Guest guest Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 HI all: I've always been interested in this theory of bacterial/viral development since it explains certain phenomena better and tallies better with CM theory as well. Anyone know of recent research into this? Thanks, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ keworegon <taokla Chinese Medicine Thursday, 1 October, 2009 20:34:04 Otosclerosis (bone formation inner ear/stapes) Earlier this week I had a conversation with a 40-something male who about 8 years ago was diagnosed with otosclerosis (abnormal bone formation) in his left ear and had surgery to replace the stapes w/a prosthesis. After recovering from surgery his hearing returned though over the years it has diminished to 40% with continued calcification and probable continued loss of hearing. He does not want to go through another surgery/recovery. His question to me: can acupuncture treatment help -- by stopping further bone formation to retain his 40% hearing? or help decrease formatin to improve his hearing? I cannot find information on how to approach this. Karen Wilson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Gaston Naessens is the latest one taken to task on this that I know of. But I had a whole list of names on this thesis, if you want me to dig them up. Rife posited pleomorphism. Reich posited abiogenesis. - " Hugo Ramiro " <subincor <Chinese Medicine > Friday, October 02, 2009 3:36 PM Pleomorphism > HI all: > > I've always been interested in this theory of bacterial/viral development > since it explains certain phenomena better and tallies better with CM > theory as well. Anyone know of recent research into this? > > Thanks, > Hugo > > ________________________________ > Hugo Ramiro > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > http://www.middlemedicine.org > > > > > > ________________________________ > keworegon <taokla > Chinese Medicine > Thursday, 1 October, 2009 20:34:04 > Otosclerosis (bone formation inner ear/stapes) > > > Earlier this week I had a conversation with a 40-something male who > about 8 years ago was diagnosed with otosclerosis (abnormal bone > formation) in his left ear and had surgery to replace the stapes w/a > prosthesis. After recovering from surgery his hearing returned though > over the years it has diminished to 40% with continued calcification and > probable continued loss of hearing. He does not want to go through > another surgery/recovery. His question to me: can acupuncture > treatment help -- by stopping further bone formation to retain his 40% > hearing? or help decrease formatin to improve his hearing? I cannot > find information on how to approach this. Karen Wilson > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 Try the book " Stealth Pathogens " by Lida H Mattman --- On Fri, 10/2/09, Mercurius Trismegistus <magisterium_magnum wrote: Mercurius Trismegistus <magisterium_magnum Re: Pleomorphism Chinese Medicine Friday, October 2, 2009, 9:20 PM Gaston Naessens is the latest one taken to task on this that I know of. But I had a whole list of names on this thesis, if you want me to dig them up. Rife posited pleomorphism. Reich posited abiogenesis. - " Hugo Ramiro " <subincor > <Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine > Friday, October 02, 2009 3:36 PM Pleomorphism > HI all: > > I've always been interested in this theory of bacterial/viral development > since it explains certain phenomena better and tallies better with CM > theory as well. Anyone know of recent research into this? > > Thanks, > Hugo > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Hugo Ramiro > http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com > http://www.middleme dicine.org > > > > > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > keworegon <taokla > > Thursday, 1 October, 2009 20:34:04 > Otosclerosis (bone formation inner ear/stapes) > > > Earlier this week I had a conversation with a 40-something male who > about 8 years ago was diagnosed with otosclerosis (abnormal bone > formation) in his left ear and had surgery to replace the stapes w/a > prosthesis. After recovering from surgery his hearing returned though > over the years it has diminished to 40% with continued calcification and > probable continued loss of hearing. He does not want to go through > another surgery/recovery. His question to me: can acupuncture > treatment help -- by stopping further bone formation to retain his 40% > hearing? or help decrease formatin to improve his hearing? I cannot > find information on how to approach this. Karen Wilson > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 3, 2009 Report Share Posted October 3, 2009 TCM made greater sense to me when I viewed it through the prism of Pleomorphism. Ed Kasper LAc www.HappyHerbalist.