Posted on November 3, 2015
Ridiculed Discoverers, Vindicated Mavericks.
I found this article to be quite interesting. It includes such notable biological accomplishments as the discovery of the Kreb’s cycle, and even the discovery of DNA. Apparently most of these discoveries were initially met with ridicule and disdain. What a shame for science!
RIDICULED DISCOVERERS, VINDICATED MAVERICKS
This video about forbidden archeology is also illuminating.
Forbidden Archeology, Suppressed, New Evidence of Early Man
If this is true, it is sad, sad, sad.
Bad science: the saga continues…
July 8, 2015
Guess what? Much of the reams of published scientific papers in medical journals appears to be pure trash! Conflicts of interest abound. More trash doesn’t make for better science. It just makes more trash.
************************************************************
Science is broken. These academics think they have the answer.
Posted on June 27, 2015
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/27/8854105/new-science-guidelines?ref=yfp
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8591837/how-science-is-broken
http://www.vox.com/2015/2/16/8034143/john-ioannidis-interview
Lots of research fraud and cherry picking going on as well as peer review bias and questionable findings.
After looking over these links myself, I found one huge problem that was glaringly omitted from all of them: The suppression of radical discovery in science that goes against classical dogma.
This is what my blog is all about, and the discoveries shown here that have been completely ignored by the scientific community. I call this ignoring the obvious, because if you look at the microphotographs on this site there is no way they can explained by conventional dogma.
So let me just say this: If you have a problem with my findings here, call me out on it. Give me a satisfactory explanation, not a cop out. I have been waiting for you to do just that for years now.
Best regards,
Dr. Frank Abernathy
************************************************************
Quacks on the Internet, part II.
June 9, 2015
What is this blog about, anyway? Well it’s not about quacks on the internet, unless you want to assign that label to me. No, it’s about something that is near and dear to my heart because it is about that which gets close to the very essence of life itself: how our chromosomes (among other species) are actually put together so they operate in a manner that allows us to be created and function as complex beings. You will find few if any conventional theories here. In fact, after almost 7000 views over a period of over 4.5 years there have been relatively few comments applied to this blog, perhaps a dozen or so. All of these are positive but offer little analysis or criticism of what has been presented here. I find it hard to believe that after all this time, not a single biologist or others with a scientific bent have browsed this blog. To me, it means they are simply not commenting. Now why would that be? Will the most obvious answer is they don’t like what it says about chromosome structure and simply move on. Or it could be that they simply don’t know what to say or ask (I find it very difficult to believe that one). Does this sort of behavior reflect well on what is supposed to be an enlightened age of reason, learning, and discovery? It’s not that scientists aren’t capable of trying to eviserate hypotheses and theories offered to them because they can at times display an almost sadistic pleasure at doing just that. I have seen them do it to others, and to me. The more revolutionary the idea, the more it is savagely attacked.
Why would scientists behave in this way? My “hypothesis” on this is because they share the same flaws and fallacies as every other human being. They can be brainwashed or intimidated into thinking and behaving in certain ways. This happens all the time in cults, religions, celebrity worship, politics and in the workplace. Those in charge are assumed to be infallible and are not to be challenged under threat of termination, censorship, and in extreme cases, injury or death. Huge egos, grant money, positions, status, and reputations are at stake here. This pushes research to follow dogma rather than the data, which in more cases than may be realized, is simply swept under the rug.
This isn’t just my opinion I am talking about here, but years of personal experience as a bench scientist. I have actually heard people talk about giving their “boss” the data they are looking for. Now I don’t wish to extrapolate too much on that, so I will let you use your own imagination on what that probably means. I know for sure what can happen when you don’t, because it happened to me.
All I ask of anybody reading this blog is to take a little more time and go over what it is I am actually saying here. If it makes no sense, fine, contact me via e mail or leave a comment. I cannot read your mind anymore than you can read mine. I would like to communicate with you in a positive, civilized way that does not involve intimidation, humiliation, or ridicule from either me or you. I don’t think that’s too much to ask. Perhaps we could all learn something from each other.
Happy blogging and enlightenment!
Frank
************************************************************
Quacks on the internet, reader beware!
June 8, 2015
I, like other fellow creatures, tend to be impulsive at times and the internet is a really great place to put one’s foot in your mouth. I have done this on at least two occasions in this blog. I’m sure it won’t be the last time either, simply because it’s so easy to just click on links and post things.
