).  It also involves using antibodies with signal dyes attached to probe for different kinds of protein or lipids known to be associated with origins of replication.

Hey! You got this far! Don’t bail on me now! I’ll go back to speaking plain english. Hang in there! 

I know this must sound pretty foreign to the average layman, so let me state it this way: If you ever want to find out what’s wrong with a car engine, you need to use electronic probes to tell you what’s going on. However, before you can do this you need to know how the engine actually works in the first place! In that way, if something ever goes wrong, you know where to look and what to look for. Does that make any sense? If so, please let me know. I am no businessman, salesman, promoter or diplomat. Hell, I don’t even know how to tie a tie! I am a scientist, and I need help to find out what is really going on here. I can’t buck the system alone. This requires funding because money talks, ladies and gentleman. You know it and I know it. You want a cure for cancer, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, etc., etc? All the promotions, hype, walkathons, commercials, marathons, and talkathons in the world won’t matter if you don’t know what to look for or where to look. Want more information? I can be reached at fabernathy@sbcglobal.net.

Thank you for taking the time to read all of this,

Frank Abernathy, Ph.D

Posted in cancer, cell cycle, cellular differentiation, endosymbionts, evolution, Fallacies in science, Funding research, mitosis, Stem Cells, virus | Leave a comment

DNA Clones From Adult Cells Are Like an Optical Illusion

Why are cell biologists so adamant that all the cells in your body can be used for cloning tissues or even entire humans?

If you have been following any of my posts, you know I have an axe to grind when it comes to how our chromosomes are put together. Mainstream science insists they are nothing more than a simple thread of DNA all wrapped up into a chromosome. I get irked whenever I see this mindless tripe spilled out all over a textbook as if it were the gospel truth. Think of mainstream science like the mainstream media, but not nearly as bad. At least not yet, anyway.

Well, now I have another axe to grind. Scientists are cock sure that you can pull just about any cell out of a person’s body and use its DNA to create any other cell in the body. They base this mainly on the famous “Dolly” clone, a sheep that was produced by inserting an adult cell nucleus into an egg which had its nucleus removed. This has been done in a variety of mammals over the years. The assumption is that the DNA used to generate these mammals is structurally identical to the DNA of naturally totipotent cells like embryonic cells because both can be used to generate complete individuals. This sounds like a simple enough explanation on the surface but looks can be deceiving, hence the title of the blog post.  Have they actually bothered to look under the hood of those finely tuned running cells to see if anything about the DNA has really changed? The reason I ask this is because DNA does in fact change in a number of cells within the body. In a few cases, it is blatantly obvious.

Let me give you some examples of non-totipotency. In mammals, there are cells in the bone marrow that give rise to blood cells. If they are programmed to produce red blood cells, these cells kick out the nucleus where the vast majority of the DNA is contained. It gets even worse with blood platelets. Even the cell itself breaks up to produce them. So here we have two examples of highly differentiated cells that can in no way be used to clone anything, even themselves! Your typical smug cell biologist will simply shrug this off as exceptions to the rule. Really? There is another class of human blood cells called lymphocytes that generate antibody producing plasma cells. During the course of this differentiation the DNA gets spliced and diced all over the place with little circular DNA’s being spit out of the nucleus. Chromosome diminution in certain invertebrates during embryogenesis is clear evidence that the resulting cells contain only a fraction of the DNA of the original cell.

So what we have here is highly repetitive data focused on a few cell types that have been used to clone other tissues or entire animals. There is no justification for taking such limited data and extrapolating it to all other cell types within the body when another explanation is available to explain the results. What explanation, you say? Well, I’m, glad you asked. So buckle up for the ride, it might get a little bumpy.

The DNA within our nuclei is compartmentalized and sequestered by a mysterious amalgamation of proteins and other molecules called heterochromatin. Only a small fraction of the DNA is ever available for the production of the needs of a particular cell. In fact, you could literally cut out most of that sequestered DNA and the cell wouldn’t even miss it, unless of course you used it for cloning. So let’s make this as simple as possible: Think of the DNA as being packed up into boxes for shipping and compare two different cells types called “A” and “B” respectively. Our objective is to turn cell A into cell B which does not occur naturally within the body. Cell A has all of its DNA packed up except for Box A and Box C. Box A is loaded with tools used to run tasks specific to Cell A. Box C is used by every cell in the body for generic tasks like metabolism. Cell B is loaded with tools used to run tasks specific to Cell B. Of course, it also has an opened Box C as well. When we induce Cell A to take on the functions of Cell B, one of two things could happen: Cell A could repackage itself by packing up Box A while unboxing Box B. Or it could leave both boxes open. Of the two alternatives, the one with the highest probability of survival would be the first one, otherwise two specific series of tasks may be competing for scarce resources, one of which is completely undesirable.

