View Full Version : Bruce Lipton


mildadhd
04-03-13, 08:18 PM
Open Discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=uftWcoE_S28# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uftWcoE_S28#)!


i!i

dvdnvwls
04-03-13, 11:36 PM
Have you read any of his books, Peripheral?

dvdnvwls
04-04-13, 04:09 AM
I "ADHD-read" (flipped through and read random parts) The Biology of Belief. I found it interesting and wanted to read more, though I wasn't sure I always "got" what I was reading. Then I read some parts of his other book, the one he co-wrote with someone else - it was IMO pretty cringe-worthy. I haven't put down many books in disgust, but that one was just silly. Kind of turned me off of the first one, and I haven't been back to it.

Dizfriz
04-04-13, 05:56 AM
Just for general background information here is Wiki's description:

Bruce Harold Lipton (born 21 October 1944 (age 68)) is an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) developmental biologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_biologist), who is best known for promoting the idea that genes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genes) and DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA) can be manipulated by a person's beliefs.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lipton#cite_note-1) He teaches at the New Zealand College of Chiropractic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_College_of_Chiropractic).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lipton#cite_note-2)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lipton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lipton#cite_note-2)


Dizfriz


(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lipton#cite_note-2)

Abi
04-04-13, 06:31 AM
The chiropractor!

It's been a while since we've had one.

Dizfriz
04-04-13, 09:24 AM
The chiropractor!

It's been a while since we've had one.

Actually he seems to have PhD in developmental biology.

From the Wiki article:

In 1966, Lipton received a B.A. in Biology from C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University and then his PhD in developmental biology from the University of Virginia in 1971.

In 1973, Lipton taught anatomy as an Assistant Professor at the University of Wisconsin School Of Medicine, before coming to St. George's University School of Medicine, where he became a Professor of Anatomy for three years.

From 1987 to 1992, Lipton was involved in research at Penn State and Stanford University Medical Center.

Since 1993, Lipton has been teaching in non-tenure positions at different universities. His publications consist mainly of research on the development of muscle cells.



In addition to his appearances on radio and television, Lipton has been a speaker at the Institute of Noetic Sciences's 13th international conference,the Spiritual Science Fellowship International Conference, and various other conventions.


I am not saying anything either good or bad about him. I just think it wise to get some background before investing a lot of time.

Dizfriz

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 11:25 AM
In response to the video introduction:

Unfortunately as individuals we cannot significantly alter our environment, at the ages we are most susceptible it is chosen for us, and as we become an adult we become increasingly invested to varying extents, although i would say those with ADHD and related disorders would naturally be less invested, that could possibly lead to additional perspective on having such a cultural investment.

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 11:39 AM
If there is a certain culture in one petri dish, just like a cultural environment in human society whether global or more localised, invested within that culture/context you can have no real perspective, no concept or awareness of other possibilities or what another culture resultant of another environment might look like.

In order to do so you have to be able to truly step outside of that petri dish/environment...

dvdnvwls
04-04-13, 12:06 PM
He does have some brilliant tidbits and apt analogies. Those were what I was drawn to as well, in my isolated reading of a page here and a chapter there. What I'm not so sure about (because I didn't read far enough to understand) are his bigger ideas. I get the feeling that there's a sort of ideological leap involved, from the attractive tidbits to the big ideas.

mildadhd
04-04-13, 12:10 PM
The OP link was edited.

It is the same video on Bruce Lipton's home page.

Found on You Tube.


I don't have a strong understanding of Bruce Liptons personal individual beliefs.

But I have compared the information specifically quoted below.

And the information below does seem to be accurate in my unprofessional layman opinion.


I don't know everything about Cell Biologist Bruce Lipton.

I feel should give credit where credit is due in regards to the discovery of the research information quoted below.

I appreciate everyone's opinions.

This thread is an open discussion.

And is not limited to the quote below.



(approx 0:25) The research was very simple.

Basically I put one stem cell,

in a petri dish all by itself.

This is a similar cell like to an embryonic cell.

Every 10 hours the cell would divide,

first 2 cells, 4, 8, 16, 32..

After two weeks I had thousands of cells in the petri dish.

But the most important fact is this.

All the cells where genetically identical that came from the same parent.


But the real experiment was when I took the cells out of that dish,

and split them into 3 separate petri dishes.

And in each dish I provided a different environment,

a different cultural medium in which the cells where living.

And in one dish, the cells form muscle.

and in another dish, the cells form bone,

and in a third dish, the cells formed fat cells.


There is one profoundly important consequence of this research.

And it really deals with the issue is what controls life?

We used to think that genes controlled life but in this experiment all the cells where genetically identical.

So the cells where not responding to the genes but where responding to the environment.

It was the environment and the cells interaction that lead to the selection and activation of the genes in the cells.


And why is this important?

Because this holds true whether it is cells in a plastic dish,

or whether it's 1 of the 50 trillion cells in your own body.

In our body we have 50 trillion cells,

we are essentially skin covered petri dishes.

And there is a cultural medium called blood,

and the composition of that cultural medium affects the fate of the cells,

as demonstrated in the stem cell experiments.

But the most important understanding is this.


What controls the chemistry of your blood,

which in turn controls your genetics and your behavior?

And the answer is our perception of life,

the way we see life causes our nervous system to release chemistry in the brain,

neuropeptides, hormones, growth factors, etc.

This chemistry derived in the brain ,

is actually added to the cultural medium of our body called blood,

which in turn controls the fate of our cells.

A very simple reality is,

as you change your mind,

as you change your belief,

you change your biology. (2:29)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uftWcoE_S28#!

dvdnvwls
04-04-13, 12:43 PM
Again, a brilliant interesting little tidbit or vignette - I love his writing style - but he jumps to an unjustified conclusion at the end.

Amtram
04-04-13, 12:44 PM
The problem I see is that he insists that you can change your DNA by sheer force of will.

What would that mean to forensics and the criminal justice system, along with paternity testing? If it were true, we wouldn't be able to identify human remains, convict people based on DNA evidence or free people wrongly imprisoned based on DNA evidence, or prove that someone had fathered a child and should support him/her financially.

If this were true, I can guarantee you that people with bad intentions would be doing it regularly so they could commit despicable crimes with impunity. No need for gloves or disguises or elaborate plans, just will your DNA to change after the deed is done!

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 12:58 PM
He does not say you can change your DNA by force of will.

The difference/change is in expression, determined by environment.

He said the cells were identical, ie the DNA had not been changed.

It has no consequences for DNA evidence/identification as far as i can see.

Abi
04-04-13, 01:05 PM
Because this holds true whether it is cells in a plastic dish,

or whether it's 1 of the 50 trillion cells in your own body.
Composition/Aggregation Fallacy

the way we see life causes our nervous system to release chemistry in the brain,

neuropeptides, hormones, growth factors, etc.

This chemistry derived in the brain ,

is actually added to the cultural medium of our body called blood,

which in turn controls the fate of our cells.

A very simple reality is,

as you change your mind,

as you change your belief,

you change your biology

Non-sequitor-NOS and lacking empirical evidence.

mildadhd
04-04-13, 01:16 PM
Again, a brilliant interesting little tidbit or vignette - I love his writing style - but he jumps to an unjustified conclusion at the end.


I think I understand where you are coming from.

I was going to leave the end part out of the quote,

but decided to leave it for discussion.

Because I do think the end part is accurate, but not specific.

I would like to come back to why I think it is accurate later in the discussion.

Any disagreements from any members about the research information below?



(approx 0:25) The research was very simple.

Basically I put one stem cell,

in a petri dish all by itself.

This is a similar cell like to an embryonic cell.

Every 10 hours the cell would divide,

first 2 cells, 4, 8, 16, 32..

After two weeks I had thousands of cells in the petri dish.

But the most important fact is this.

All the cells where genetically identical that came from the same parent.


But the real experiment was when I took the cells out of that dish,

and split them into 3 separate petri dishes.

And in each dish I provided a different environment,

a different cultural medium in which the cells where living.

And in one dish, the cells form muscle.

and in another dish, the cells form bone,

and in a third dish, the cells formed fat cells.


There is one profoundly important consequence of this research.

And it really deals with the issue is what controls life?

We used to think that genes controlled life but in this experiment all the cells where genetically identical.

So the cells where not responding to the genes but where responding to the environment.

It was the environment and the cells interaction that lead to the selection and activation of the genes in the cells.

Abi
04-04-13, 01:25 PM
no disagreement with post #15

mildadhd
04-04-13, 01:32 PM
no disagreement with post #15

Thanks, sorry for the confusion.

I would like to see if anyone disagrees with post # 15,

before discussing the less specific parts you mentioned.

Thanks

dvdnvwls
04-04-13, 01:42 PM
I don't disagree with post #15 either. Here's my problem with the other part: He is slickly deceiving the casual reader by presenting a correct but unrelated statement as if it were a conclusion drawn from the experiment.

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 01:57 PM
No disagreement. I think we can safely say that part is uncontroversial.

I think what may seem like an unrelated statement is down to a difference in perspective. i.e. what constitutes a "change in biology".

This is not the biological equivalent of attempting to equate general relativity with quantum mechanics.

mildadhd
04-04-13, 01:59 PM
(please let us know if you disagree with post #15)

OK, Sorry for the confusion,

Here is the second part of the quote.




And why is this important?

Because this holds true whether it is cells in a plastic dish,

or whether it's 1 of the 50 trillion cells in your own body.

In our body we have 50 trillion cells,

we are essentially skin covered petri dishes.

And there is a cultural medium called blood,

and the composition of that cultural medium affects the fate of the cells,

as demonstrated in the stem cell experiments.

But the most important understanding is this.


What controls the chemistry of your blood,

which in turn controls your genetics and your behavior?

And the answer is our perception of life,

the way we see life causes our nervous system to release chemistry in the brain,

neuropeptides, hormones, growth factors, etc.

This chemistry derived in the brain ,

is actually added to the cultural medium of our body called blood,

which in turn controls the fate of our cells.

A very simple reality is,

as you change your mind,

as you change your belief,

you change your biology. (2:29)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=uftWcoE_S28#!

Amtram
04-04-13, 02:06 PM
Essentially, he takes valid information and "repurposes" it. I don't know if it was in this video, but he came up on here some time ago and I watched an entire video and read through some of his writing and some of what others wrote about him. He does actually say that you can change your DNA with faith, which is simply not true.

There are things that you can do, in certain cases, to avoid triggering methylation if you have a genetic vulnerability, and there are a lot of things you can do to improve your mental and physical health that have nothing to do with genetics - but that's nothing at all like changing your DNA!

Abi
04-04-13, 02:07 PM
Disagree due to fallacious reasoning and lack of empirial evidence.

See my post #14: http://www.addforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1468460&postcount=14

dvdnvwls
04-04-13, 02:08 PM
No disagreement. I think we can safely say that part is uncontroversial.

I think what may seem like an unrelated statement is down to a difference in perspective. i.e. what constitutes a "change in biology".

This is not the biological equivalent of attempting to equate general relativity with quantum mechanics.

Sorry for the imprecision. Of course it's related to the topic; it's still a non sequitur.

- He's a skilful writer
- He knows the topic
- This makes it look very much like intent to deceive on his part.

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 02:10 PM
Essentially, he takes valid information and "repurposes" it. I don't know if it was in this video, but he came up on here some time ago and I watched an entire video and read through some of his writing and some of what others wrote about him. He does actually say that you can change your DNA with faith, which is simply not true.

There are things that you can do, in certain cases, to avoid triggering methylation if you have a genetic vulnerability, and there are a lot of things you can do to improve your mental and physical health that have nothing to do with genetics - but that's nothing at all like changing your DNA!

Is he talking about effects on future generations? Would you be able to provide a link/source of him actually saying that in the context in which you mean it as I just find it a little hard to believe that someone with a phd in biology would make such an an obvious error in judgement, are you sure he is not actually talking about genetic expression? ( my only experience of him is that video. )

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 02:17 PM
Sorry for the imprecision. Of course it's related to the topic; it's still a non sequitur.


Ironically that answer is quite imprecise :)

So you believe it is the biological equivalent of attempting to using quantum mechanics to explain general relativity?

other than the obvious and tenuous large/small comparison, care to elaborate?

dvdnvwls
04-04-13, 02:28 PM
It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics and general relativity. The analogy is unnecessary and just gets in the way.

The experiment was cell differentiation. The finding was that cell differentiation is affected by chemicals present. His conclusion therefore should have read:

A very simple reality is,

during the time that you are an embryo,

as you change your internal chemistry,

you may induce changes in cell differentiation.


But the public wouldn't really lap that up in quite the same way, I fear.

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 02:33 PM
so you are saying the environment outside a cell can affect that cell's internal chemistry?

so if that applies to one cell, would that not apply to a trillion cells ? (albeit with greater complexity)

mildadhd
04-04-13, 02:36 PM
What controls the chemistry of your blood,

which in turn controls your genetics and your behavior?

And the answer is our perception of life,

the way we see life causes our nervous system to release chemistry in the brain... - Lipton (from post #20)



"our perception of life"

life = environment?

Our perception of environment?


Does anyone disagree? And why?

dvdnvwls
04-04-13, 02:37 PM
so you are saying the environment outside a cell can affect that cell's internal chemistry?

so if that applies to one cell, would that not apply to a trillion cells?

Are you in need of a new pancreas or tibia? If so, and if you also happen to be an embryo at the moment, then the information applies to you.

Abi
04-04-13, 02:43 PM
The OP link was edited.

It is the same video on Bruce Lipton's home page.

Found on You Tube.


I don't have a strong understanding of Bruce Liptons personal individual beliefs.

But I have compared the information specifically quoted below.

And the information below does seem to be accurate in my unprofessional layman opinion.


I don't know everything about Cell Biologist Bruce Lipton.

I feel should give credit where credit is due in regards to the discovery of the research information quoted below.

I appreciate everyone's opinions.

This thread is an open discussion.

And is not limited to the quote below.

so you are saying the environment outside a cell can affect that cell's internal chemistry?

so if that applies to one cell, would that not apply to a trillion cells ? (albeit with greater complexity)

It could, but the former does not guarantee the latter, nor even make the latter more probable (fallacy of composition).

dvdnvwls
04-04-13, 02:44 PM
I disagree with #28. Proceeding from false assumptions, lines 1 and 2.

Line 1:
- "The chemistry of your blood" is a huge topic. "The way we see life" controls, at most, a tiny portion of blood chemistry. To say "this controls that" without a qualifying phrase or clause implies total control, so the statement is false.

Line 2:
- Our parents' genetics determine our own genetics. Our behaviour is controlled by many many factors, including (to a minor extent) "our perception of life". Again and in the same way, the statement is false.

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 02:59 PM
I don't believe fallacy of composition is relevant in this context.

If a cell is affected by its environment it is affected by its environment, it is not the case that one cell is affected by its environment and another isn't.

Abi
04-04-13, 03:01 PM
disagree with #28, pending presentation of empirical evidence.

it's just a theory so far, and a rather convoluted one.

mildadhd
04-04-13, 03:04 PM
I disagree with #28. Proceeding from false assumptions, lines 1 and 2.

Line 1:
- "The chemistry of your blood" is a huge topic. "The way we see life" controls, at most, a tiny portion of blood chemistry. To say "this controls that" without a qualifying phrase or clause implies total control, so the statement is false.

Line 2:
- Our parents' genetics determine our own genetics. Our behaviour is controlled by many many factors, including (to a minor extent) "our perception of life". Again and in the same way, the statement is false.


disagree with #28, pending presentation of empirical evidence.

it's just a theory so far, and a rather convoluted one.


Perception is more than "seeing",

perception is all senses. (balance, hearing, smell, taste, touch, vision..)

What would a human be without environmental stimuli to stimulate the senses?



Genes are expressed in interaction with the environment.

Stimuli comes from the environment.

Resulting in gene expression.

No environment, no gene expression.

Environment is the decisive factor in gene expression.

I thought you both agreed with post #15?

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 03:07 PM
I disagree with #28. Proceeding from false assumptions, lines 1 and 2.

Line 1:
- "The chemistry of your blood" is a huge topic. "The way we see life" controls, at most, a tiny portion of blood chemistry. To say "this controls that" without a qualifying phrase or clause implies total control, so the statement is false.

Line 2:
- Our parents' genetics determine our own genetics. Our behaviour is controlled by many many factors, including (to a minor extent) "our perception of life". Again and in the same way, the statement is false.

If he does not express qualifying phrases does not mean they do not exist, at most you can say it is false in absense of qualifying statements, i think it is safe to assume he did not imply total control! So it is not completely false, unless you qualify how such statements are completely false yourself which you won't as you expressed there being at least partial truth.

dvdnvwls
04-04-13, 03:08 PM
I thought you agreed with post #15?

No, I don't necessarily. I just don't disagree with it.

dvdnvwls
04-04-13, 03:12 PM
If he does not express qualifying phrases does not mean they do not exist, at best you can say it is false in lieu of qualifying statements, not completely false as you state.

I would call this nit-picking - he's presenting (not a half-truth but a tiny fractional bit of truth) as "the truth". I am comfortable and confident with calling his presentation - a tiny grain of truth being presented as the whole truth - a lie.

Lunacie
04-04-13, 03:14 PM
It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics and general relativity. The analogy is unnecessary and just gets in the way.

The experiment was cell differentiation. The finding was that cell differentiation is affected by chemicals present. His conclusion therefore should have read:


A very simple reality is,

during the time that you are an embryo,

as you change your internal chemistry,

you may induce changes in cell differentiation.

A very simple reality is,

during the time that you are an embryo,

as you change your internal chemistry,

you may induce changes in cell differentiation.

But the public wouldn't really lap that up in quite the same way, I fear.

Exactly right. His conclusion would have some merit if he had shown that
the cells in each petri dish had changed their environment by the force of
their belief. But no one can do that.

Abi
04-04-13, 03:14 PM
I don't believe fallacy of composition is relevant in this context.

If a cell is affected by its environment it is affected by its environment, it is not the case that one cell is affected by its environment and another isn't.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

"I can break a stick in half"
"Therefore I can break a bunch of 20 sticks in half"

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 03:17 PM
I think what he is actually trying to do is give people hope, and qualifying this in a way that can be easily understood.

To show people that we are not just slaves to our genetics, that in fact we are significantly moulded by our perceptions and therefore our environments.

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 03:20 PM
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

"I can break a stick in half"
"Therefore I can break a bunch of 20 sticks in half"

I understand what a fallacy of composition is.

It just is not relevant. A cell is affected (albeit variably) by its environment, end of story.

The only variation with composition is complexity.

mildadhd
04-04-13, 03:44 PM
I think what he is actually trying to do is give people hope, and qualifying this in a way that can be easily understood.

To show people that we are not just slaves to our genetics, that in fact we are significantly moulded by our perceptions and therefore our environments.

Exactly.

For a 3 minute video,

I think Bruce Lipton's information is well presented.

I should have just quoted post # 15.

But I thought it would be good to add some general physiology.

I am happy with the discussion overall.

I have spent a lot of time thinking about the topics.

And am happy that nobody disagree's about post #15, so far.

mildadhd
04-04-13, 04:01 PM
I would call this nit-picking - he's presenting (not a half-truth but a tiny fractional bit of truth) as "the truth". I am comfortable and confident with calling his presentation - a tiny grain of truth being presented as the whole truth - a lie.

What part is a lie?

Please quote Lipton.

I honestly don't see any lie.

I am not saying you don't have right to your own opinion.

But could you show where he is lying?

He is being general, it is a 3 min video.

From a general perspective there is no lie,

in my opinion.

mildadhd
04-04-13, 04:07 PM
Exactly right. His conclusion would have some merit if he had shown that
the cells in each petri dish had changed their environment by the force of
their belief. But no one can do that.

Where does he say by force of belief?

The perspective has a direct impact on physiology.

If a person is in a jail,

verse the same person is not in jail.

that persons physiology would be impacted by both environments differently.

As the environment changed, so does the persons physiology.

mildadhd
04-04-13, 04:11 PM
The problem I see is that he insists that you can change your DNA by sheer force of will.

What would that mean to forensics and the criminal justice system, along with paternity testing? If it were true, we wouldn't be able to identify human remains, convict people based on DNA evidence or free people wrongly imprisoned based on DNA evidence, or prove that someone had fathered a child and should support him/her financially.

If this were true, I can guarantee you that people with bad intentions would be doing it regularly so they could commit despicable crimes with impunity. No need for gloves or disguises or elaborate plans, just will your DNA to change after the deed is done!

Where does the video say any of this stuff,

I can't find any reference to your opinion in any information in the video?

Amtram
04-04-13, 04:36 PM
I think what he is actually trying to do is give people hope, and qualifying this in a way that can be easily understood.

To show people that we are not just slaves to our genetics, that in fact we are significantly moulded by our perceptions and therefore our environments.

You can do that without resorting to lying and using that lie to make money. I think it would be better to give people hope using the truth.

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 05:10 PM
The problem I see is that he insists that you can change your DNA by sheer force of will.

What would that mean to forensics and the criminal justice system, along with paternity testing? If it were true, we wouldn't be able to identify human remains, convict people based on DNA evidence or free people wrongly imprisoned based on DNA evidence, or prove that someone had fathered a child and should support him/her financially.

If this were true, I can guarantee you that people with bad intentions would be doing it regularly so they could commit despicable crimes with impunity. No need for gloves or disguises or elaborate plans, just will your DNA to change after the deed is done!

You keep saying he is lying but not specifying where or how? I watched the video and it mentions nothing of what you have said so going on that alone the only person who appears to be unequivocally lying is you in misrepresenting what he has said.

"He does not say you can change your DNA by force of will."

The difference/change seems to be expression, determined by environment.

They were identical, ie the DNA had not been changed.

Ergo no consequences for DNA evidence/identification as far as i can see.

So what exactly is the truth? Or perhaps more accurately what is 'the truth' you would have everyone believe?

And don't skirt around it with fluffy language like "what the science purports" or any other words that lack real content, or avoid the question in any other manner, it would be nice to just get a straight answer.

mildadhd
04-04-13, 05:37 PM
You can do that without resorting to lying and using that lie to make money. I think it would be better to give people hope using the truth.


Amtram,

Do you disagree with the quote from post # 15?

And if so why?

(Post # 15 below)


(approx 0:25) The research was very simple.

Basically I put one stem cell,

in a petri dish all by itself.

This is a similar cell like to an embryonic cell.

Every 10 hours the cell would divide,

first 2 cells, 4, 8, 16, 32..

After two weeks I had thousands of cells in the petri dish.

But the most important fact is this.

All the cells where genetically identical that came from the same parent.


But the real experiment was when I took the cells out of that dish,

and split them into 3 separate petri dishes.

And in each dish I provided a different environment,

a different cultural medium in which the cells where living.

And in one dish, the cells form muscle.

and in another dish, the cells form bone,

and in a third dish, the cells formed fat cells.


There is one profoundly important consequence of this research.

And it really deals with the issue is what controls life?

We used to think that genes controlled life but in this experiment all the cells where genetically identical.

So the cells where not responding to the genes but where responding to the environment.

It was the environment and the cells interaction that lead to the selection and activation of the genes in the cells.

-Bruce Lipton

Lunacie
04-04-13, 06:01 PM
This guy put three different mediums in three different petri dishes and
got three different results: muscle, bone and fat.

The medium inside the womb may change during the nine months
gestation to produce muscle, bone, fat and other parts of the body,
but is the chemistry in the womb changed by the "perception of life"
that the fetus has? Does a fetus even have "a perception of life?"

Does the mother's "perception" of what her baby will be change the
chemistry inside her womb over the 40 weeks of pregnancy?

If that were the case, then women who don't realize they're pregnant
until they go into labor would deliver a lump of something that wasn't
a baby, eh?

So what changes the chemistry inside the womb during the gestation
to form the different parts of the body? Is it pre-programmed to change
to develop all the different parts at the right time? That seems most
logical, doesn't it?

It seems to me like this guy has attributed an effect to a cause without
really demonstrating a link.

Amtram
04-04-13, 06:08 PM
I said before that I didn't watch this particular video - however, I did look at other materials he's presented, and he says in no uncertain terms that "you can change your DNA. He also says, in other materials, that you can do this through spirituality. This is easy to find in a google search, but I am not going to link here to a commercial site - and I'm not going to look through all of the sites that promote his books to find one that isn't selling it. (That should tell you something as well.)

In fact, you can get most of this just from reading the snippets under the hits in the search. You can get it from the titles of his books.

I disagree, Peripheral, because we have many, many examples of things that worked in petri dishes that didn't work in humans. That's why we follow in vitro tests with animal tests and them trials with small groups of people.

mildadhd
04-04-13, 06:18 PM
This guy put three different mediums in three different petri dishes and
got three different results: muscle, bone and fat.




Lunacie,

I think you should reread/listen to the material again.

Cell biologist Bruce Lipton took one cell from one parent.

Put the cell in a petri dish.

The single cell divided every 10 hours, from one cell, two cells, four cells, eight cells, sixteen cells...

After two weeks Bruce Lipton had thousands of cells

all from the same original cell ,in one petri dish (same gene/DNA)

Then he divided the cells into 3 different petri dishes.