The two cases in point are my last posting regarding an article by a heart surgeon which I have since removed and another one regarding something called “somatids” which was simply brownian motion of very small particles under the microscope. I later learned that this heart surgeon had apparently had his license suspended in 2008. To say he has a checkered past is putting it mildly. I removed the somatid article very quickly once I begin to understand what it was they were calling somatids, having seen similar things myself under a variety of microscopes when viewing living material.
So the bottom line is the internet is a two-edged sword full of mostly unfiltered information and disinformation. It is getting better with reviews, but even then, reviewers may be just paid shills. To the extent that I have contributed to the dissemination of spurious, fraudulent, or self-serving tripe, I apologize. All I ask in return is that you seriously consider what I am saying about the laboratory data I have presented here because this is work that I did myself at Ohio State University. The observations are real, other people have seen these structures for themselves, it should be reproducible by others, and their reality cannot be denied or refuted. In short, they demand an explanation from the scientific community.
Whether my interpretations of the data in this blog are accurate or not is something that must be addressed through experimental research. If a trivial explanation is in order, fine. I have no problem with that and I can shut this blog down once and for all. On the other hand, if even a small portion of what I am saying here is correct, this could turn biology in general and genetics in particular onto their collective heads.
I can understand the casual reader moving on at this point and I have no problem with that. Even passivity of the general biological community to this blog does not disturb me. People do have lives and obligations to fulfill and only small windows of time to do it in. Who I am calling out here are the well-moneyed big whigs; the autonomous, megalithic publishing machines, who if they accidentally stumble onto this blog will probably respond with classical knee-jerk brushoffs, cop-outs, laziness, cowardice, contempt, or something even more sinister. If you are half as smart as you think you are, then, put me in my place once and for all. I have no problem with that. You on the other hand, seem to have a definite problem with that and we both know what that is, don’t we? Simply put, you are of the opinion that it somehow threatens your status quo to even acknowledge this blog. I can think of only three reasons why: 1) You think you and other elites are the only ones capable of finding paths to truth using knowledge acquired through discovery, 2) You are absolutely afraid to test my hypotheses for fear they may have a grain of truth in them and somehow disrupt your gravy train or 3) All of the above. None of these reasons lead to good science. Instead, they simply entrench dogma, just like a religion.
So in conclusion, I am asking for help from the scientific community to determine exactly what these structures are. I cannot do this without help and I am finished with my admonitions of the human species regarding being open-minded and bravely swimming against the tide of mainstream thinking. I’ll just play my piano, instead.
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan, former U.S. Senator.
Dr. Frank Abernathy
P.S. Thoughtful, reasoned comments (preferably with reference links) are always welcomed, along with e mails.
************************************************************
Peer review versus riding a bicycle (why the chromosome refuses to evolve).
May 19, 2015
Why does the eukaryotic chromosome refuse to evolve? For over 170 years, this staid monolithic structure stubbornly continues to exist as a single, monotonous, seemingly never-ending, tightly wound up, elongated ball of yarn; at least in the minds of scientists and their proteges, anyway. Now why is that? Is it because it’s true? Or is it something else?
Here is a very interesting video that might help explain this phenomenon. Hope you like it!
************************************************************
How to Remove Bias From Scientific Peer Review.
May 14, 2015
The white elephant in the room is finally being acknowledged: Peer review bias. In this instance, it relates to sex bias and the consequences in this case included termination from the editorial board. I am sure the same thing would apply to ethnic bias as well. All well and good, but what about other kinds of peer review bias? There is a more insidious kind that is very difficult to detect and difficult to talk about: I have discussed this at length in several of my postings:
Another heretical scientist dares to challenge the church of scientific orthodoxy
Are our chromosomes dumber than we are, or is it just the opposite?
************************************************************
What are they afraid of ?
Posted on February 13, 2013
Many layman like to think that science is somehow above the politics of ordinary humans. Unfortunately, it is not because science is conducted by humans, not gods. These humans, like so many others, have agendas. Sometimes, discovery can get in the way of these agendas. I know this for a fact because I was once a graduate student working on a Ph.D. just like so many before me and so many after. I assumed that I should be working on discovering something new and original, otherwise why bother going after a Ph.D.? I was soon to be rudely awakened to a brutal reality. I actually had a professor at my university tell me to my face that “they” would “KILL” me for continuing the research I was working on at Ohio State University! Of course, he didn’t mean this literally. He meant they would “kill” my career. He was very very close in his assessment. Actually, he was dead on. The research was, in fact, “killed”. All laboratory research I conducted beyond what you see on this blog was other people’s research, not my own. I had a family to feed and bills to pay, so I did what I needed to do. Throughout the years, I continued to review the literature and contact people, but it was all to no avail.
