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. KalosKaiAgathos

    KalosKaiAgathos New Member

    I also think that modern philosophy is "sick" in a sense, with its mind-body problem, and its problematic in acceptance that there is an outside world.

    Contrary to to people who find the existence of an outside world self-evident, such as Jack Kruse (or Aristotle!), I do think that a proof is needed.

    Ayn Rand is actually pretty close to Jack Kruse, because she - just like Jack Kruse - tends towards realism. Ayn Rand also claims to give a proof of this realism:

    You can replace the word "existence" in the paragraph above with the word "nature", to translate the quote into "Kruserism" ( :p ) without a loss of meaning. According to Rand, the denial of existence (or, in Kruserism terms: nature), has horrendous consequences.

    What's interesting, is that both Kruse, Rand, and Kant, allocate a grossly similar role to reason: integration of individual concepts.

    In a sense, that leaves postmodern philosophy with two problems for me: 1) denial of nature; 2) denial of reason.

    Disclaimer: this argument is very loosely posited, without having gone through the rigorous reflection that is necessary for making a proper philosophical argument, and does not reflect the actual deeper analytical position of the author (Kalos).
  2. KalosKaiAgathos

    KalosKaiAgathos New Member

    Of course I used the PubMed studies. I gave several reasons why I use them. I have several additional reasons, which Jack knows of, which have not been explicated in this thread.

    The p-value argument supports my argument about context being important. I think it's important to teach people about the context of PubMed studies, just like teaching them about blue light is important.

    20 years ago, 1:1.000.000 people might have known about the dangers of blue light. Today, that's 1:100.

    Today, 1:10.000 people might be able to understand the proper context of PubMed studies. In 20 years, that might be 1:100.
    NeilBB likes this.
  3. Mystic Rose60

    Mystic Rose60 Let the sun shine on you :))

    What are beliefs anyhow?

  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
    Phosphene, caroline, JanSz and 2 others like this.
  10. 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
    Phosphene and JanSz like this.
  11. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

  12. JanSz

    JanSz Gold

    Phosphene, caroline, Pebbles and 2 others like this.
  13. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    ^^^^especially in food and nutrition data. Most of it is HORSESHIT.
    Allin, caroline and Mayuri like this.
  14. KalosKaiAgathos

    KalosKaiAgathos New Member

  15. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    You don't need much to make AA when you slow light down. That was the message of the Vermont 2017 youtube video.

    This just adds more fuel to the fire.
  16. KalosKaiAgathos

    KalosKaiAgathos New Member

  17. KalosKaiAgathos

    KalosKaiAgathos New Member

    Came across this gem (emphasis mine):

    Nutrition education in U.S. medical schools: latest update of a national survey.

    To quantify the number of required hours of nutrition education at U.S. medical schools and the types of courses in which the instruction was offered, and to compare these results with results from previous surveys.

    The authors distributed to all 127 accredited U.S. medical schools (that were matriculating students at the time of this study) a two-page online survey devised by the Nutrition in Medicine Project at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. From August 2008 through July 2009, the authors asked their contacts, most of whom were nutrition educators, to report the nutrition contact hours that were required for their medical students and whether those actual hours of nutrition education occurred in a designated nutrition course, within another course, or during clinical rotations.

    Respondents from 109 (86%) of the targeted medical schools completed some part of the survey. Most schools (103/109) required some form of nutrition education. Of the 105 schools answering questions about courses and contact hours, only 26 (25%) required a dedicated nutrition course; in 2004, 32 (30%) of 106 schools did. Overall, medical students received 19.6 contact hours of nutrition instruction during their medical school careers (range: 0-70 hours); the average in 2004 was 22.3 hours. Only 28 (27%) of the 105 schools met the minimum 25 required hours set by the National Academy of Sciences; in 2004, 40 (38%) of 104 schools did so.

    The amount of nutrition education that medical students receive continues to be inadequate.
    Only 20 hours of nutrition education on average to become a doctor...

    Edit: link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20736683
  18. WalterNL

    WalterNL New Member

    Maybe that's for the best, given that the current state of nutrition 'science' is still fat = bad, vitamin pills = good, etc.
  19. John Nicholas

    John Nicholas New Member

    Very cool video. Thank you for sharing.
  20. KalosKaiAgathos

    KalosKaiAgathos New Member

    New interesting study. Just came out a few months ago


    (emphasis mine)

    Mitochondria and Mood: Mitochondrial Dysfunction as a Key Player in the Manifestation of Depression.

    Human and animal studies suggest an intriguing link between mitochondrial diseases and depression. Although depression has historically been linked to alterations in monoaminergic pharmacology and adult hippocampal neurogenesis, new data increasingly implicate broader forms of dampened plasticity, including plasticity within the cell. Mitochondria are the cellular powerhouse of eukaryotic cells, and they also regulate brain function through oxidative stress and apoptosis. In this paper, we make the case that mitochondrial dysfunction could play an important role in the pathophysiology of depression. Alterations in mitochondrial functions such as oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) and membrane polarity, which increase oxidative stress and apoptosis, may precede the development of depressive symptoms. However, the data in relation to antidepressant drug effects are contradictory: some studies reveal they have no effect on mitochondrial function or even potentiate dysfunction, whereas other studies show more beneficial effects. Overall, the data suggest an intriguing link between mitochondrial function and depression that warrants further investigation. Mitochondria could be targeted in the development of novel antidepressant drugs, and specific forms of mitochondrial dysfunction could be identified as biomarkers to personalize treatment and aid in early diagnosis by differentiating between disorders with overlapping symptoms.​


    Not at all...

    Shows you that just taking SSRIs to up certain neurotransmitters equals myoptic thinking.
    WalterNL and Phosphene like this.

Share This Page