All from the same gene/DNA (all from the same original source, one stem cell from one person)

Then Bruce Lipton put the 3 petri dishes, in 3 different environments.

The same cells divided from the same gene/DNA produced 3 different things, muscle, bone and fat,

from the same DNA. (not three different mediums like you say above)

Same cells exposed to 3 different environments.

Everything is consistent except 3 different environments.

Why did the same cells with the same DNA,

produce three different parts of the body.

Because they where in three different environments.

Environment is a decisive factor in gene expression.

immabum
04-04-13, 06:19 PM
"And it really deals with the issue is what controls life?
We used to think that genes controlled life but in this experiment all the cells where genetically identical."

In vitro vs in vivo. Two different things.
-We all look like little chickens/tadpoles at one point in our development. Starting from that wee little zygote and the orchestrated cell division we turn on/off protein synthesis to make/lose different systems. Then we lose our webbed fingers, our little nub of a monkey tail and then slowly develop into the complicated little beings we are today. Yup thats written into our pretty amazing DNA folks.

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 06:21 PM
"And it really deals with the issue is what controls life?
We used to think that genes controlled life but in this experiment all the cells where genetically identical."

In vitro vs in vivo. Two different things.
-We all look like little chickens/tadpoles at one point in our development. Then we lose our webbed fingers, our little nub of a monkey tail and then slowly develop into the complicated little beings we are today. Yup thats written into our DNA folks.

Is anyone arguing against that?

could you point out where?

Are you saying cells in real life are inherently different to cells in a petri dish?

Or are you just hiding behind complexity?

Genetic influence is not in doubt, why do people keep trying to turn it into an either/or argument, when environmental influence is so obviously extremely signficant.

Lunacie
04-04-13, 06:38 PM
Lunacie,

I think you should reread/listen to the material again.

Cell biologist Bruce Lipton took one cell from one parent.

Put the cell in a petri dish.

The single cell divided every 10 hours, from one cell, two cells, four cells, eight cells, sixteen cells...

After two weeks Bruce Lipton had thousands of cells

all from the same original cell ,in one petri dish (same gene/DNA)

Then he divided the cells into 3 different petri dishes.

All from the same gene/DNA (all from the same original source, one stem cell from one person)

Then Bruce Lipton put the 3 petri dishes, in 3 different environments.

The same cells divided from the same gene/DNA produced 3 different things, muscle, bone and fat,

from the same DNA. (not three different mediums like you say above)

Same cells exposed to 3 different environments.

Everything is consistent except 3 different environments.

Why did the same cells with the same DNA,

produce three different parts of the body.

Because they where in three different environments.

Environment is a decisive factor in gene expression.

Sorry, I'm a little distracted today. I knew what I meant to say,
it just didn't end up on the screen the way I was thinking it in my head.

Here's what I meant . . . he took identical cells and put them into three
different mediums.

What does that tell us about identical cells inside the womb that change
into different things (muscles, bones, fat, etc.).

Does the chemical medium inside the womb change during the pregnancy?
It must, eh?

Then why?
Because the fetus has a perspective of life?
Because the mother does?
Because it's preprogrammed into our genes?

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 06:44 PM
interesting thoughts, the fetus perspective on life?! still not quite sure on the relevance there?

mildadhd
04-04-13, 06:46 PM
Sorry, I'm a little distracted today. I knew what I meant to say,
it just didn't end up on the screen the way I was thinking it in my head.

Here's what I meant . . . he took identical cells and put them into three
different mediums.

What does that tell us about identical cells inside the womb that change
into different things (muscles, bones, fat, etc.).

Does the chemical medium inside the womb change during the pregnancy?
It must, eh?

Then why?
Because the fetus has a perspective of life?
Because the mother does?
Because it's preprogrammed into our genes?

There doesn't seem like much sense trying to have a discussion on these topics.

some people are not even discussing the research quoted,

or at least quoting other sources of material about the research.

Seems like people are doing exactly what they are accusing Bruce Lipton of doing.

I am going to find other research by other researchers, to back this information up.

immabum
04-04-13, 06:50 PM
Is anyone arguing against that?
could you point out where?

Oops guess I missed the point of that amazing petri dish experiment that bears no relation to what happens in the human body. My bad.

