Part 3: Light-controlled cell biology (revisited)

By: James V. Kohl | Published on: March 23, 2018

Your cells are constantly being shed and replaced—so is your body ever completely refreshed? Does anything remain of the body that existed on Jan. 1, 2017? 2007? The day you were born? (video)

Out of Order: Undaunted 

…as I prepared for this issue’s Special Report on Microbiomics (starting on page 19), I am stunned by what I am only starting to understand. That our individual existence as humans may only be 10 percent of what we see in the mirror—and that perhaps only 1 percent of our personal ecological genome is a human genome…

When you understand the concept of biophysically constrained energy-dependent ecology (Frohlich, 1968), you may begin to understand the difference between ecological adaptation and evolution. Each cell type represents biophysically constrained viral latency, not mutation-driven evolution.

Outside the context of energy-dependent RNA-mediated DNA repair (aka autophagy), no cell types exist. Bacteria become archaea and archaea become L-forms and the L-forms become non-cells. The energy for cell type differentiation comes from sunlight or from food. It is biophysically constrained by the pheromone-controlled physiology of reproduction in species from microbes to humans.

See also: This Compound Can Reverse Aging in Mice. Will It Work in People? and Mitotic progression, arrest, exit or death is determined by centromere integrity and independent of de novo transcription

Theorists used the term “de novo” in the context of de novo transcription and other aspects of energy-dependent cell type differentiation that they cannot explain with their ridiculous theories. For instance, David Sinclair has touted pseudoscientific nonsense until now.

He knows that the cell biology game, “Cytosis” for ages 10+ has exposed him to ridicule, and obviously won’t go away without a fight to maintain some scientific credibility.

See also: PhD title: Fibrillation of proteins involved in neurodegenerative diseases: influence of mRNA

State of art:
TDP-43 and FUS, two RNA-binding proteins (RBPs), have been recently the subject of increased attention due to their role in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and FrontoTemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD). In non-pathological conditions, these proteins are mostly found in the nucleus where they participate to mRNA biogenesis and regulation of alternative splicing. However, TDP-43 and FUS are also present in the cytoplasm and they are able to shuttle from one compartment to another. TDP-43 and FUS notably participate in cytoplasmic functions such as mRNA transport and localized translation, which are of critical importance for neuron physiology. In neurons of ALS and FTLD patients, TDP-43 and FUS form insoluble cytoplasmic aggregates with fibrillar structure that can further spread the disease to other areas of the brain.

If this is the state of the art, was the information used to treat the late Stephen Hawking, or was he left to suffer unnecessarily until he died?

See also:

 More germane to DDNews, the most recent pattern I cannot seem to shake is discussion of the microbiome.

Neo-Darwinian theorists and Big Bang cosmologists seem to have no sense of pattern recognition in the context of Olfaction Warps Visual Time Perception

See for comparison: What Stephen Hawking’s Final Paper Says (And Doesn’t Say)

The claims in “Olfaction Warps Visual Time Perception” link the sense of smell in bacteria to our visual perception of energy and mass in the context of the space time continuum and biophysically constrained viral latency. Everything known to Hawking’s co-authors Roger Penrose and George FR Ellis has since been linked from what organisms eat to the physiology of reproduction via the creation of sunlight and biomolecules.

The difference between Hawking’s ridiculous theories and biologically-based facts will place the claims about his intelligence and insight into the historical context of how celebrity scientists have led to our unnecessary suffering and premature death. It’s ironic that Hawking could have been effectively treated with food energy-dependent microRNAs, but instead got stuck with a useless theoretical approach to life. I would not want that to happen to my children or grandchildren (if I had any). What are your children being taught to believe in: theories or experimentally established facts?.

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Want more on the same topic?

Swipe/Drag Left and Right To Browse Related Posts: