You may not have heard about this:

I will be posting my notes on this as we go, but first of all, if you ever hear someone present the “asparagus cures cancer” crap to an individual whose family member was recently diagnosed with cancer, as recently happened to my girlfriend, please be so kind as to scream at them for being an ignorant moron causing more harm by encouraging someone to eat a substance WHICH COUNTERACTS ANTICANCER PHARMACEUTICALS!

Several years ago, I had a man seeking asparagus for a friend who had cancer. He gave me a photocopied copy of an article, entitled, `Asparagus for cancer’ printed in Cancer News Journal, December 1979. I will share it here, just as it was shared with me:

Let’s see what kind of crap this is.

“I am a biochemist, and have specialized in the relation of diet to health for over 50 years. Several years ago, I learned of the discovery of Richard R. Vensal, D.D.S. that asparagus might cure cancer. Since then, I have worked with him on his project, and we have accumulated a number of favorable case histories. Here are a few examples.

Well, first note is the name: Richard R. Vensal, D.D.S. This title would be a Doctor of Dental Surgery rather than a biochemist. We also do not get the name of the individual writing this letter.  Doing a web search for “Richard R. Vensal” only turns up pages relating to this particular story. If you’d like to know what’s actually in “Cancer News Journal” on December 1979. This is NOT a scientific cancer journal, but an alternative TO medicine journal. Anyway, I found no mention of this article on their website, nor any mention of any other article on any other website. Even as far as altie quacks go, this one is pretty obscure if it even exists.

Case No. 1, man with an almost hopeless case of Hodgkin’s disease (cancer of the lymph glands) who was completely incapacitated. Within 1 year of starting the asparagus therapy, his doctors were unable to detect any signs of cancer, and he was back on a schedule of strenuous exercise.

If the doctors were unable to detect any sign of cancer, then how does this person know it was Hodgkin’s disease? We knew the pathology of Hodgkin’s lymphoma since the 1830’s. People were being diagnosed with this disease three years before they would die from it as early as 1950! They knew what the disease looked like and how to check for it.

Case No. 2, a successful businessman 68 years old who suffered from cancer of the bladder for 16 years. After years of medical treatments, including radiation without improvement, he went on asparagus. Within 3 months, examinations revealed that his bladder tumor had disappeared and that his kidneys were normal.

Again, there is absolutely no reason to consider this true, due to the lack of references, unreliability of the “journal,” and apparent nonexistence of the author. In any event, making the mistake of considering radiation therapy as performed in the 1970s to be anywhere near what is done over three decades is committing an act of intellectual high treason.

Case No. 3, a man who had lung cancer. On March 5th 1971 he was put on the operating table where they found lung cancer so widely spread that it was inoperable. The surgeon sewed him up and declared his case hopeless. On April 5th he heard about the asparagus therapy and immediately started taking it. By August, x-ray pictures revealed that all signs of the cancer had disappeared. He is back at his regular business routine.

Amazing, also, how the first therapies and surgeries for lung cancers (there are multiple types of lung cancer) weren’t done UNTIL the 1970s. There is no reason to expect success in this surgery, but a physician would at least attempt removing SOME of the tumor.

Case No. 4, a woman who was troubled for a number of years with skin cancer. She finally developed different skin cancers which were diagnosed by a skin specialist as advanced. Within 3 months after starting on asparagus, her skin specialist said that her skin looked fine and no more skin lesions. This woman reported that the asparagus therapy also cured her kidney disease which started in 1949. She had over 10 operations for kidney stones, and was receiving government disability payments for an inoperable, terminal, kidney condition. She attributes the cure of this kidney trouble entirely to the asparagus.

You would think that with all the people that eat asparagus and have skin cancer, (just by statistical coincidence) there would be at least some documentation of this.

I was not surprised at this result, as `The elements of materia medica’, edited in 1854 by a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania, stated that asparagus was used as a popular remedy for kidney stones. He even referred to experiments, in 1739, on the power of asparagus in dissolving stones. We would have other case histories but the medical establishment has interfered with our obtaining some of the records. I am therefore appealing to readers to spread this good news and help us to gather a large number of case histories that will overwhelm the medical skeptics about this unbelievably simple and natural remedy.