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 4, 2009 Report Share Posted October 4, 2009 Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: " HI all: I've always been interested in this theory of bacterial/viral development since it explains certain phenomena better and tallies better with CM theory as well. Anyone know of recent research into this? Thanks, Hugo " CRIKEY as we say down here! I had to look that up - pleomorphism. Would any of you who understand it like to give us a crash course in " Pleomorphism for the TCM Practitioner " ? Am intrigued. Thanks Margi Macdonald http://margihealing.wordpress.com/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 5, 2009 Report Share Posted October 5, 2009 Pleomorphism is the theory that bacteria, germs, viruses, fungi and whatnot are all interchangeable. Reich states that " bacteria " spontaneously generate from decaying organic material. (That's the cribs notes version.) The pleomorphists would say that, depending upon the environment the same material would pleomorph from bacteria to virus to fungus, and all the way back again, in any which order. There is a great deal more evidence for this theory than is " generally taught. " Antoine Bechamp is the original. Pasteur established the " germ theory " as we know it today. Reich would even say that charging tissue with " orgone " will sterilize, or prevent the spontaneous generation of " infectious " organisms. BLOOD AND IT'S THIRD ANATOMICAL ELEMENT by antione bechamp BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE CANCER PROBLEM BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE THE CANCER BIOPATH -all by Wilhelm Reich (among some other GREAT works) Like I said, Gaston Naessens is the latest high profile researcher to be " taken to the woodshed " for positing this type of theory. That was in the 90s, iirc. I haven't specifically studied Naessens yet. TCM practioners are in a unique position to theorize about this pleomorphic phenomenon, if there is true to it (and personally, I think there is.) We have a unique medical ontology and a unique theory of " pathogens. " - " margi.macdonald " <margi.macdonald <Chinese Medicine > Saturday, October 03, 2009 5:51 PM Re: Pleomorphism > > > Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro > <subincor wrote: > > " HI all: > > I've always been interested in this theory of bacterial/viral development > since it explains certain phenomena better and tallies better with CM > theory as well. Anyone know of recent research into this? > > Thanks, > Hugo " > > > CRIKEY as we say down here! > I had to look that up - pleomorphism. > > Would any of you who understand it like to give us a crash course in > " Pleomorphism for the TCM Practitioner " ? > > Am intrigued. > > Thanks > Margi Macdonald > http://margihealing.wordpress.com/ > > > > > > --- > > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine > and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia > > > and adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 the organisms morph into a differnet form or possible cloak but I don't think they change from one form into another as in virus to bacteria --- On Mon, 10/5/09, Mercurius Trismegistus <magisterium_magnum wrote: Mercurius Trismegistus <magisterium_magnum Re: Re: Pleomorphism Chinese Medicine Monday, October 5, 2009, 1:31 AM Pleomorphism is the theory that bacteria, germs, viruses, fungi and whatnot are all interchangeable. Reich states that " bacteria " spontaneously generate from decaying organic material. (That's the cribs notes version.) The pleomorphists would say that, depending upon the environment the same material would pleomorph from bacteria to virus to fungus, and all the way back again, in any which order. There is a great deal more evidence for this theory than is " generally taught. " Antoine Bechamp is the original. Pasteur established the " germ theory " as we know it today. Reich would even say that charging tissue with " orgone " will sterilize, or prevent the spontaneous generation of " infectious " organisms. BLOOD AND IT'S THIRD ANATOMICAL ELEMENT by antione bechamp BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE CANCER PROBLEM BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE THE CANCER BIOPATH -all by Wilhelm Reich (among some other GREAT works) Like I said, Gaston Naessens is the latest high profile researcher to be " taken to the woodshed " for positing this type of theory. That was in the 90s, iirc. I haven't specifically studied Naessens yet. TCM practioners are in a unique position to theorize about this pleomorphic phenomenon, if there is true to it (and personally, I think there is.) We have a unique medical ontology and a unique theory of " pathogens. " - " margi.macdonald " <margi.macdonald@ gmail.com> <Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine > Saturday, October 03, 2009 5:51 PM Re: Pleomorphism > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , Hugo Ramiro > <subincor@.. .