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.

TENSEGRITY 9 is LIVE. Welcome comments here.

Discussion in 'Mitochondrial Rx' started by Jack Kruse, Nov 19, 2014.

  1. One thing that occurs to me now is from reading some of the website Josh (Paleo) and Yew put on here the 'holoscience' one that is promoting the "Electric Universe" with with Dr Kruse seems very aligned with..................but THAT view of the universe is quite 'hostile' to Einstein for example and many other 'un-questioned' aspects of relativity, black holes etc. So........................if that is the more 'correct' one which I tend to think is correct..............then Dr Kruse is kind of trying to have it both ways. He 'rejects' much of modern physics but KEEPS all this business about 'paired' and 'unpaired' electrons. That stuff seems dubious to me I don't think it is even close to being 'proved' but then to make this a big factor in biology...............I dunno seems a MAJOR 'stretch' to me. What if the original 'quantum' notion of 'paired electrons' is headed for the same scientific thrash heap as big bang, black holes, dark energy etc. I am not trying to nit pick here I tend to believe in my own N=1 I need to move out of LA it only makes sense.............but I am not about to give up my 'critical thinking' or 'common sense' and stake my life on trying to regain my ability to 'pair electrons' something that may not even be real. I think Dr Kruse has achieved an amazing amount already but I do feel (rightly or wrongly) he just might be jumping a bit too far and a bit too quick with this 'pairing electrons' business................
  2. Josh

    Josh Gold

    This reply indicates you have neither fully embraced the subtleties of Dr. Kruse's discussion nor that of the EU people. It is a fairly brutal exercise to orient oneself fully so that one might critique both from a valid and informed perspective. For example, Wal Thornhill who I met last weekend has been working full-time on these questions since 1979 when he met Velikovsky. Jack has been studying and experimenting for 10 years. None of us can begin to approach the depth of their inquiry. It is unclear what you are looking for here? Are you looking for a good excuse to ignore the data and stay comfortable? No one would fault you for this. In my perspective it is the quality of your consciousness at death that is most vital, the length of life is secondary. These are individual choices and explorations. Best of luck with your choices.
    David L and caroline like this.
  3. I am only bringing attention to what Josh (Paleo) and Yew already did but I really like this "Electric Universe" science web site. It is fairly accessible I would say and I think will put some of Dr Kruse's promised notions about gravity etc in a good and understandable context. But now I really do question the what I see as 'un-thinking adherence' to a lot of this 'quantum' business. The first thing I don't like about it is it seems un-necessary to say it is 'quantum' all the time, a chemical reaction (exchange of electrons is 'quantum' ok big deal that has been known for a long time) but also it seems to open up limitless avenues for excuse my French 'bullshit' things winking in and out of existence, paired electrons STILL affecting each other though they might be trillions of miles apart, and applying all this to biology. Maybe time to cool off a bit on some of this stuff. Anyway here's the website

  4. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    Jack takes what makes sense from other people's theories and rejects what doesn't. He is working at a very high level of integration to form a new platform to take medical science beyond its current hangups.

    I think his progress to this point has been pretty stellar. Could he make a mistake at some point? Sure. Does he encourage you to think for yourself? Yep, always. Do you have enough knowledge to challenge him on matters of advanced physics right now? I don't think so. Should you try to get to that point? Yeah, you should, and if you can find somewhere you can improve on what he has said, tell him. Tell the world.

    He never said you or anybody had to believe him or do anything. You are here because you want to be.