Oh, look, a book; the book has no mention of experiments. It instead refers to another, less known volume by Theophilus Lobb. Want to see for yourself? It would be a bit better if it was a bit more specific, you know, what VOLUME in that huge ass reference book that citation was in? The research involved putting the kidney stones INTO asparagus juice, not drinking asparagus juice and dissolving kidney stones in vivo.

For the treatment, asparagus should be cooked before using, and therefore canned asparagus is just as good as fresh. I have corresponded with the two leading canners of asparagus, Giant Giant and Stokely, and I am satisfied that these brands contain no pesticides or preservatives. Place the cooked asparagus in a blender and liquefy to make a puree, and store in the refrigerator. Give the patient 4 full tablespoons twice daily, morning and evening. Patients usually show some improvement in from 2-4 weeks. It can be diluted with water and used as a cold or hot drink. This suggested dosage is based on present experience, but certainly larger amounts can do no harm and may be needed in some cases.

What chemical, exactly, is supposed to do something to CANCER? How does it work? No mechanism of action=not from a biochemist.

As a biochemist I am convinced of the old saying that `what cures can prevent’. Based on this theory, my wife and I have been using asparagus puree as a beverage with our meals. We take 2 tablespoons diluted in water to suit our taste with breakfast and with dinner. I take mine hot and my wife prefers hers cold. For years we have made it a practice to have blood surveys taken as part of our regular checkups.

Biochemist? Wouldn’t this be “dentist?” I’d also expect this to at least be reported by a reputable journal, or even a crank journal, a bit more often. I don’t think I have to explain the fallacy of “what cures can prevent.” Think about antibiotics and MRSA.

The last blood survey, taken by a medical doctor who specializes in the nutritional approach to health, showed substantial improvements in all categories over the last one, and we can attribute these improvements to nothing but the asparagus drink. As a biochemist, I have made an extensive study of all aspects of cancer, and all of the proposed cures. As a result, I am convinced that asparagus fits in better with the latest theories about cancer.

“Nutritional approach to health”=probably a quack. How can normal levels “improve?” This is complete nonsense. The individual here proposes no biochemical mechanism of action. Even if this was written in 1979, the volume of scientific literature on cancer was SO mountainous, no one individual could ever hope to read all of it. I strongly doubt he understood genetic mechanisms and biochemical signaling for angiogenesis. This really seems to be quite a hoax.

Asparagus contains a good supply of protein called histones, which are believed to be active in controlling cell growth. For that reason, I believe asparagus can be said to contain a substance that I call cell growth normalizer. That accounts for its action on cancer and in acting as a general body tonic. In any event, regardless of theory, asparagus used as we suggest, is a harmless substance. The FDA cannot prevent you from using it and it may do you much good.” It has been reported by the US National Cancer Institute, that asparagus is the highest tested food containing glutathione, which is considered one of the body’s most potent anticarcinogens and antioxidants.

Here is the part that REALLY makes this seem like a hoax. ALL cellular material contains a large supply of histones. The advantage of glutathione is way overrated. It is an antioxidant, but it reduces the efficacy of anticancer drugs due to its reactivity.

So, as usual, I can’t read a post on Greg Laden’s Blog without going off on a tangent. I suppose my thoughts are just typically quite scattered when I am reading blogs, but anyway, the following is my stream of consciousness after reading aforementioned post:

I’ve often wondered how someone can claim the title of being “pro-life” as if the opposition is “pro-death” or “pro-murder.” It certainly seems like a loaded term in and of itself, but how in favor of life are these individuals in the first place? Are they really “anti-choice” or merely “anti-abortion?”

How do most “pro-life” groups define “life” and why do they define it this way? Many, as far as I can tell, define “life” as the moment of gamete fusion, but this ignores a great deal about the term “living” versus “nonliving” in biology. Oocytes and spermatozoa are both living cells. While they are incapable of proliferation individually, and thus cannot “reproduce,” they are capable of all other characteristics of “living organism.”(1)

Some religious organizations are opposed to any contraceptives (hormonal, physical, or surgical) thus making individuals either sexually frustrated or overburdened with children (or both). Additionally, abortions and contraceptives have been quite common over the course of human history ranging from herbal abortifacient blends to the insertion of metal implements into the uterus to extreme abdominal pressure. The survival rate of children to adulthood has also increased dramatically in the past millennium. Perhaps we should consider exactly what it means to be pro-life anti-choice in light of the current situation.

