Medical & HealthNews and debate about medical and health issues as they relate to aircrews and aviation. Any information gleaned from this forum MUST be backed up by consulting your state-registered health professional or AME.
It is the activity of the genes that changes - not gene changes. ie it is not saying that your DNA changes and so your genes are altered, it is saying that the physiology of your cells changes because various different genes are turned on or off or are more active and so producing higher levels of various proteins. Basically it is nothing new and is just the way the body works... Change anything in the system, and the gene activity will change to compensate.
If these processes continue to be disrupted, you could see how you are going to get impairment of organs, tissues, heart disease, obesity, diabetes. If you are not able to replenish cells and tissues that are damaged then you are going to suffer permanent ill health."
I thought it was obvious that if you donít get enough sleep your genes would upregulate/ downregulate. Your body is in constant dynamic exchange moment to moment at the quantum level, instantaneously, "faster than the speed of light" (thatís another topic to do with non-locality in quantum mechanics). So, poor sleep will contribute immediately to your overall well-being.
Iím not in medicine, just find advances in medicine quite amazing. Always learning and fascinated by breakthrough research in slowing down/reversing the ageing process (Iím sure you doctors are aware of the research on how chromosomes can be copied in a complete way during cell divisions and how they are protected against degradation Ė ďtelomeric DNA sequencingĒ).
But from what I understand, in order to fix a problem you canít address the mechanism for a solution or let drugs interfere. This is something scientists in the field of Epigenetics and Quantum Biology are realising. One day it will be mainstream and everyone will accept this.
Anyway, simple things like stress management, good nutrition, exercise and healthy emotional relationships and good sleep can turn on the good genes and turn off the bad genes in three months. Your ďthoughtsĒ affect your physiology at the quantum level. Possibly this is a bit too esoteric for PPRuNe. Getting carried away. Sorry.
I understand the mechanism is a chemical reaction, methylation. This is a chemical process at the level of DNA (epigenetics). It deals with everything to your thinking, to your behaviour, to your social interactions, to your personal relationships, your moods, your feelings, etc. All of this influences the acitivities of your genes, therefore your health. Your genes arenít in charge of your destiny. They are not deterministic. You are in charge.
I havent a clue about many of the terms you use. That is not a judgement, merely to reflect that after 30 years in mainstream medicine, involved in basic physiological research, I have never heard of any of this. I would be interested in the publications and papers you read.
I think the big issue is that, although there are some genes which predispose to specific illnesses - breast cancer being one - we cant say one gene is bad or good. Nor can we turn them off. If we could do so, cancer is just one disease that would disappear. The big unknown is why a cell misbehaves. The gene pool is unchanged, and any variances are relatively minor over short periods, but suddenly a catastophic error occurs.
If you can answer that I can give up medicine and fly full time!!
All the information is out there and easily accessible. The terms you say you haven't a clue of are terms used by world renowned scientists, geneticists, nobel prize winners in Physiology/Medicine who are making these discoveries. No disrespect, but you just don't know the terms because your expertise may not extend that far.
Anyway, there are far too many sources to mention. Look at some of the work by the sources above.
What is being identified, discovered is beyond dogmatic medicine of yesteryear. No judgement on you, but the people making these incredible discoveries think differently to most "conditioned" doctors. They say this themselves.
Well, I'm no doctor, you are. No doubt your knowledge is far superior to mine (obviously), but I'm just sharing what I've been hearing, reading, following because I find it interesting. If it came across in a negative or incoherent way, I may have misjudged the forum on which to post it.
Often on this site we are asked about a new technique, drug or specialty. The doctors amongst us try to respond, but we need to know exactly what we are being asked. We need specific papers
You mention epigenetics which is merely a term for modifying gene function. One example is the creation of peri potent stem cells from cells that have specialised. Telometric gene sequencing refers to repetitive parts of the DNA strand which terminate the message.
What I don't understand is how this fits with the other terms you have used. Most of us do indeed have an open mind and would be keen to look at and debate any articles that you have. It might also make the forum more interesting for others. All too often we are accused of being Luddites and the thread goes cold. Surely amongst your many papers there must be one or two we could debate?
the people making these incredible discoveries think differently to most "conditioned" doctors. They say this themselves.
I'm not sure "conditioned" is fair comment. In fact, most doctors,(or at least the one I have most respect for," are actually awkward gitts, who take delight in questioning assumptions to better things for their patients.