> wrote: > > " HI all: > > I've always been interested in this theory of bacterial/viral development > since it explains certain phenomena better and tallies better with CM > theory as well. Anyone know of recent research into this? > > Thanks, > Hugo " > > > CRIKEY as we say down here! > I had to look that up - pleomorphism. > > Would any of you who understand it like to give us a crash course in > " Pleomorphism for the TCM Practitioner " ? > > Am intrigued. > > Thanks > Margi Macdonald > http://margihealing .wordpress. com/ > > > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------ > > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times > http://www.chinesem edicinetimes. com > > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine > and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesem edicinetimes. com/wiki/ CMTpedia > > > http://groups. / group/Traditiona l_Chinese_ Medicine/ join and adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 That's the pleomorphic theory. That the same " pathogen " can pleomorph from a bacteria to a virus to a fungus, depending upon the environment. If you want to get more specific, I'm sure there are as many different particular theories as there are researchers looking into it. - " Rissa Guest " <rissaguest <Chinese Medicine > Monday, October 05, 2009 8:22 PM Re: Re: Pleomorphism the organisms morph into a differnet form or possible cloak but I don't think they change from one form into another as in virus to bacteria --- On Mon, 10/5/09, Mercurius Trismegistus <magisterium_magnum wrote: Mercurius Trismegistus <magisterium_magnum Re: Re: Pleomorphism Chinese Medicine Monday, October 5, 2009, 1:31 AM Pleomorphism is the theory that bacteria, germs, viruses, fungi and whatnot are all interchangeable. Reich states that " bacteria " spontaneously generate from decaying organic material. (That's the cribs notes version.) The pleomorphists would say that, depending upon the environment the same material would pleomorph from bacteria to virus to fungus, and all the way back again, in any which order. There is a great deal more evidence for this theory than is " generally taught. " Antoine Bechamp is the original. Pasteur established the " germ theory " as we know it today. Reich would even say that charging tissue with " orgone " will sterilize, or prevent the spontaneous generation of " infectious " organisms. BLOOD AND IT'S THIRD ANATOMICAL ELEMENT by antione bechamp BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE CANCER PROBLEM BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE THE CANCER BIOPATH -all by Wilhelm Reich (among some other GREAT works) Like I said, Gaston Naessens is the latest high profile researcher to be " taken to the woodshed " for positing this type of theory. That was in the 90s, iirc. I haven't specifically studied Naessens yet. TCM practioners are in a unique position to theorize about this pleomorphic phenomenon, if there is true to it (and personally, I think there is.) We have a unique medical ontology and a unique theory of " pathogens. " - " margi.macdonald " <margi.macdonald@ gmail.com> <Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine > Saturday, October 03, 2009 5:51 PM Re: Pleomorphism > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , Hugo Ramiro > <subincor@.. .> wrote: > > " HI all: > > I've always been interested in this theory of bacterial/viral development > since it explains certain phenomena better and tallies better with CM > theory as well. Anyone know of recent research into this? > > Thanks, > Hugo " > > > CRIKEY as we say down here! > I had to look that up - pleomorphism. > > Would any of you who understand it like to give us a crash course in > " Pleomorphism for the TCM Practitioner " ? > > Am intrigued. > > Thanks > Margi Macdonald > http://margihealing .wordpress. com/ > > > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------ > > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times > http://www.chinesem edicinetimes. com > > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine > and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesem edicinetimes. com/wiki/ > CMTpedia > > > http://groups. / group/Traditiona l_Chinese_ Medicine/ join and > adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2009 Report Share Posted October 6, 2009 These are considered to be different life stages of the same organism, from what I recall reading. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine magisterium_magnum Tue, 6 Oct 2009 00:35:10 -0700 Re: Re: Pleomorphism That's the pleomorphic theory. That the same " pathogen " can pleomorph from a bacteria to a virus to a fungus, depending upon the environment. If you want to get more specific, I'm sure there are as many different particular theories as there are researchers looking into it. - " Rissa Guest " <rissaguest <Chinese Medicine > Monday, October 05, 2009 8:22 PM Re: Re: Pleomorphism the organisms morph into a differnet form or possible cloak but I don't think they change from one form into another as in virus to bacteria --- On Mon, 10/5/09, Mercurius Trismegistus <magisterium_magnum wrote: Mercurius Trismegistus <magisterium_magnum Re: Re: Pleomorphism Chinese Medicine Monday, October 5, 2009, 1:31 AM Pleomorphism is the theory that bacteria, germs, viruses, fungi and whatnot are all interchangeable. Reich states that " bacteria " spontaneously generate from decaying organic material. (That's the cribs notes version.) The pleomorphists would say that, depending upon the environment the same material would pleomorph from bacteria to virus to fungus, and all the way back again, in any which order. There is a great deal more evidence for this theory than