So I ask you this simple question: Is this acceptable science, or should further research be conducted into the composition of these circular structures? Admittedly, they may just be some kind of remarkable artifact, although exactly what that really means remains untested and, therefore, unknown. Is this science at its best, or can we do better?
I believe it really boils down to this: What are they afraid of? For many years, I believed they were simply afraid of me being wrong. I have since changed my mind. It is more than that. I believe they are afraid of me being right.
************************************************************
Another heretical scientist dares to challenge the church of scientific orthodoxy.
December 12, 2014
This link is very interesting and at first glance seems totally unrelated to what usually appears on my blog. However, though the discovery is quite fascinating and worth reviewing, I mention it here for a different reason: The initial reaction of the scientific community to what they regard as heresy.
http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/HancockG10-Gunung-Padang-Latest.php
************************************************************
Are our chromosomes dumber than we are, or is it just the opposite?
April 16, 2014
Before science became mainstream, natural phenomena were explained in terms of things like witchcraft, magic, and miracles. The same thing applied to biology. Animals had “instincts”. The eating instinct, the breathing instinct, the “fill in the blank” instinct. At one time, cells were considered to be little more than bags of protoplasm with the occasional amorphous inclusion body, like the nucleus. Then came along the tools necessary to unlock the secrets of the cell like never before. Slowly but inexorably, protoplasm gave way to a vast complex of intricate organelles and sophisticated macromolecules displaying ever increasing hierarchical levels of complexity and interactions. The cell wasn’t just a bag of enzymes floating around in a sea of saline anymore. There were enzyme complexes that worked together like an assembly line to go through the myriad steps to convert substrate A into product G. There were cables and molecular motors pulling things from point A to point B. There was organization on nanoscale levels. The cell was starting to look more and more like some kind of factory…or perhaps even a city. Suddenly, all of the inventions, machines, and factories man has generated begin to look like just mere extensions of what had already come before. Before man, before animals, perhaps even before the very first animal cell. On the surface, human civilization does appear to be an extension of what came before in a biological sense. However, humans can also be their own worst enemies. Some of them can be jealous and petty to the point of being obstructionist and “destructionist”. If they didn’t create it, think of it, or discover it…watch out! These same kind of people also tend to be charismatic, self-promoting, narcissistic, close-minded, uncompromising, and even ruthless. The quintessential qualities of true “leadership”. Look at the Taliban as an example. They destroyed ancient buddhas created by a civilization not of their own making. Examples of civilizations ground into the dustbin of history by other civilizations abound.
Are practitioners of the scientific method somehow above the fray that plagues other forms of human endeavors? A nice thought, perhaps, but unrealistic. Scientists are afflicted with the same kinds of human frailties as everyone else. They may be trained to “overcome” them to a certain degree, but such training has its limits, especially when confronted with some of the human qualities mentioned earlier. So as with other forms of human endeavors, the steady flow of scientific knowledge has come in halting steps. “Potholes” have been created to stop or divert this flow into a direction more in agreement with current dogma and self-interest. Gasp! Scientists can have self-interests beyond the acquisition of pure knowledge? You bet they can! Publish or perish is one of them. Scientists need to eat and have shelter just like everyone else. In order to get published, one must take the road most traveled. Scientists must follow in the footsteps of those before them, lest the ladder be pulled up before they can reach the end. This tactic rarely leads to discovery. Instead, it is used to “validate”, perpetuate, and further entrench the current dogma of the “masters” who are the gatekeepers for deciding whom may climb the ladder of success. The longer this road is traveled, the deeper the entrenchment becomes until a point is reached where discovery must be filtered, massaged, and manipulated in order to protect the dogma. If it cannot, then, it must be ignored and swept into the dustbin of history, hopefully, never to raise its ugly head ever again. Sounds very much like religion, does it not? The creationists may have a point when they accuse scientists of practicing religion by “believing” in evolution.