We are currently faced with the problem of the human population. While not all areas of the globe are covered with humans like my back yard is covered in Solenopsis invicta, we have still managed to begin scouring the planet of biodiversity and resources. It should be pointed out that humans have been responsible for a great deal of the loss of biodiversity in the past century and continue to be the greatest threat to life on Earth. To continue with our population increase will certainly not help matters.

I shall not resort to the slippery slope that is “argument from possible consequences,” and shall, instead, migrate back to the present. What motives do the anti-choice have for preventing abortion? Aside from the intrinsic views of their religions that women are progeny factories, I have yet to come across any substantial argument against abortion. The argument about embryos being “human” is to intentionally misunderstand biology in an attempt to define human with the sole purpose of creating a tautology within the argument.

P1) We shouldn’t kill another human
P2) An embryo is a human
C) We should not kill an embryo

What is missing here is WHY is an embryo defined as “human” and what characteristics is this person using to assign such a label? Is there any specific reason (other than for the argument) that an embryo would be considered “human?” I don’t think there is. Often, anti-choice individuals resort to another point, which is equally spurious. This point is one of vitalism, the notion that humans possess “souls” and that these “souls” are given at the moment of fertilization. I hesitate to ask, but what happens for a miscarriage? What about embryos which do not implant into the uterus? What happens to the “soul” when an embryo splits into monozygotic twins? How does this soul interact with the body? For that matter, what does it do? Since we have absolutely no evidence of a soul, we should assume the null hypothesis that said soul does not exist.

(1) It could be said, by inclusion of the “reproduction” qualification, sterile hybrids are not living organisms.

I’ve stated my opinion on the notion of abortion several times before. To reiterate: I strongly support the right of any human to control the number of offspring he or she wishes to have. The decision to have a child rests solely upon the individuals that will care for this offspring. This means the woman housing this organism for 40 weeks has a particularly strong say in the matter if she does not wish for her body to be the feeding ground of said developing organism since she is required to alter her behaviors for said offspring.

As for the coverage of contraceptives of any form by health insurance companies, they should be as required to cover abortion procedures and contraceptive pills as they are required to cover vaccinations, emergency medicine, and prenatal care. Any reform which refuses any of these is not medical coverage, but criminal.

Many people think genetics works like this.

While it is certainly a wonderful joke, this isn’t exactly what happens. Indeed, Dawkins devotes a few pages on this in The Greatest Show on Earth. Mendel actually discovered something contrary to the “blending of traits.” As Dawkins states, if traits were indeed a mix of the traits of each parent, we would see children with a combination of the traits of both parents, grandchildren would receive traits from all four grandparents, and, very quickly, diversity would decrease to a homogeneous blend. Dawkins uses the “mixing paint” metaphor. If you mix red paint and blue paint to get purple paint, no quantity of mixing will ever yield the original red or blue paint again.

So what, exactly, are the Mendelian laws?

The Law of Segregation states that when gametes are formed, the specific traits previously inherited from the parents are separate entities and are segregated from one another with only one of the two being inherited by offspring from each parent.

The Law of Independent Assortment states that traits from the same parent are not linked to one another. This means that the offspring can inherit a trait from one parent and a different trait from the other parent. While many genes are technically not “dominant” or “recessive,” traits can be. Most often, genes are coexpressed in differing cell populations or, sometimes, in the same cell. The traits resulting from one specific allele can appear to mask the traits of the other allele.

This is a point which needs further clarification in the very near future.

Here’s something that should be a bit of a non-starter of an issue.

The work is expected to take at least a year, but its leaders hope it will help establish guidelines for scientists in Britain and around the world on how far the public is prepared to see them go in mixing human genes into animals to discover ways to fight human diseases.

Genes cloned from humans with diseases to develop model organisms to study diseases. I’m not sure exactly why anyone would have a problem with replacing the gene for a protein found in a specific organism with one from a disease-type gene found in affected humans.

“Do most of us care if we make a mouse whose blood cells or liver are human? Probably not,” he said. “But if it can speak? If it can think? Or if it is conscious in a human way? Then we’re in a completely different ballpark.”

I still fail to see how this is an issue. First of all, every vertebrate has some level of thought processes (read: they think) and thus we are trying to draw an arbitrary line in the sand. Secondly, can we cross that bridge IF we get there (which I highly doubt we would, when working with mice, rabbits, and yeast). Thirdly, why is vocalization and communication so important to this notion of “conscious?” Let’s have a real debate, and it should start out with questions such as “what are the reservations of the public against the use of human genes in model organisms?”