is " generally taught. " Antoine Bechamp is the original. Pasteur established the " germ theory " as we know it today. Reich would even say that charging tissue with " orgone " will sterilize, or prevent the spontaneous generation of " infectious " organisms. BLOOD AND IT'S THIRD ANATOMICAL ELEMENT by antione bechamp BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE CANCER PROBLEM BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE ORIGIN OF LIFE THE CANCER BIOPATH -all by Wilhelm Reich (among some other GREAT works) Like I said, Gaston Naessens is the latest high profile researcher to be " taken to the woodshed " for positing this type of theory. That was in the 90s, iirc. I haven't specifically studied Naessens yet. TCM practioners are in a unique position to theorize about this pleomorphic phenomenon, if there is true to it (and personally, I think there is.) We have a unique medical ontology and a unique theory of " pathogens. " - " margi.macdonald " <margi.macdonald@ gmail.com> <Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine > Saturday, October 03, 2009 5:51 PM Re: Pleomorphism > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , Hugo Ramiro > <subincor@.. .> wrote: > > " HI all: > > I've always been interested in this theory of bacterial/viral development > since it explains certain phenomena better and tallies better with CM > theory as well. Anyone know of recent research into this? > > Thanks, > Hugo " > > > CRIKEY as we say down here! > I had to look that up - pleomorphism. > > Would any of you who understand it like to give us a crash course in > " Pleomorphism for the TCM Practitioner " ? > > Am intrigued. > > Thanks > Margi Macdonald > http://margihealing .wordpress. com/ > > > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------ > > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times > http://www.chinesem edicinetimes. com > > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine > and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesem edicinetimes. com/wiki/ > CMTpedia > > > http://groups. / group/Traditiona l_Chinese_ Medicine/ join and > adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 " Mercurius Trismegistus " wrote <<Pleomorphism is the theory that bacteria, germs, viruses, fungi and what not are all interchangeable...Reich states that " bacteria " spontaneously generate from decaying organic material. The pleomorphists would say that, depending upon the environment the same material would pleomorph from bacteria to virus to fungus, and all the way back again, in any which order...TCM practioners are in a unique position to theorize about this pleomorphic phenomenon, if there is true to it (and personally, I think there is.) We have a unique medical ontology and a unique theory of " pathogens. " >> I agree, however I think that TCM pathogenesis is more " symbolic " , and not representative of a literal pleomorphism. As a simplistic example, let us consider an invasion of Tai Yang wind-cold, that penetrates deeper and then manifests with Yang Ming symptoms. In TCM pattern terms, changes will observed such as clear discharge becoming yellow discharge; and slight fever becoming high fever (among others). In biomed terms, what has actually transpired during this transformation from Tai Yang to Yang Ming? In all likelihood, the initial symptoms were due to a viral infection (maybe influenza); the patient was not able to recover entirely from the viral infection (in this case), and as a result of a weakened and taxed immunity (Wei Qi), they became vulnerable to opportunistic bacteria, which then subsequently colonized successfully, and engendered a sort of sequelie attack; the signs consistent with bacterial infection (especially URI). So, in pleomorphic language, one *might* say " Ah, the virus turned into a bacteria " ; but this seems more like a " short hand " to describe the progression of the overall dysfunction, rather than a literal notion of a subset of micro-organisms spontaneously becoming another kingdom, phylum, so on. Here is a related example, from common parlance: People are often fond of saying (and warning), that if an individual stops exercising and working out, that their " muscle will turn to fat " . Is this literal truth? When one stops exercising, indeed they usually become less toned, and loose muscle mass; but, correlation is not causation. The muscle loss and fat gain are a result of sudden decreased metabolic activity, less resistance, and food consumption that remains equal to previous levels (no longer needed)--however, the actual biological changes that take place, are not literal changes of muscle cells into fat cells...it is more akin to a substitution, or replacement reaction, if I can borrow an analogy from chemistry. Consequently, again, IMO, " pleomorphism " ought be look at more symbolically, than literally. Suppose that pleomorphism IS however literal--what if anything supports this? If a virus were to spontaneously become a bacteria, it begs a number of questions. We begin with a virus, which is either a strand of DNA or RNA, encased by a protein shell. Nothing more, nothing less. Its " mission " is