So what has all of this got to do with our chromosomes? After all, that is really what this blog is all about. Well, frankly speaking, chromosome structure as stated in the literature hasn’t “evolved” much beyond where it was in the 19th century. It is still considered to be little more than a string of beads (genes) dispersed along a simple rope of chromatin, much like pearls in a necklace. These beads have now been resolved down to the level of DNA and are considered to be super wound coils of protein coated linear DNA. When wound further, they form the physical structure of a metaphase chromosome. In other words, a fully unraveled chromosome minus its protein coat is considered to be nothing more than a single continuous strand of uninterrupted DNA. Simple. Easy to understand, and probably dead wrong. When you observe how cells and their nuclei fall apart under conditions of stress, the results are nothing less than astonishing. All manner of underlying complex substructures begin to unfold, right before your very eyes. Some of them even pulsate and move, guided by some unknown power. Yet none of this is even considered or questioned in terms of how it fits into current theories about chromosome structure. Considering we are now well within the 21st century, this is quite the pothole. Perhaps, more like a gigantic sinkhole or even a black hole. The cardinal sin of scientific inquiry is when you force the data to fit the theory, instead of forcing the theory to fit the data. Chromosomes are anything but simple coiled ropes of DNA. They are factories within factories, working together in much the same manner as the rest of the cell. It’s time to give them the credit for which they are long overdue. You can start by clicking on this link that takes you to photomicrographs where you will see images that are both beautiful and breathtaking in their complexity.
************************************************************
Creationism versus Evolution.
February 13, 2014
You may have heard about the recent debate that Mr. Nye. and Mr. Ham had regarding the age of the earth and other worldly matters. Mr. Ham’s arguments seem to be based on the premise that one cannot use pre-existing artifacts to extrapolate back into time and draw any conclusions about how they were actually “created”. However, that is not the subject of this particular post because what I am actually doing here is the old “bait and switch” routine.
Scientists have repeatedly used the old argument that creationists cling to their ideas with a religious fervor that is not based on anything other than dogmatic belief. Creationists have turned the tables and accused scientists of doing the same thing. Could there be any truth to this? Well, the short answer is… yes. They can be as adamantly dogmatic about certain topics as even the most zealous creationist. They can go so far as to cherry pick data to conform with these dogmatic beliefs in order to get papers published (the old publish or perish routine). The more papers are published that conform to the dogma, the stronger and less assailable it seems to become. Scientists can actually become brain-washed to the point that even the slightest challenge to the dogma can result in a vicious Pavlovian response. I know, because I have been “bitten” by them.
This blog runs contrary to the monolithic, dogmatic belief that eukaryotic chromosomes are simple, continuous strands of DNA wrapped up in a protein package. I have evidence in this blog that suggests otherwise. If such evidence is only slightly challenging to the scientific dogma, then, it needs to be addressed for what it is and everyone should move on. However, when a professor at a major university tells you to your face that “they will kill you for this”, that is quite telling, don’t you think?
Pride goeth before a fall
Where did we come from? Or more specifically, where did our cells come from? How are we interconnected to other living organisms in the vast web of life?
Our cells and those of every animal, plant, and fungus appear to have evolved from what is called a protoeukaryote. Sorry about the name, but no freaking out at this point.
Imagine that?
That gorgeous reflection you admire in the mirror everyday has something in common with the lowest life forms on this planet!
In fact, many of your cells could be grown in a laboratory long after you expired.
Human cells are grown in labs around the world everyday. We even have the potential to clone human beings, just like any other animal.
Makes you feel really special, doesn’t it?
But wait, there’s more!
There’s bacteria and viruses, which are even more lowly than what I just talked about. The protoeukaryotes (“Mom and Dad”) may have evolved from bacteria and viruses (meet the “Grandparents”)
Now, if you think my intention is to bring you down a notch or two… you would be correct in that assumption. So, why would I want to go and do a thing like that to a nice person like you?
Well, for starters, many people act like they are somehow “above the fray” when it comes to their fellow species. I hope you are an exception. If so, please do your best to enlighten the uninitiated so we can stop blocking green legislation.
So, the coral reefs are dying because the ocean is turning into soda pop.
So what?
This doesn’t affect football scores one iota!
Well, it could impact limestone in Florida causing sinkholes that swallow people up.
Why should you care if species are going extinct at an unprecedented rate? What does that have to do with you, me, or “America’s got Talent”?
After all, we’re certainly not going extinct. We’re over 6 billion people and going strong!
Why, the human race is just getting its sea legs (think Titanic movie). China is so busy building cities, they didn’t stop to think about actually putting people in them. Imagine China, of all places, not finding enough people to fill up sparkling, brand new cities!
Build, build, build!
Borrow, borrow, borrow!
Burn, burn, burn!
Consume, consume, consume!
Ravish the earth like there’s no tomorrow!
Help fulfill a self-fulfilling prophesy!
So we kill off a few frogs and salamanders. So what?