If the reply has anything to do with “it will make them like us, and we can’t experiment on them because they have our DNA” then educated individuals in the audience should appropriately laugh these individuals off the stage.

DNA does not a human make. We are more than our DNA, we are a combination of embryological conditions, biochemical and physiological stimuli, and developmental conditions interacting with other molecules to produce a human. Quit thinking of an organism in simple terms, DNA isn’t the organism, it is a part of the organism, providing the reactive templates for synthesis of other molecules and interacting with many highly variable signals in complex ways. While certain changes in the DNA can results in specific physiological changes in the organism, it is a result of the interactions that such a physiological condition arises. If the interactions change (read: restorative mutation) then the condition may be present with the original molecule rather than the “disease-state” molecule. Biology isn’t simple, making public policy decisions about scientific research should not be done while assuming a blatantly false, overly simplistic model. I’m all for informed debate, but this is why I do not debate many people. If someone asks questions, I will gladly point them in the right direction, if someone has an incorrect idea of biology and makes reasoning errors as a result, I will help. If someone wishes to argue and refuses to listen to my side because they are utterly convinced of this simplistic model, it is a waste of time.

Ever wonder how homeopathy is supposed to work? Well, Charlene Werner wants to explain to people how it works!

Here’s the video, but I’m going to be kind enough to transcribe it, so you have the option of just reading it rather than giving it another page hit.

Well, thank you so much, I’m going to explain to you exactly, actually how it works. Now, has everybody had chemistry, like, uhm, in school, way back when? But you do know what H₂O is, ok. And have all of you heard of Einstein? Ok, you know that light is energy, right? And he gave us the theory that energy equals mass time the speed of light; e=mc². Ok, now if you take that formula, and we think there’s a lot of mass, right? Ok, if you collapsed all the mass down into the universe so there is no space between the mass, do you know how much mass there is in the entire universe? You think you’re a lot of mass, right? I’m a lot of mass, this building is…[laughing] Well, the whole universal mass can be consolidated down into the size of a bowling ball, that’s all there is in the whole world, in the universe. So how much mass are you? That’s right, an infinitesimal amount. So if you take that formula, e=mc², you can almost cross out mass. So the formula ends up being energy equals the speed of light. Ok, and that’s why the vision system is so important. Because we have lots of photoreceptors that receive light. But when Hahnemann died, he, uhm, the scientists didn’t fall in his camp. Ok, and uhm, the pieces of the puzzle didn’t fit well together. So god in his infinite wisdom send him another Einstein called Steven Hawkings [sic: see Stephen Hawking]. Ok, Steven Hawkings [sic] gave us the string theory, and what he discovered is that there are other energetic particles in the universe and they are shaped like little “u-ies” and what they do is they work by vibration so our body is so wonderfully designed; we have light receivers, and we have ears, string, vibratory, they pick up vibration, so if you add it to that theory, Einstein’s theory of relativity, we have e=mc², that mass is crossed out almost, and strings, vibration. But that still doesn’t tell us the whole picture. Because what is a cell? Right? So a cell has cell walls, cell membranes, cytoplasm. Is that mass? Not very much, really, so what are they, what is that? You can break down the cells into tiny pieces of energy, called electrons, protons, neutrons. So the whole body has an infinitesimal amount of mass, but what is the remainder? Energy. So I am energy, you are energy. Now if you go to study physics, energy cannot be created, we do not know how to create energy, but we don’t know how to destroy it either. That is not humanly possible. So what we do is we take energy and we transform it from one state to another. That’s all we do, so if that’s all we do, guess what the definition of disease is. It’s not mass, we have transformed our energy state into something different. That’s what the definition of disease is. Ok, so we should be able to retransform our energy into a previous better state, right? So what we do is we use light, we use sound, we can use homeopathy. Ok, so what is homeopathy, if nothing is really mass, or an infinitesimal amount of it, and everything is energy, that means everything has a vibration to it. Ok, so what if I could encase some sort of energy for later use? Ok, so, if I wanted to make a bomb, and I took all these chemicals and encased it a..a bomb, and tonight, my neighbor lets his dog poop in my yard, literally, and I’m mad at that dog, and my neighbor, so I’m gonna take this bomb, and I’m going to get back at him. So what if I threw that bomb at his house, would he be happy with me? Because what happens now when that energy is released? It destroys something, or changes it. It makes the building now not in structure form, it changes its energetic state. Well that’s what we can do with homeopathy. We take substances and what we do is we, we pulverize them, and we put them in solution, and we succuss it just like the bomb, we threw the bomb, to release its energy into this liquid, and then we take these little white pellets, we sprinkle them with that solution, and guess what we have just made? An energetic substance to be used when we choose to use it. Ok, so how homeopathy works is, whatever your disease process is, it’s an energetic change, and if I can find the remedy which matches your state, and give it to you when we so choose, what can we do with your energy system? Transform it to a previous better state. And that’s how it works.