to simply " replicate " the genetic info, by " fooling " living cells undergoing mitosis, to do the replication for them (the virus). Erroneously, the virus gets replicated by the host cell, who " thinks " the invasive DNA/RNA was its own, the cell swells, ruptures, and more baby viruses spread...at least until the " Wei Qi " figures out what is going on! The bacteria on the other hand, have their own reproductive machinery, they can reproduce on their own accord to simple fission, at least when nutrients are present. Bacteria don't have to rely on " fooling " anybody, or any host cells, to replicate genes. Moreover, the bacteria have what the virus does not--complex organelles, metabolism, and respiration. Consequently, I find that any literal pleomorphism must suggest that a transition from " virus to bacteria " , a sudden development of organelles appears, despite the fact that nothing in the viral genes have any codes for organelles, and nothing about viruses suggest that they do anything except mindlessly replicate. Same goes for prions. In conclusion, while I'm not dismissing pleomorhism or Reichian theories, I'm thinking that their validity exists mostly in terms of regarding them as " patterns " , not literal bio-chemical events. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 No, these phenomena are theorized to be " literal, " not symbolic. Rife, among others, isolated various pathogens in various forms, and by changing their environment observed other forms of pathogens. Between viruses, bacteria and fungi. The abiogenesis theory is different but related. Reich posited that " bions " (as he called them) spontaneously generated from decaying organic material in the body. (He also filmed it, btw.) See BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE CANCER PROBLEM and BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE ORIGINS OF LIFE. Like I said, Gaston Naessens was castigated for this thesis in the 90s. If anything, pleomorphism is gaining ground in the mainstream, as it is now recognized that " some " pathogens have this ability. I do not believe that TCM theory is merely " symbolic. " I also do not believe that " qi " is an explanatory fiction. There are a numerous major researchers who posit pleomorphism. Read them and see what they have in common and how they differ. Don't take my word for it. - " ariaksatri2 " <aryaksatriya <Chinese Medicine > Tuesday, October 06, 2009 6:52 PM Re: Pleomorphism > " Mercurius Trismegistus " wrote <<Pleomorphism is the theory that > bacteria, germs, viruses, fungi and what not are all > interchangeable...Reich states that " bacteria " spontaneously generate from > decaying organic material. The pleomorphists would say that, depending > upon the environment the same material would pleomorph from > bacteria to virus to fungus, and all the way back again, in any which > order...TCM practioners are in a unique position to theorize about this > pleomorphic phenomenon, if there is true to it (and personally, I think > there is.) We have a unique medical ontology and a unique theory of > " pathogens. " >> > > I agree, however I think that TCM pathogenesis is more > " symbolic " , and not representative of a literal pleomorphism. > > As a simplistic example, let us consider an invasion of > Tai Yang wind-cold, that penetrates deeper and then manifests with > Yang Ming symptoms. > In TCM pattern terms, changes will observed such as clear discharge > becoming yellow discharge; and slight fever becoming high fever > (among others). > > In biomed terms, what has actually transpired during this > transformation from Tai Yang to Yang Ming? > In all likelihood, the initial symptoms were due to a viral > infection (maybe influenza); the patient was not able to > recover entirely from the viral infection (in this case), and as a > result of a weakened and taxed immunity (Wei Qi), they became > vulnerable to opportunistic bacteria, which then subsequently > colonized successfully, and engendered a sort of sequelie attack; > the signs consistent with bacterial infection (especially URI). > > So, in pleomorphic language, one *might* say " Ah, the virus > turned into a bacteria " ; but this seems more like a " short hand " > to describe the progression of the overall dysfunction, > rather than a literal notion of a subset of micro-organisms > spontaneously becoming another kingdom, phylum, so on. > > Here is a related example, from common parlance: > People are often fond of saying (and warning), that if an individual > stops exercising and working out, that their " muscle will turn to > fat " . Is this literal truth? > When one stops exercising, indeed they usually become less toned, > and loose muscle mass; but, correlation is not causation. > > The muscle loss and fat gain are a result of sudden decreased > metabolic activity, less resistance, and food consumption that > remains equal to previous levels (no longer needed)--however, > the actual biological changes that take place, are not literal changes of > muscle cells into fat cells...it is more akin to a > substitution, or replacement reaction, if I can borrow an analogy > from