    Challenging a person's theory by saying basically, "What he's saying is very complicated and unusual. It might possibly be wrong," is very different from finding an actual error that you can correct. If you want to poke holes in his theory, you're gonna have to study harder. A lot harder.
    Shijin13 and caroline like this.
  5. Neil, with all due respect I AM thinking for myself, I am not trying to 'pull rank' as I feel you are (a bit). After all you are a 'doctor' so you feel entitled it is not up to you to tell me what I need or need not study. I am just pointing out some rather obvious 'holes' in some of the discussions here and even possibly (gasp!) by Dr Kruse himself. Now I understand he has able 'lieutenant's like you to step up and plug the holes as quickly as possible as well as Josh (non-Paleo) but to me you more heighten my concern about 'group think' I mean what do YOU think about 'paired electrons' and more importantly their application to biology.
  6. Josh, I find that 'patronizing' and smug in a rather silly way. What am I looking for here? Are you saying I shouldn't be here? I would imagine I am looking for something similar to you, well being health both mental and physical, nothing out of the ordinary. Again you promote 'thinking for yourself' but quickly run to 'authority' whether Velikovsky who I have never met but good for you you have met someone who has met him.......good for you..............honestly as I see it here you might be the one to quote yourself who is "looking for a good excuse to ignore the data and stay comfortable?" As I have said before 2 can play that game. I VERY much disagree with your statement "None of us can begin to approach the depth of their inquiry." Again promoting 'original thinking' but as soon as you encounter it attempt to 'smother' it with an appeal to 'authority'. I said before I have a degree in Philosophy but I do not consider it a big deal.....................but I have some 'education' I find this 'running to authority' so weird especially from people who constantly SAY the opposite...............
  7. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    I like that you are thinking for yourself-that's why I'm chatting with you. And I have no special "rank" or status here Pat, I'm just a working dude who likes to post from time to time. But I have met Jack personally and do respect his intellect, though his methods are definitely unique. I think it's inevitable that he will make mistakes at some point just because his reach is so ambitious and he's human. I am trying to catch up to his level of knowledge across a wide variety of subjects, so that I can add something intelligent to the conversation. He's a difficult man to keep up with Pat, and I don't think I'm dumb...

    The knowledge moves very fast here. I try to find errors in what Jack says because that's really how science is supposed to work and I think he would want that.

    But he's a very hard man to catch up to Pat. Maybe if I didn't have to work and had all day every day to read, think, and theorize... As my knowledge stands now, I have argued a few points with Jack and actually agree with you that Einstein does not necessarily deserve a pass... I already brought up some of what you are talking about today to Jack, in fact. See the thread below...

    I am convinced that electrons are a huge deal in biology Pat. Some of the details of magnetism and spintronics are very difficult for me even though I degreed in electrical engineering prior to medical school. This is a challenging area...

    But you seem to be kindof angry right now. Lashing out. Not wanting Jack to be right almost. What did he ever do to you except offer you free (or very cheap advice) that he spent years aquiring. If you don't like the advice, don't use it. If you can improve the theory, do it.

    I will tell him when and if I think he is wrong. You should too!
    caroline likes this.
  8. yewwei.tan

    yewwei.tan Gold

    Yup, I think what Neil regarding ROS signalling is accurate. The blog itself also mentioned this fact multiple times.

    But Brother John and Patrick are asking about the real-life implementation of those ideas. In my usual fashion, I'm going to complicate things further by asking more questions. I have hunches as to the answers, but I don't have definitive statements:
    • How much ROS signalling is required? How does this affect the dosing amount and frequency of carbohydrates during the appropriate seasonal times?

    • What is the difference between ROS generated:
      - via carbs when they are pumped through Complex I
      - via threshold level aerobic exercise when you drive electron tunnelling through Complex III
      - via reverse electron flow through Complex I when you are trying to induce physiological insulin resistance (Jimmy Moore is probably chronically in this state)

      The answer lies within the rest of signalling environment that happens during the event that generates ROS, which includes the tissues affected, relative levels of other hormones (eg: insulin in the case with carbs, catecholamines in the case of exercise).

      Right now, I will admit that I am biased toward saying that a high DHA high fat diet should be the default just due to harm minimisation -- you don't usually get worse by staying Hight-fat low-carb year round (and if I were Patrick, I would definitely be HFLC year round because LA already gives enough of an inflammatory signal).

      @Danco3636 in Sacramento has pretty good mitochondria, and he eats HFLC year round, with what seems so far to have no ill effects. He seems to get the ROS signalling from exercise, and from periodic protein (not carbohydrate) refeeds (about once or twice a week).

    • How do you experiment with seasonal carbs? What are the right redox measures to be tracking?

      This has got to be individualised like crazy. If you have a history of gut issues like me, the parameters are completely different (another reason I am biased against consuming carbs in my context BTW).

      "ROS sensitivity" is something that I do not know how to measure yet.

    • How do you define "seasonal"? It's 11-hours of sunlight and a minimum of 13C in "winter time" where I am.