She then goes on to even more nonsensical stories….

Now, I’m sure you, like myself, are completely dumbfounded by how much nonsense is in this talk. I might subject this to a thorough fisking… Oh, what the hell, let’s go

Well, thank you so much, I’m going to explain to you exactly, actually how it works. Now, has everybody had chemistry, like, uhm, in school, way back when?

Why yes, Charlene, I, in fact, have had quite a few classes covering chemistry, probably more than you, actually. At the very least, I learned more about chemistry.

But you do know what H₂O is, ok.

Call it water… Please, I’m begging you, don’t try to sound like you know this…

And have all of you heard of Einstein?

Einstein has something to do with homeopathy? Do tell…

Ok, you know that light is energy, right?

Light is a type of energy, it is, specifically, electromagnetic energy. So, it’s an energetic particle, known as a photon.

And he gave us the theory that energy equals mass time the speed of light; e=mc².

Yes, and?

Ok, now if you take that formula, and we think there’s a lot of mass, right? Ok, if you collapsed all the mass down into the universe so there is no space between the mass, do you know how much mass there is in the entire universe?

Wait, since when is mass the same as volume? Mass is not the same as “matter.” The MASS of the entire universe is about 10⁵³ kg. Mass has no maximum density since mass is just a measure of how much matter is in a specific area. It can be thought that matter is mostly empty space, but the reality is that no area of space is actually empty. It is constantly boiling with virtual particles condensing and collapsing in and out of existence. So if you want to ignore the virtual particles, then yes, matter is mostly empty space. Good job at ignoring most of our universe, though.

You think you’re a lot of mass, right?

Don’t you just love subjective ideas?

I’m a lot of mass, this building is…[laughing] Well, the whole universal mass can be consolidated down into the size of a bowling ball,

This is patent nonsense. Density of matter can approach infinity as it does in gravitational singularities such as black holes. You could put any amount of matter in any volume because of this neat little quirk.

that’s all there is in the whole world, in the universe. So how much mass are you? That’s right, an infinitesimal amount.

No, any person is a given amount of mass. You cannot ignore this mass. It exists. As much as cosmologists would like to ignore dark matter and dark energy, they can’t do it. It would be convenient, but just because it is convenient to ignore reality doesn’t mean you can do it and still expect to make sense of the world.

So if you take that formula, e=mc², you can almost cross out mass.

Have you read anything about mass-energy equivalence? That was to calculate the energy within a particle. A particle has MASS. Photons, while being technically massless, can remove mass from a system because they carry it off in the form of energy. Mass can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to mass. That is what Einstein described.

So the formula ends up being energy equals the speed of light.

Because you ignore a number? Energy is measured in kg-m2/s2. You wish to make it m2/s2. What happened to that conveniently ignored unit? Are you going to just magically turn it into a 1?

Ok, and that’s why the vision system is so important.

What? Because energy is light? What about the huge range we can’t see? You know, we can only see a very small fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Because we have lots of photoreceptors that receive light.

Infrared? Ultraviolet? Gamma? X-ray? Microwave? Radio? What about all of these frequency ranges we can’t detect?

But when Hahnemann died, he, uhm, the scientists didn’t fall in his camp.

Because he was full of shit, and they could smell it.

Ok, and uhm, the pieces of the puzzle didn’t fit well together.

Because pieces were being ignored?

So god in his infinite wisdom send him another Einstein called Steven Hawkings [sic: see Stephen Hawking].

I don’t think Dr. Hawking would be happy about you using him to promote your vile crap.