Oh environmental significance is important alright. Kind of like the little tree sapling that can grow this way or that way depending on its environment. Once its a big old oak - do you think the same environmental changes will exert as much effect compared to when it was younger?

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 06:53 PM
Is anyone arguing against that?
could you point out where?

Oops guess I missed the point of that amazing petri dish experiment that bears no relation to what happens in the human body. My bad.


Because the human body has no cells whatsoever...

It was making a point, a point you seemed to willfully miss.


Oh environmental significance is important alright. Kind of like the little tree sapling that can grow this way or that way depending on its environment. Once its a big old oak - do you think environmental changes will exert as much effct compared to when it was younger?

Absolutely not, again this is not something that has been argued against.

Lunacie
04-04-13, 07:07 PM
There doesn't seem like much sense trying to have a discussion on these topics.

some people are not even discussing the research quoted,

or at least quoting other sources of material about the research.

Seems like people are doing exactly what they are accusing Bruce Lipton of doing.

I am going to find other research by other researchers, to back this information up.

I'm trying to understand the information you presented in comparison
to the natural environment or medium where human cells usually grow -
the womb of a woman.

Research has to connect back to the natural environment in order to be logical and helpful.

immabum
04-04-13, 07:16 PM
Because the human body has no cells whatsoever...
It was making a point, a point you seemed to willfully miss.
Absolutely not, again this is not something that has been argued against.

Oh is that what I said?
My point is in vitro experiments do not always correlate with in vivo. Go ahead jump for joy- if you wish to extrapolate 3 petri dishes as to the holy grail proof of environmental influence and its amazing role in current treatments. Every single living cell in our body can be manipulated to turn into anything (a new organ cell, heck eventually clone into a new being)
Point being this is not going to happen in nature.

Sorry for not being amazed. I'd rather you link an adult rat epigenetic experiment showing the control/pre/post changes when placed in different environments. I think that would be more interesting/useful. The above petri experiment seems more akin to a junior high science project.

Tyler Durden
04-04-13, 07:19 PM
Sorry for not being amazed. I'd rather you link an adult rat epigenetic experiment showing the control/pre/post changes when placed in different environments. I think that would be more interesting/useful. The above petri experiment seems more akin to a junior high science project.

It probably is.

But stem cells are awesome!

The point was not to be amazed, but to highlight a very simple concept.

A concept many people seem to be struggling with.

I agree such an experiment would be more interesting.

immabum
04-04-13, 07:41 PM
No doubt stems are amazing-exciting stuff! Sorry kinda off on another tangent -but the research behind telomere length and cell replication/longevity/stress is pretty interesting stuff as well. Which I guess kind of ties in with your interest -for example shortened telomere length in mothers of disabled children. Basically faster aging/more screwed up DNA replication within the context of a stressful environment. Anyways back to our regular programming...

I think the concept illustrated by the petri dish experiment is too simplistic and doesn't really add much to your argument (which as I said before I don't completely disagree with). Especially if you're trying to extrapolate it to something way more complex ->us.

Ya I would actually appreciate it if anyone can post any adult animal research on environmental epigenetic changes -eg looking at sacrificed animals and the changes that occured in their brains due to their environment. I'm sure many have been done looking at hippocampal/amydala size and fear/memory. It would be interesting to see if any have been done regarding similar NTs/prefrontal cortex that may correlate to us.

Or maybe I'm the only one who would find this interesting..sorry!

mildadhd
04-04-13, 10:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3TQopnNXBU

mildadhd
04-04-13, 11:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cquQSftGlbk

immabum
04-04-13, 11:18 PM
I like those "children beating the odds" videos. Thanks for that.
Like the girl with intractable seizures and had half her brain removed...and now she's running around . Amazing stuff .
Its just too bad adults aren't as malleable.
Kind of like the window of opportunity for kids born 'cross eyed'. They can be fixed in many cases when they're young-but once they're older....pretty much out of luck.

mildadhd
04-05-13, 12:26 AM
I like those "children beating the odds" videos. Thanks for that.
Like the girl with intractable seizures and had half her brain removed...and now she's running around . Amazing stuff .
Its just too bad adults aren't as malleable.
Kind of like the window of opportunity for kids born 'cross eyed'. They can be fixed in many cases when they're young-but once they're older....pretty much out of luck.

B4 4

Geronimoooooooooooooo