A missing Link??? First thread on epigenetics - Page 2

[mamakay]

A helpful link for anyone who's feeling in over their heads.
(I had to make sure I was following what the brainiacks are talking about)
http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ult...rterGenes.html

[Ruthla]

What I *think* this means is this:

Say you have a gene abbdccdeeedddfffsa

when you methylate the gene, you might end up with babbdccdeeedddfffsa or abbdccdeeedddfffsad

We don't really know how these changes affect health, but they CAN be passed down to the next generation.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Dont think so Ruthla. Coz they say the DNA still looks the same. So theoretically the sequence would still be the same. Seems to me that methylation just makes it function differently. But you can't see why.

Which is of course, convenient in the case of vaccines, coz you wouldn't be able to prove that X compound actually did Y action.

[mamakay]

Why am I getting a mental image of humans giving birth to quasichimps?
Isn't it the on/off gene factor that really separates us from them?

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Mamakay, I think methylation is additive to, and then reproduced during transcription. Insider? Please? Is that correct?

[Ruthla]

isn't it the on/off gene factor that really separates us from them?

I beleive that what separates humans from animals is more spiritual in nature and can't be proven in any kind of scientific lab. I don't think that these biological experiments are going to make us "less human," just a lot less healthy.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Originally Posted by Ruthla

I don't think that these biological experiments are going to make us "less human," just a lot less healthy.

True, but my point is that if they say even an emotion and a stress changes gene function, then why do they say vaccines are only "good" and can't cause problems?

[mamakay]

I beleive that what separates humans from animals is more spiritual in nature and can't be proven in any kind of scientific lab. I don't think that these biological experiments are going to make us "less human," just a lot less healthy.

I know what you mean, but I was just thinking about the importance of what genes are activated.
I know our actual DNA is 80 something % similar to that of a dandilion, but it's the activation of the genes that really determines our major differences.

I think I might be in over my head in this whole discussion, though. :

The idea of neural cells (or any cells, for that matter) having their DNA altered in any way...especially a thousand times over...just makes me feel kinda trying to imagine it.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

I know what you mean. At the gut level, it makes sense to say that we know instinctively, the right way to live. We've been given an internal map so to speak. I think that's why our instinct sometimes rebels against things. I call it "God's radar signal". Other's mightn't see that as helpful.

Somehow talk about genes sort of reduces it to a "thing" thing, instead of a way of life. Which comes back to screwing the pooch I guess.

Now there's a thought, not....

[mamakay]

I approach it from a more agnostic, evolutionary POV, but it still holds true.
There is a "way of things" that is usually "right".
You can see it as "God's way" or as "evolutionarily adaptive" and either way, you still shouldn't be blindly changing genes.

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

No we shouldn't but the point is that we do. Yes, some people take an evolutionary point of view, which is fine. I can't help laughing though... way back in 1996, the New England Journal of Medicine had this article which stated that people who were clincally depressed had more brittle bones with a greater risk of fracture.

I couldn't help thinking that they wasted an awful lot of money on an unnecessary study when the Bible had said for centures in Proverbs 15 : 30 "Bright eyes gladden the heart, Good news puts fat on the bones" (16 : 24) "Pleasant words are a honeycombe, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones" (14 : 30) "A tranquil heart is life to the body But envy is rottenness to the bones." (17 : 22) "A joyful heart is good medicine, but a broken spirit dries up the bones."

If they'd listened to us nutters, we could have saved them an awful lot of money.

But perhaps this article about gene methylation puts into scientific words what the scriptures actually say. If lack of nurture, and negative emotions do change genes, then that is very interesting. And if that is passed on to future generations, then the Biblical concepts of "the sins of the fathers can be handed down for three generations" makes more sense.

Perhaps these emotions methylate DNA and result in a changed function leading to ill health.T

hey say that these things can be reversed. Yes, by changing your nutrition, lifestyle and attitudes towards something more life-enhancing...

Predictably however, the NEJM study didn't encourage people to figure out how to solve their problems, so that they could be happy, but just suggested early drug intervention would improve both physical and mental health.

[aira]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...160&query_hl=1

Here's an article about the aluminum thing...

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Okay, having had the night to think about the science behind this, there is another problem. The lack of folic acid causes DNA errors in meosis (spelling) and mitosis which results in defective genes. So how are they going to work out what causes defective DNA and what simply causes reversible methylation?

That article Aira was a very good one.

[suschi]

"Even the lowest detectable limits of a chemical can have dire effects on a living organism, added William Schlesinger, Ph.D., Dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke."

This is why I hate the comment "It's the dose that makes the poison"

When it comes to lethal chemicals, what in the world would make someone think that even just a little bit is ok?

[Momtezuma Tuatara]

Isn't it ironic though, that the lowest detectable limit never applies to vaccines.

[pumpkinsmama]

Originally Posted by Momtezuma Tuatara

No we shouldn't but the point is that we do. Yes, some people take an evolutionary point of view, which is fine. I can't help laughing though... way back in 1996, the New England Journal of Medicine had this article which stated that people who were clincally depressed had more brittle bones with a greater risk of fracture.

I couldn't help thinking that they wasted an awful lot of money on an unnecessary study when the Bible had said for centures in Proverbs 15 : 30 "Bright eyes gladden the heart, Good news puts fat on the bones" (16 : 24) "Pleasant words are a honeycombe, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones" (14 : 30) "A tranquil heart is life to the body But envy is rottenness to the bones." (17 : 22) "A joyful heart is good medicine, but a broken spirit dries up the bones."

If they'd listened to us nutters, we could have saved them an awful lot of money.

But perhaps this article about gene methylation puts into scientific words what the scriptures actually say. If lack of nurture, and negative emotions do change genes, then that is very interesting. And if that is passed on to future generations, then the Biblical concepts of "the sins of the fathers can be handed down for three generations" makes more sense.

Perhaps these emotions methylate DNA and result in a changed function leading to ill health.T

hey say that these things can be reversed. Yes, by changing your nutrition, lifestyle and attitudes towards something more life-enhancing...

Predictably however, the NEJM study didn't encourage people to figure out how to solve their problems, so that they could be happy, but just suggested early drug intervention would improve both physical and mental health.

I've read several articles (pop. journalist for general public, not scientific) on the health benefits of laughter. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/...er.health.wmd/
^I found this after a quick search.

While it will be several years before the UCLA study delivers its first medical punch lines, it has already solved a key riddle: Who will pay to see whether laughter really is, if not the best, at least an effective medicine? After all, drug companies, which spend billions to prove medications work, have little stake in investigating laughter.

Instead, Hilber turned to Comedy Central. The television home of "South Park" will fund most of the study's initial phases with a $75,000 grant. "If in five years' time this study can determine that comedy is good for you, we really have a marketing opportunity," says network executive Tony Fox. "(Forget) an apple a day. Watch Comedy Central instead!"

Ever since MT first explained the gum on the lightswitch theory, it is how I visualize it. A huge row of lightswitches, as far as the eye can see, and depending on what you inject, inhale,(think), swallow, absorb... gum goes on and off some switches. I think maybe blu-tack would be a better adhesive to visualize. And the changes that are passed down would be like shipping the rack of light switches to a new owner and leaving the blutack on some of them. And visa-versa.