Ok, Steven Hawkings [sic] gave us the string theory,

Hawking isn’t responsible for String Theory; that would be a myriad of scientists working in the field of physics known as “string theorists.” Hawking is not one of them.

and what he discovered is that there are other energetic particles in the universe and they are shaped like little “u-ies”

What a wonderful bit of crap. Strings are supposedly one dimensional objects which interacts with one another to compose the elementary particles which comprise matter. They have no shape, because they are ONE dimensional.

and what they do is they work by vibration so our body is so wonderfully designed;

Our bodies are designed? The varying vibrations of strings are supposedly responsible for different types of particles and interactions.

we have light receivers, and we have ears, string, vibratory, they pick up vibration,

Vibrations on the subatomic level are not the same as the frequency of photons or compression waves of sound.

so if you add it to that theory, Einstein’s theory of relativity, we have e=mc², that mass is crossed out almost,

But it can’t be! You can’t just ignore a term.

and strings, vibration. But that still doesn’t tell us the whole picture.

Yea, it’s a bunch of bullshit, it doesn’t tell us anything.

Because what is a cell? Right? So a cell has cell walls, cell membranes, cytoplasm.

Cool, animal cells have cell walls!

Is that mass? Not very much, really, so what are they, what is that?

Uhm…there you go trying to ignore mass again. Why?

You can break down the cells into tiny pieces of energy, called electrons, protons, neutrons.

Since when do electrons, protons, and neutrons not have mass?

So the whole body has an infinitesimal amount of mass, but what is the remainder?

Uhm…the remainder of what? If you remainder of the mass you ignored? The remainder of the volume? Since when does energy require volume?

Energy. So I am energy, you are energy.

Well, yea, because matter is energy, but you are still matter.

Now if you go to study physics, energy cannot be created, we do not know how to create energy, but we don’t know how to destroy it either.

So what?

That is not humanly possible. So what we do is we take energy and we transform it from one state to another.

And?

That’s all we do, so if that’s all we do, guess what the definition of disease is.

Not really; a disease is a physiological condition with biochemical causes.

It’s not mass, we have transformed our energy state into something different.

Sure, so E. coli and Salmonella don’t cause diseases. HIV doesn’t cause a disease. They can’t cause disease because they are composed of matter.

That’s what the definition of disease is.

Because you ignore mass, arbitrarily, ignore biological causation for disease, arbitrarily, and ignore the known causative agents of diseases.

Ok, so we should be able to retransform our energy into a previous better state, right?

This is such patent nonsense. Transforming the energy in one’s body into a different state? WTF are you talking about?

So what we do is we use light, we use sound, we can use homeopathy.

To do what?

Ok, so what is homeopathy, if nothing is really mass,

But it DOES have mass, you’ve chosen to arbitrarily ignore it.

or an infinitesimal amount of it, and everything is energy, that means everything has a vibration to it.

Wow, you completely miss the point, don’t you? The “vibrations” are descriptions of the interactions.

Ok, so what if I could encase some sort of energy for later use?

Sure, you can, chemical bonds, electrons, gravitational or other kinetic potential energy (springs, pistons, etc.)

Ok, so, if I wanted to make a bomb, and I took all these chemicals and encased it a..a bomb, and tonight, my neighbor lets his dog poop in my yard, literally, and I’m mad at that dog, and my neighbor, so I’m gonna take this bomb, and I’m going to get back at him. So what if I threw that bomb at his house, would he be happy with me? Because what happens now when that energy is released? It destroys something, or changes it.

Wait, so, you’d bomb your neighbor because his dog decided your yard looked like a nice place to take a shit? Damn, aren’t you a nice person.

It makes the building now not in structure form, it changes its energetic state.

Uhh, yea, it breaks things because chemical energy was transferred to kinetic energy. What type of energy is this magical energy within organisms and molecules that you are harnessing in these mixtures? It’s not chemical energy, nor is it kinetic, what is it?

Well that’s what we can do with homeopathy.

How, what kind of energy are you taking from this substance?

We take substances and what we do is we, we pulverize them, and we put them in solution, and we succuss it just like the bomb,

What?

we threw the bomb, to release its energy into this liquid,

What kind of energy is it losing? What kind of energy is the liquid gaining?

and then we take these little white pellets, we sprinkle them with that solution, and guess what we have just made?

Ooo, ooo! I know, I know! A placebo!

An energetic substance to be used when we choose to use it.

What kind of energy?