    Again, my biases are to stick with high DHA, high fat, low carb as a default template. Only once you have fixed your environment, and redox potential shows signs of being able to respond to changes (again, what does this mean?), should you begin to add "stressors" to help with signalling further. What stressor is best for you is entirely down to personal context -- some may use carbs, I like to use exercise, but I don't have answers. :p

    Brother John, David L and Jude like this.
  9. yewwei.tan

    yewwei.tan Gold

    To reproduce the quote from the blog:

    Anytime we increase protein synthesis we are increasing the times our cells have to measure the quantum state of its local environment as its redox potential changes. When we measure things in QED it alters the experiment.
    Now the question is: What does "protein synthesis" mean?

    Are we talking about remodelling polypeptide chains using DNA? The paper I just mentioned talked about E.coli Ribonucleotide Reductase, which I can now say is obviously affected by quantum tunnelling effects. Then the paper cited in the blog showed that DNA bases themselves have variable binding patterns after Proton Tunnelling events (A-T, C-G is NOT the only configuration, and this configuration can definitely change during cell replication)

    Are we talking solely about EMF-mediated folding of isolated polypeptide chains? Now what happens when you put cross links between chains ....

    As usual, the answer is "all of the above", to which again, we will have to ask "in what proportion of all-of-the-above"?

    Sidenote: the Actin and Integrin networks, the collagen networks of the brain, bone, skin, etc ... all rely on cross linking to create networks of fibers that demonstrate entropic elasticity, and shrink when heated.

    What happens during times of "increased protein synthesis"? Are they like a human construction crew, who has to breakdown the scaffolding in order to make changes to the building. Or are the cross links the scaffolding to the building that were never taken down in the first place?

    My bias is toward efficiency over aesthestics, so I would subscribe to the idea that cross links are not taken down, even while the polypeptide fibers they connect are being re-modelled.


    Let's go back to my high and mighty creator seat again, and think about what I would do if I was an efficiency-obsessed God-of-Everything (in reality, I can only lay claim to being efficiency-obsessed :p):

    I need to design a state whereby I can repair constituent parts. This state must still allow for function of the cellular/systemic unit as a whole.

    In that state, the proteins that are still functioning should be able to ignore that state completely and continue performing their function.

    The proteins that have become shitty need to be replaced, but replacing them cannot affect the state of good proteins. Either the good proteins need to be "frozen in time" while still performing their function, or the bad proteins need to be "energetically replaced", so that all the good proteins see are come "force field of functional energy", which is just as good as those good-for-nothing bad proteins anyway ..... You know what, screw it, I'll do both, but I need an energy source to jumpstart this reaction ....

    Signals are transmitted along cross links, with the help of water of course. I need heat .... free heat to provide the energy needed, and this scaffolding network can get that energy to me.

    Look! With all that energy I've pushed the good proteins into a high-energy metastable state -- http://forum.jackkruse.com/index.ph...ing-the-epi-paleo-rx.12169/page-2#post-147838 , bring in the kids! (new building blocks for protein replacement)

    Bad proteins say to new building blocks (as they are being recycled): We've captured this picture for the rest of the folks in stasis over here. Here's an EMF-encoded picture of the environment ..... when you grow up, be sure to become big and strong :eek:

    Now, how do proteins call 911 when they've gotten into an accident o_O ...... (**still thinking**)​

    Apologies if these sound like drunk ramblings of a dude who is high as f***. I assure you it's still morning here, and too early for any of that nonsense :p

    NeilBB likes this.
  10. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    Also Pat, I'm disappointed that you haven't read my blog. Its actually enormously important and relevant in this context if I do say so myself. It's really about how to evaluate the quality of human knowledge and information. The question, "how do I know if Jack is wrong or not?" is ultimately an epistemological one. I do understand you were a philosophy major. I also know that academic philosophy, like academic physics, went off the rails a long time ago...
  11. Josh

    Josh Gold

    We can skip the "due respect", I am an obnoxious New York Jew and I got the "Irish" up in you. All is fair in love and war...I like a little of both.....:mad:
    caroline likes this.
  12. ssj3

    ssj3 Silver

    Hey when is this apocalypse happening???? Not nice to keep all this to yourselves... I will even settle for turning water into a 1952 Penfolds.:D
  13. Cool!
  14. That's fine Neil I have no problem with any of that. I just read your blogpost...........it's fine again I find nothing 'wrong' with it even if it seems a bit 'un-exceptional'. What I mean is it seems (to me) a little bit stating the obvious but again it's good a good thing to keep in mind. It's nothing to do with me not wanting Jack to be right as you say. I wish he was always unquestionably right wouldn't life be a lot simpler then. And in many many ways I have felt and acted that he is. Even this latest kerfuffle it looks like I will be dragged kicking and screaming to Ireland. So.................look at what people DO not what they SAY. I am 'listening' to him in a VERY important decision. (Actions speak louder than words!!)