Perhaps "the people" you talk about are hooked on process. I need outcome. They are different things.
I'm not a doctor, but I am an awkward gitt.
I'm up for helping you appraise a paper if you can send us a link.
What many patients don't realise is that every doctor has to demonstrate regular reading of journals / attendance at meetings just to keep their license. Nurses have to write up and reflect on cases, referring to the literature. We may all look like a load of dumb @@@@@ but an out of date doctor very rapidly gets caught out.
I question whether these authors really do claim to think differently. Most academics I work with are humble people who take just the opposite view. The problem is often the media who blow the conclusions out of proportion.
Location: Tweet Rob_Benham Famous author. Well, slightly famous.
I recall once boarding and aircraft and being given a copy of Scientific American. Those were the days. I had a ten hour flight and thought I'd really concentrate on the featured science of the month. It was about genetics. After a couple of hours, I realized it was totally beyond me to understand such a complex science - and that was 25 years ago.
Now, researchers somewhere are publishing every few hours, the the detail is breathtaking. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago that 'we' didn't know a cell had a membrane. I can understand that, it's only four - or was it seven - nanometers thick. Now, we find the surface is covered in mechanisms that are analogous to logic gates, and if we want to, we can look at the molecules that make the components function.
It's a new world, almost every day. How does anyone keep up with any scientific discipline?
Recently, I read about cancer cells almost randomizing parts of their code. It seemed they were more dangerous when starved of their 'food' and it was suggested a supply of the chemistry they ( or the target cell ? ) might be sated, and made not so dangerous.
You must realise I have no interest in altering your persuasion on the current model you hold to be true based on your professional training or otherwise, which I do respect.
Evidently, your background knowledge on certain aforementioned terms is non-existent. So itís understandable why there is a mental block in connecting the dots. However, if I am to use such terms I should define them as I am aware not all will be familiar with them (though this has certain consequences).
Although you provided generic definitions, the magic is not in the meaning, but in the application wielded by those few who break free from conventional doctrines and make the exciting discoveries.
I have been pursuing the future of medicine for a while. Partly because I am exposed to individuals whom impart excellent material regularly. I abstain from mainstream media and rely on very particular sources whilst paying attention to peer review journals.
The information I have chosen to place credence in is what I personally hold to be the truth. Most professionals, which I understandably accept, challenge the validity of such claims. However, I too am an awkward gitt and have abstract perspectives on most things. The professionals whom I chose to follow (some, not all) cross-over between medicine and quantum theory (including metaphysics). Their holistic approach to well-being is extraordinary. And I believe it exceeds the limitations in medicine taught and practiced currently.
This is how I feel. I am in agreement with the fringe collective.
To be fair, most health professionals haven't the time. At my last count, there were over 2 million articles published in over 20,000 journals (Mulrow 2004), so we have to rely on secondary research, ie collecting the data, appraising the findings, and coming to some sort of useful conclusion.
Ultimately, when sat in front of a patient, I need to know if intervention x is going to result in outcome y. Admittedly, that isn't always the case.
The model isn't perfect, but if you have an alternative, then let's hear it.The inner awkward gitt in me will be most receptive.
Cognoscenti put up a post with lots of words and ended with
let me know if I'm mistaken on anything, docs
Gingernut and I both said we didnt understand the question, but if we could look at any of the research referred to we would be happy to comment
The response was
I dont have any interest in debating the papers
and derogatory comments about our persuasion
Sadly this is almost exactly the same as occurred on another thread about CQ10 and others in the recent past. This forum offers a fantastic opportunity for anyone to ask questions and invite comments on anything medical. It would be really sad if all the doctors and healthcare professionals deserted it because we simply ask for clarification or sight of what the questioner has read. Just for the record, I am involved with a company doing gene modification which offers the possibility of curing a number of cancers in the next few years. I would have loved to discuss this. Instead, having been told my knowledge is non existent, and I have a mental block I am inclined not to waste my time. I am sure other doctors will reflect on the gratitude Cognoscenti has demonstrated towards us.
Please don't go away . The dog tired, the ones with eyes dark rimmed, look here for answers, and agree with you that it is fantastic what is offered here in these sort of forums.
In four days this thread has attracted 925 lookers and 18 posts of varying value. It might sound inane for a poster to claim that he gives credence to what he believes, (as screwy as saying it was all so different before everything changed), or to invoke something as nebulous as 'the fringe collective', but those with an iota of rational judgement will not bother with such like.