Ok, so how homeopathy works is, whatever your disease process is, it’s an energetic change,

Energetic change? What about the matter? The biochemical processes which change?

and if I can find the remedy which matches your state, and give it to you when we so choose, what can we do with your energy system? Transform it to a previous better state. And that’s how it works.

Yep, and it’s not just that dog that’s full of shit.

Or

My conclusions on falsehoods

I’ve explored quite a few falsehoods to some depth recently, and I have a few very general thoughts on this matter which I would like to share.

So much of our understanding of reality is reliant upon language which does not allow for simple explanations of what is actually occurring around us. Our brains operate at the “vertebrate organism” level. We have no innate mechanisms to think in terms of geologic time, subatomic movement, or galactic dimensions. We also have no intrinsic ability to grasp long-term population genetics or ecological changes. Instead, we must use metaphors which are often mistaken to be the truth in themselves.

Humans also have a tendency to find causality and patterns when none exist. We notice images in completely random static, faces from completely different shapes, and order in piles of debris. This pattern-seeking behavior is particularly problematic when dealing with causes lacking agency.

Additionally, humans love nothing more than simple explanations. This is where the falsehoods come from. Simple explanations which make the complex issues we notice seem to make sense upon casual observation. These falsehoods in themselves are not a problem so long as the individual knows these are only metaphors and representations. Expecting a ten second summary to explain all of the research on a given topic over a period of years, decades, centuries, or (in some cases) millennia, is a requesting too much from the language. Our communicative technologies and techniques are not sufficiently developed to allow rapid transmission of this much information.

This is where the difference lies between indoctrination (classical definition) and education. Education is to lead to a conclusion, while indoctrination is to present only the conclusions with no reason for belief, the conclusions in this case being the condensation of experiential data, models, and ideologies all rolled into one. I firmly believe, for example, that it is possible to explore an idea with someone and lead them to the same conclusion as would be produced by simply presenting the preformed conclusion. The only distinction is that, if new evidence comes to light, the conclusion which one has been led to can be adapted piecewise to include the new evidence whereas without the evidence supporting the previous conclusion, it must be dismissed wholesale.

This is a fun one. We’re always told that mutations occur randomly throughout the genome, but this idea kind of misses the point that they are, in their own way, “predictably random.” At different parts of the genome, mutations occur at different frequencies. On the individual level, different types of mutational causes are more frequent than others. Each site along the DNA has a mutational variance based upon conditions the region is subject to. This is why the various “molecular clocks” need to be calibrated separately from one another. We have many molecular clocks, indeed, we are limited only by the number of common genes between organisms. Indeed, the LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) possessed at least:

rRNA and tRNA genes
DNA-binding genes for topoisomerases, ligases, and repair proteins
RNA polymerases
glucose metabolism genes (hexokinases, at least)

80 genes, all told. This is useful if you’re comparing a specific bacteria to a specific bird, but many species share more genes than these. Mammals, for example, share more genes with each other than they share with yeast and plants. This is only to be expected, but I’m getting off topic. Different genes mutate at different rates, and these rates vary based upon several factors. One of which being the DNA repair and replication genes of that organism. Some repair and replication proteins are notably more efficient at repairing or replicating DNA with higher fidelity. This variance in fidelity plays a role in mutation rates. Broadly speaking, however, the introns of these genes vary little within families and orders due to the selective pressure to have functional DNA repair and replication genes. The rates are about 1/50th that of silent stretches of the genome.

Another point is that mutation rates are not exactly correlated to years, but to generations, so a shortening in generation time will lead to an increase in the mutation rate and vice versa. Yet, once again, the increase will be more pronounced in the silent stretches of DNA than in the functional stretches.

Additional compounding factors include the methylation/acetylation states of histones (at least in eukaryotes) which allow more or less exposure to the repair proteins found within the cell. For this reason, (generally speaking) genes bound by highly methylated histones tend to undergo higher mutation rates than those around demethylated (or specifically methylated) histones.

Moreover, the different molecules which comprise DNA differ in their interactions with neighboring/paired molecules. Two thymines next to one another can fuse to form dimers if exposed to UV light. Cytosine can spontaneously deaminate to form uracil. Mismatched pairs vary in frequency due to variations in partial affinity.

These are certainly not ALL of the problems with the idea of absolutely random mutations, but make for a decent start on the issue. We have to understand that while specific mutations occur randomly in terms of if or when they will happen, the rates of mutation differ due to various compounding factors.