    I mean I have only stumbled really the last few days on this "Electric Universe" site and I find majorly interesting. And it did strike me as potentially inconsistent for Dr Kruse to kind of TAKE a lot of that but at the same time KEEP Einstein etc like it was literally un-questionable. There is just a feeling a lit bit of being bamboozled and I start to nit pick a little bit. Another thing that stuck me today Dr Kruse is always saying the benefits of 'cold' cold water holds more oxygen, it's more 'coherent' etc but then he is describing CT and it seems a major benefit/factor is it HEATS up the water in the cell because it triggers the mitochondria to release IR. Warmer water takes less space, shrinks etc. I mean all of this is fine it's just there seems something 'off' a little bit. And I approach CT from maybe a different perspective than most, I have said before I have found it to be a wonderful 'shrink' I have a degree in Philosophy but I have taken a fair amount of Biology and Chemistry but my real interest is or at least was in psychology.

    And being real honest here I feel/felt CT was being promoted in a little bit irresponsible way. Last winter people were knocking themselves out doing it and I do question that. I think it's fascinating actually what CT could or can do for 'psychology' but even recently Jonathan was describing his difficulties and reservations about CT. And well again..................it depends what we do here or Jack does here but I found the 'lectures' to him about 'mass equivalence' etc really a bit weird and kind of missing the point at least I felt so.

    All that said I think Jack has stumbled brilliantly onto CT and I intend to continue using it for myself but in my own way. I do not believe in 'masochistic' drills and it is tough and even painful at times but I HAVE to think for myself. It at this stage of my life something I OWE myself. Or so it feels
  15. yewwei.tan

    yewwei.tan Gold

    Emphasis on the bolded sections below in the quote


    I subscribe to a purely utilitarian mindset when it comes to ideas. It's important to keep the good parts and throw away the rest.

    Einstein was right about E=mc2 and the photoelectric, and wrong about quantum entanglement (which is experimentally proven to occur. eg: http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v3/n7/abs/nphys629.html)

    To Jack's credit, he repeatedly points out that Einstein was confused about many quantum mechanical notions.

    Hot and Cold

    Two important notions need to be highlighted here:
    • "Hot" and "Cold" refer to Temperature, not energetic levels ("Heat")
    • The body can be simultaneously hot and cold, and yet still confer the benefits of heat and the benefits of cold

    Temperature just refers to the measured reading by some measuring device. This correlates with the amount of energy that is given off by the object, which is then measurable as energy which can interface with the measuring device.

    This is important, because a measuring device only measures a specific set of energies that are emitted by an object. When we humans say "temperature", usually we are referring to the emitted IR radiation that our tissues can absorb and perceive as "becoming hotter". If your skin could absorb X-rays and get excited the same way, we would included X-ray emission as part of the "temperature measurement".​

    Gerald Pollack has demonstrated that water will absorb IR light, increase its energy and expand its Exclusion Zone, but not have any measurable increase in temperature.

    It is accurate to say that "the water was heated", but this water could still be "freezing cold" to the subjective human observer, and could actually still be at the 4C temperature that you started off with despite gaining a lot of energy.


    The second point arises due to the body's topological insulators (February 2014 Webinar).

    It also underlies why the Fournier Effect works. Read my post for the explanation of the Fournier Effect mechanism, which will also explain how the body can be both "Hot" and "Cold" at the same time, while deriving energy from both states -- http://forum.jackkruse.com/index.php?threads/what-exactly-is-the-fournier-effect.11598/#post-139020

    Jude, caroline and Josh like this.
  16. Yewwei, I just read an article in last Sunday's NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/16/opinion/sunday/is-quantum-entanglement-real.html?_r=0 which seem to throw some doubt on how 'proved' it is. But to be honest I have no idea if it is 'proved' or 'true' or not. My question was more IF it is 'true' to then say it has major implications for biology and the nature of diabetes well to a 'common sense' point of view like mine seems well 'not proven' shall we say. That's all