There is another thing to consider here as well: The DNA changes associated with Cell A and Cell B may be very subtle and difficult to detect with conventional sequencing methods because only tiny snippets of redundant types of DNA may be deleted. Such snippet losses may have a tremendous effect on the functionality of the remaining DNA, opening up a path for the production of new kinds of RNA and hence proteins designed for completing the tasks associated with either Cell A or B. Please note that the location of the DNA snippets that are lost in Cell A are different from those losses in Cell B. Such losses would be irreversible. The only way to “convert” Cell A into B would be to shut down or repackage Box A while opening up Box B. Furthermore, Box B would have to have the same DNA snippets removed as if Cell A were Cell B.

If you wish to learn more about how cutting out these DNA snippets could be used to generate differentiated cells from more “primitive” cell types please dial back this page to the dark DNA discussions, parts I, II, and III. There are other blog posts that you can read as well from the archives.

The DNA Clone Illusion

Posted in cancer, cell cycle, cellular differentiation, endosymbionts, evolution, Fallacies in science, Funding research, mitosis, Stem Cells, virus | Leave a comment

Dark DNA, Part III

 

Well, it’s about time for another post. So, here goes… Sorry to throw an intimidating diagram at you right off the bat. You might want to skip over this and read the text which will explain it better. Better yet, just skip down to the simpler diagram below this one which explains this much better in layman’s terms. I guess I need to come up with a way to livestream, huh?

2'5' RNA-DNA

Yikes! What is the purpose of this post? Well, it focuses on that mysterious RNA “bridge” that hooks the two replicons together as shown in the previous post. This bridge is important because it acts like a binary switch for embryogensis in particular and development in general. Once the switch is activated, the result becomes irreversible and the two replicons become joined together with only a fragment of the bridge remaining to tell the story. Think of it as a corporate merger where all of the personnel required to maintain two companies is reduced to maintain the final merger. RNA has been fired (removed). Now some of you (probably a very few) may have a problem with this model because scientists have been able to “reverse” this process, allowing stem cells to “demerger” so to speak and reform the original two companies which may then merge with other companies to produce different mergers. If you dive into the blog by putting in search terms you will come up with a number of blogs that deal with this paradox. Simply put, merging is irreversible, there is no such thing as demerging. The RNA will never be put back like it was (look up entropy). Instead, what is going on is functionally equivalent to a demerging process but structurally quite different. Think of it this way:

DNA as corporate mergers

Note that the first merger (1-2) occurs naturally during embryogenesis (development of the baby in the womb). The second, artificial merger (3-4) has been induced to force the stem cell to take a direction other than the one intended by nature. If merger 1-2 is not silenced (prevented from making products) it could lead to severe complications down the road. Think of two robotic factories cranking out parts. One makes car engine parts the other makes transmission parts. They leave the two factories and enter another robotic plant designed to assemble the car engine, not the transmission. Some of the parts designed for the transmission could be used inadvertently to make an engine. Now that dog just won’t hunt, will it? This is why cloning has been so hit and miss throughout its short history. Simply put, if you’re forcing a stem cell that normally turns into fat cells to crank out muscle cells you may generate a lot of fatty muscle cells that don’t work very well. Scientists use a “brute force” selection method which is kind of like winning the lottery. They know if they just crank out enough of these cells, a tiny fraction of them will somehow find a way to shut down the fat genes. These cells are selected out like winning lottery tickets and cloned to make muscle cells. The question that still remains is exactly how these cells do this when all the rest fail? The answer probably lies within the mysterious stuff known as heterochromatin which is basically packing material for unused genes. You can search the blog  or internet to learn more about it.

 

 

 

 

Posted in cancer, cell cycle, cellular differentiation, endosymbionts, evolution, Fallacies in science, Funding research, mitosis, Stem Cells, virus | Leave a comment