I’ve been rather dormant, but I have a few things I was working on which I need to finish… Wednesday night in the hospital for dehydration; 4 liters of saline, a barium sulfate contrasted CT scan, IV antibiotics and antifungals, I’m feeling much better. So I hope to resume posting again tomorrow, but for now, I’m going take a nap…

It has taken me some time to complete this review, and for that, I apologize, I do hope the wait was worth it:

Krista Van Vleet sets out to explore the lives among the natives of the Sullk’ata region. In doing so, she establishes the role of ritual, exchange, and nurture which play roles in relatedness among these people. She does so by recounting stories told to her by the inhabitants and drawing upon observations from her time with them. In exploring the culture of this region, she not only illustrates their rituals and traditions in contrast with that of western society, but also explores our own culture as well. This is the primary reason for my reading this book and that which I took away from her writings.

The interactions of parents, spouses, children, and siblings only begin to illustrate the relationships among the natives of this region. Highly complex relationships exist within the exchange community known as one’s ayllu. The ayllu is developed over one’s lifetime extending to, as we would call in western society, relatives and in-laws, and to neighbors, friends, and more distant genetic relatives. Van Vleet illustrates these exchanges and interactions with a series of stories illustrating the complexity and subtlety of these relationships. She tells the story of a child, Javier, who had “two mothers,” in the sense that, when his birth mother (Julia) was unable to care for her child, the responsibility was given to her sister (Silveria) who provided and cared for him as a young child. Javier, in the sense of children being the receivers of food and nurture, was the child of both Julia, who cared for him from birth until her injury, and Silveria, who cared for him after Julia’s injury until she had recovered.

Children, in this culture, are nurtured by the parents. Parents are, upon the child becoming independent, given gifts from their children as a sign of love and gratitude. Silveria was upset when Javier failed to bring her a radio as he had done for Julia, insisting that Javier his mother.

While the story of “Javier’s Two Mothers” is used to illustrate how children, in a sense, are the child of the parent, it serves additionally to give insights into how Julia’s sister assisted her when she was unable to care for her child. Additionally, children can be “loaned” to couples whose children have all moved away. This serves to release the burden upon the childless couples to complete all necessary work for their subsistence, but also removes some of the burden from the parents with many children. This exchange of labor (ayni) is one of the corner stones of their culture.

Van Vleet illustrates this in a wonderfully short, but information rich, ethnography containing insights into conflict and resolution, violence and abuse, sexuality and alcohol, as well as many other aspects of life in Sullk’ata. She explores both the said and unsaid, the distinct and frighteningly similar, aspects of their culture. She further explores marriage and the integration of Catholic requirements upon civil marriage and how these requirements have been integrated as another layer of reciprocity is added upon the already quite complex exchanges of the ayllu.

The only real fault I found with this book is the complexity with which it explains. For individuals with only minimal knowledge of anthropology, it makes for quite a difficult read, however, with a bit of extra time and parsing the arguments thoroughly, it is quite easy to understand. Most of her claims are, if not at least intuitive given the narrative associated with it, fairly well explained and supported by additional references.

Finally, I fear I cannot possibly give this book a thorough review due to my lack of familiarity with cultural anthropology, but I have tried even so. Anyone with an interest in viewing, not just life in Sullk’ata, but also life in our own society, through new eyes would be encouraged to read this book. It will not give you a comprehensive guide to the lives of these people, but it will give you insight into our own lives. You may even come away as I have, wondering why we do some of the things we do.

Rarely do I talk about domestication (ok, so I’ve never talked about it before). I just figured I’d share a bit of interesting things about the domestication of the date palm. The wild stock from which the date palm originates was identified by Zohary and Spiegel-Roy in 1975. The fruits of wild form of date palms are smaller with very little pulp (the tasty part around the seed) and are very bitter and indigestible with only a few wild individuals actually being palatable.  It is easily seen, however, that these palatable phenotypes were eaten and subsequently planted (either intentionally or accidentally) near human settlements. Populations were already sessile owing to the previous domestication of grains and pulses. (~11,000 yBP) That means the trees which tasted better were more frequently eaten with the pits discarded near the settlements. Domesticated date palms were being cultivated within 7,000 years of the domestication of staple crops as recorded in cuneiform tablets dating to 4000 yBP. Additionally, written records from the first Babylonian dynasty indicate that date palms were already being hand pollinated by that time.