    Yes you are correct Dr Kruse 'explained' a lot of the heat/cold paradoxes with the Topological Insulator idea. That's fine my point I suppose I could say was more the 'uses' of CT or you might say the 'clinical implications' of CT for health including mental health. I 'stumbled' on what I felt were some implications for psychology and Jack of course has pointed out the myriad benefits biologically. I just find it a bit 'careless' to say 'just do it'...............there are many reasons 'not' to do it starting with the body's own 'wisdom' but I tend to think there are uses for it just not as simple as presented. After all I think most people here are interested in how all of this helps them both physically and mentally. It is very easy to get lost in all the complications, your work here is VERY impressive though I am not sure how 'useful' it is or how 'applicable' But each person to his own and you seem like a really brilliant guy. Way beyond anything I could or can approach.

    Dr Kruse is taking us into some uncharted (cold) waters and maybe I am just scared. But I think it is important not to claim TOO much, not to be 'certain' where there is actually doubt, not to bamboozle situations with too much quantum entanglements , There are a lot of suffering people here they don't need more obfuscations, they need clarity above all................
  17. Da-mo

    Da-mo Gold

    I'm having a real problem understanding this. I was taught that water reaches maximum density at 4degC - which is the reason that once a lake reaches that temp all convection currents stop - either side of that temperature it will expand. So I can understand that statement to be true if applying heat to water that is below 4degC, but I cant imagine any water in the body existing at such a low temperature.

    Yewwei did you pick that 4C above for a reason or is it just a coincidence?

    I make a living converting energy from one form to another (electricity generation) and know the thermodynamics of water (steam raising) quite well so I can only assume Dr. Kruse means something different to what I understand terms like expand, condense, shrink etc. to mean and also whether we are talking about water itself, the EZ, hydrogen bonding distances or have we switched to talking about the effect IR energised water has on protein folding . . . :confused:

    . . . and I'm still trying to get my head around mass equivalence as well . . . If E=mc2 and c2 is a constant then E is directly proportional to m . . . which means as energy is lost = so is mass. How then can
    The only way I can make sense of it is that a body must expand (gain mass), and thus energy, to make up for what was lost. That would then help me understand the loss of efficiency because a larger body has larger losses (there is more tissue to be maintained) . . . . although apparently CT can both decrease mass and yet increase RMR at the same time.

    I've been toying with the idea of starting a thread to thrash out some of these fundamental concepts out once and for all - since the counter-intuitiveness of things like this can be a big barrier to my comprehension.
    Josh (Paleo Osteo) likes this.
  18. Josh

    Josh Gold

    Jack never said "just do CT" he actually qualified it a t length in the appendix of the book and elsewhere. I know from personal experience that it is vital to review and follow the qualifications. The dead triathletes should be warning enough about not "just doing" more extreme CT. N=1, right dose/gradient.
    caroline likes this.
  19. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator


    You think you know where I am going.........that may be your error.
    David L likes this.
  20. NeilBB

    NeilBB New Member

    Well Pat, you seem to be honestly searching and I commend you for that. But with due respect, if you think what I wrote was obvious, I don't think you really "got it" at all. That's my opinion. But clearly, you weren't the only one--I would have liked more questions and more discussion from others as well. Many would rather talk minutia or have Jack dictate to them exactly what they should do rather than explore what it really takes to think independently in order to figure out how to navigate today's world, or to even consider why we are so far off track as a species and what it's going to require to really change that. So be it.

    If you had really understood what I wrote, you wouldn't have accused Jack of being a "cultist-in-making." You eventually apologized about that and that's great. But I know that kind of talk hurts him. Its unfair and untrue. He gives so much of himself, for so little, to be abused on his own board that he pays for out his pocket and gives away for free to people that he doesn't even know, like you. He has a lot more patience than I do, really.

    You talk about all the people out there that are suffering and imply that Jack has somehow mislead them or "obfuscated" the issue, or that he has some obligation to them. Bullshit. I'm sick of people that think its always the doctor's fault that they are sick and don't get well despite their continued self-abuses.

    And you haven't apologized to me yet. For calling me an entitled 'doctor' and yes-man lieutenant. But don't bother, it's a bit too late. All I can hear from you now is static. I'm moving on.

    Good luck. Whatever it is you want, I hope you get it.

Share This Page