The prevention of unnecessary suffering and death could be as simple as restoring the balance of amino acids and sugar to prevent all pathology via RNA-mediated cell type differentiation.
Every aspect of preventative medicine links the National Microbiome Initiative to the Precision Medicine Initiative via energy-dependent changes. The changes link angstroms to ecosystems in all living genera. When do you think you will be told that the obvious link from the changes to healthy longevity is the pheromone-controlled biophysically constrained chemistry of RNA-mediated protein folding. I hope you learn that fact before you die from virus-driven energy theft.
Heading into Today’s March, Here’s When to Doubt a Scientific “Consensus”
…the “power of the paradigm” often blinds scientists to alternatives to their view. Question the paradigm, and some respond with anger.
But here’s a checklist to decide when you can, even should, doubt a scientific “consensus,” whatever the subject. One of these signs may be enough to give pause. If they start to pile up, then it’s wise to be leery.
(1) When different claims get bundled together
(2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate
(3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line
(4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish
(5) When dissenters are excluded from the peer-reviewed journals not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but to marginalize them.
(6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented
(7) When consensus is declared before it even exists
(8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus
(9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution
(10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies
(11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as fairly as possible
(12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus
Is there any consensus for comparison to one that most people believe in about the fact that they must eat or they will starve to death?
See for comparison: Could genetics influence what we like to eat?
…little is known about how natural variation in these genes could affect eating behaviors in healthy people. Gene variation is a result of subtle DNA differences among individuals that make each person unique.
What is Life? (reprint edition)
“How often do we still hear that quantum effects can have little relevance in the study of biology, or even that we eat food in order to gain energy?” — (Roger Penrose 8 August 1991)
See also: Anesthesia points to deeper level ‘quantum channels’ as origins of consciousness
OR theory is not theory. They linked the anti-entropic virucidal quantised energy of sunlight from ecological variation to ecological adaptation in all living genera via nutrient energy-dependent viral latency as Penrose did in his forward to the reprint of “What is Life?” Theorists who typically do not understand any aspect of biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding chemistry may continue to tout their pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and evolution, but all serious scientists know that energy-dependent codon optimality is the key to human consciousness. For example, they know that people who do not eat lose consciousness and die.
Scientist Confirms the Quantum Soul