1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

Mitochondria are not captive bacteria!?

Discussion in 'Mitochondrial Rx' started by KalosKaiAgathos, Mar 26, 2018.

  1. Mystic Rose60

    Mystic Rose60 Let the sun shine on you :))

    What are beliefs anyhow?


  2. taiyang

    taiyang New Member

    JK said: "Going back to read old science.......when scientist really had skin in the game is the key." why did scientists have more skin in the game before whereas now they don't?
    Taleb: "The Hammurabi’s Law, if you cause harm to others, you ought to be penalized and compensate your victims. That is the idea. In others words I shall not hide risk. There is the story of the architect who built a house and of course can cut corners with something weak in the foundation and you immediately make your money. One day the house collapses. Well in the Hammurabi’s Law finds the architect punished..."

    In the past how was it ascertained that a scientist was causing harm to others? in the current 'publish or perish' environment, quantity of scientific work is rewarded over quality. it seems funding agencies which are neutral (that is-leaving aside industry funding of science) do not have the ability to judge the quality of scientific work, so bad science is never punished. how to punish bad science? the results of bad science are not as clear as a building collapsing because the architect/builder cut corners. The Center for Science in the Public Interest founded by Ralph Nader was started to try to counteract bad science. Why hasn't it been successful? What will it take to have a system that rewards good science and punishes bad science?
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2018
    Alex97232 and NeilBB like this.
  3. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    The findings of scientist are found in modern disease epidemics. So they have ZERO skin in the game.
    Alex97232 likes this.
  4. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    Rand's quoted statement above is an extension/correction of Aristotlianism and of the pre-Socratic Parmenides,
    with which I agree. An axiomatic declaration of existence and the primacy of existence over consciousness that is a prerequisite of conceptual knowledge.

    The major issue with Kant was that he drew a line in the sand with his so-called Copernican Revolution and noumenal and phenomenal world and established subjectivity as the basis for scientific knowledge and declared that actual knowledge of the world we experience was impossible to obtain through reason. This paved the way, not only for the resurgence of religious mysticism but also for the collapse of objective science and philosophy, which as a Pius Christian, was actually Kant's stated objective. It is in my opinion no exaggeration to say this man single handedly destroyed the enlightenment, and he did it on purpose.
    Last edited: Apr 6, 2018
    Alex97232, Mayuri and Jack Kruse like this.
  5. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    I would disagree and say that there is an important epistemological distinction between the concept "nature" and the concept "existence." How many here have even considered what the concept "nature" actually refers to and distinguishes from? That would be a good place to start.
    Lahelada likes this.
  6. MonteD

    MonteD New Member

    And you've been telling me for just as long to leave Fort Worth, TX. North isn't the answer apparently but out to the southwest and even western Colorado are caner "blue zones". Hmmm.
  7. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Colorado is bad.


    QED says that a "single thought" can alter your reality, your health, and your DNA. Many of you have not accepted that today. (non-linear action)

    The moral of this quantum lesson is simple. QED runs our belief paradigms, whether we perceive it or not. What we believe to be true is true, within certain limits, which are, themselves, beliefs. In the province of the mind, there are no real limits. How did I start this blog? I asked you this question, " What if I told you a core set of beliefs shared by enough people could actually set up an alternative reality and force you to live by its rules." Look around at modern healthcare or life now in the United States. Do you think that is far off base now? You still think this idea is folly? Consider this statement from Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine made in 2009, this echoes the fact:

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” - Marcia Angell, MD, The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009

    Ms. Angell has been an insider to the world of research, PEER review publication, and the reporting of research to clinicians she is saying that her perception of reality has changed because health care decisions rest on cataclysmic fraud, a scientific fraud tied to poor research data.

    See, quantum mechanics tells us that we can transcend what one thinks is possible, by examining and transcending one's beliefs.

    This ability creates our reality as well, as hard as that may be for you to accept. It implies what others say or does matter little to your conditions of existence.

    Our capacity for direct knowledge, for immediate insight, without observation or reason is called instinct. Instinct is as much a component of our thinking as is analytical knowledge. Instinct is built on information transfers. The key point in QED is that intellect and intuition are not complementary. They require each other to work congruently with our perception of reality. They are like Cooper pairs in QED theory.

    Without information collection, intellect and intuition drive us into chaos. Without intuition, we are unable to resolve issues that are too complex or that are happening too quickly for logical analysis. Intellect is driven by intuition. But, intuition is directed by information quanta, in my view of reality. This clearly is not the belief system in medicine or in the paleosphere today.
    JanSz, Alex97232 and Mayuri like this.
  8. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Another reason I no longer trust PEER reviewed and evidence-based medicine: Ideological biases influence medical research and practice and should be disclosed and managed, say Miriam Wiersma and colleagues. But Marc Rodwin argues that many of these interests are widespread and inherent to life and cannot be avoided or eliminated. https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1240
    JanSz likes this.
  9. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

  10. JanSz

    JanSz Gold

    WalterNL and drezy like this.
  11. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    ^^^^especially in food and nutrition data. Most of it is HORSESHIT.
    Mayuri likes this.

Share This Page