Please remain silent now and pay very close attention.
We are endangering a lot more than just frogs and salamanders.
We are fooling around with the very engine of life that keeps us alive.
Phytoplankton.
Uh oh!
Another one of those fancy words again!
Quick, back to football before it’s too late!
Ok, you say, I’ll bite. What the heck is phytoplankton and why should I care?
Well, half of the world’s oxygen comes directly from phytoplankton.
If you kill off phytoplankton (2) while destroying rain forests and other kinds of trees that act like CO2 sponges while spewing out oxygen, what do you suppose will happen next?
There will be a quiz about this on Tuesday.
Ok, forget the quiz. What are all those 6 billion people going to breathe?
Sigh, I’m going to stop for now.
Perhaps next time I’ll talk about pandemic diseases, antibiotic resistance microbes and how easily they can be spread around the globe for the price of a simple airline ticket.
Or maybe I’ll just talk about how government “scientists” want to make a bird flu virus that is more easily spread throughout the populace.
Your tax dollars at work.
Maybe they’ll publish their findings on an Al Qaida website. However, even Al Qaida probably has better sense than to mess with biological warfare. Talk about something swimming up and biting you squarely in the seat meat!
************************************************************
What are they afraid of ?
Funding Priorities.
Posted on January 22, 2013
The National Institute of Health (NIH) has a current budget of almost 31 billion dollars for all kinds of biological research. That is quite a sum of money until you compare it to the defense budget which will have an almost 614 billion dollar budget projected for 2013; almost twenty times the NIH budget!
Yes, we need to protect our shores but at what cost?
The NIH budget focuses mainly on research that heals people, saves lives, makes better crops and livestock, and protects the environment and our natural resources for future generations (among other things).
The defense budget focuses mainly on how to maim and kill the enemy with a “minimum” of collateral damage while blowing up their stuff. Before you can do that, you need to know who the enemy is. Right now, the enemy is a loose band of terrorists who use assault rifles, ancient rocket propelled grenades, suicide vests, and whatever ancient ordnance they can scrape up from previous wars. Do we really need a vast navy, army, and exotic fuel guzzling aircraft and tanks to take on this kind of a threat?
Is this the best use of your tax dollars?
Research fraud.
Posted on October 19, 2012
There’s an interesting article just out about research fraud. This is the elephant in the room that no scientist wants to talk about…sort of like priests not wanting to talk about sex abuse. After all, science should be about seeking the truth, right?…not the almighty dollar.
I talked about scientific rigidity in an interview earlier this year and how it can generate conformist publishing and perhaps even conformist thinking. However, research fraud is conformist thinking on steroids.
In my earlier interview, the moderator was interested in falsifiable hypotheses or theories, i.e., subject to peer review to check for reproducibility of data. However, in order to do this with my research there is one stringent requirement: Some other lab must actually do it! Furthermore, it must be done honestly, ethically, and without any bias. The absence of any fact checking on any of the data I have provided here speaks volumes about the priorities and values of big science in terms of basic discovery.
On the next blog, I will provide some possible experiments than can be set up to test some of my hypotheses. These could be done in almost any molecular biology laboratory using pre-existing equipment. I would be willing to do the work as a visiting scientist.
Comments are welcome.
Future research…or not?
Posted on October 25, 2012
I said in the last blog I would present a proposal for continuing research on the nature and composition of the circular structures shown throughout this website. I said I would be willing to continue this work as a visiting scientist in a laboratory equipped to do this kind of work.
I understand that money is always a problem when it comes to research. Perhaps someone can provide me with a solution to this dilemma. If not, these circles will continue to remain as nothing more than a mere curiosity. It would be very tragic if we learn much later down the road that they are in fact much more than that.
How much money would it take? Probably much less than 1/4 of a cruise missile, assuming it still costs about one million dollars just to shoot one off. Click the link below to get more information.
Evolution Turned Upside Down 
Frank, interesting thoughts as always. Shoot me an email.
Hu Dave:
Hope you are doing well.How have you been?
Frank
That is very fascinating, You’re an overly professional blogger. I’ve joined your feed and stay up for in the hunt for extra of your fantastic post. Additionally, I’ve shared your website in my social networks!
Sorry for such a late response. Thank you!
A big thank you for your article. Awesome.
I truly appreciate this article post.Really thank you! Keep writing.
I really liked your post. Cool.
Enjoyed every bit of your blog post.Much thanks again. Will read on…
Get a lot more done in much less time. Extra power and feel happier also!