chemistry. Consequently, again, IMO, " pleomorphism " > ought be look at more symbolically, than literally. > > Suppose that pleomorphism IS however literal--what if anything > supports this? > If a virus were to spontaneously become a bacteria, it begs a > number of questions. > > We begin with a virus, which is either a strand of DNA or RNA, > encased by a protein shell. Nothing more, nothing less. Its > " mission " is to simply " replicate " the genetic info, by " fooling " > living cells undergoing mitosis, to do the replication for them > (the virus). Erroneously, the virus gets replicated by the > host cell, who " thinks " the invasive DNA/RNA was its own, the cell > swells, ruptures, and more baby viruses spread...at least until > the " Wei Qi " figures out what is going on! > > The bacteria on the other hand, have their own reproductive machinery, > they can reproduce on their own accord to simple fission, at least when > nutrients are present. Bacteria don't have to rely on " fooling " > anybody, or any host cells, to replicate genes. > Moreover, the bacteria have what the virus does not--complex > organelles, metabolism, and respiration. > > Consequently, I find that any literal pleomorphism must suggest that > a transition from " virus to bacteria " , a sudden development of > organelles appears, despite the fact that nothing in the viral > genes have any codes for organelles, and nothing about viruses > suggest that they do anything except mindlessly replicate. > Same goes for prions. > > In conclusion, while I'm not dismissing pleomorhism or Reichian > theories, I'm thinking that their validity exists mostly in terms > of regarding them as " patterns " , not literal bio-chemical > events. --- > > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine > and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia > > > and adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Stem cells. but Methinks to understand Pleomorphism one can't use pre-defined definitions from a different view. Pleopmorhism to me is more than simply looking at a cocoon / caterpillar / butterfly and saying aha. Looking from the TCM view I see Heat, Cold, Damp, Water, Dry, Wind shape and reshape the environment and life (be)comes from the ever changing environment. Cancer cells. People develop based upon different stress / conditions. Ed Kasper LAc <http://www.HappyHerbalist.com> www.HappyHerbalist.com ........ Suppose that pleomorphism IS however literal--what if anything supports this? __ ariaksatri2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 " Mercurius Trismegistus " wrote <<No, these phenomena are theorized to be " literal, " not symbolic.>> I realize that to a pleomorphist purist the theories are posited as " literal " ; I'm just suggesting that *maybe* to get more mileage from them in a TCM setting, it might be more practical to view them more along the lines of " patterns " . Trismegistus <<Reich posited that " bions " (as he called them) spontaneously generated from decaying organic material in the body. (He also filmed it, btw.) See BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE CANCER PROBLEM and BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE ORIGINS OF LIFE.>> I've seen the photos, and read some of Reich's books years ago (maybe it is time to re-read them). Since your screen name is Mercurius Trismegistus, I'm going to make as assumption that you have a hand in Spagyrie as well as TCM. If that is the case, you likely are familiar with the " Golden Chain of Homer " , and the various experiments with differing fractions of distilled thunderstorm water. In these experiments (I'm abridging), the fractions are taken to correspond with the classical " elements " , and when recombined in certain ways, can generate minerals, plants, and animals (worms, insects). And, this usually works to some degree, when done properly. Now, the question is, are the phenomenon we observe, to be taken as literal spontaneous generation, as a result of mingling fractions of these " elements " ? Or, is it more likely, that the various densities of the distilled fractions, contain seeds, spores, and larva, which distill according to their own weights and densities? I *suspect* that similar types of explanations might exist behind the generation of " bions " ; but don't get me wrong, I'm open minded about " alternative " thinking on all this as well. Trismegistus <<I do not believe that TCM theory is merely " symbolic " .>> Nor do I, and I hope I haven't given that impression; I do however think that a great deal of the language and jargon is symbolic. Dr. Freihoff perhaps gets nearer than anybody else about this, as in for example, his essay and interviews about " Gu " syndrome. Trismegistus <<I also do not believe that " qi " is an explanatory fiction.>> Again, nor do I; yet, often it is a word/concept to describe a broad range of events, that upon closer look, *can* reveal some concrete mechanisms, that certainly serve as a " support " , or means by which the given Qi is manifested. Dr. Wang Ju Yi, in his excellent channel theory text, is often drawing comparisons from Western science with various traditional expressions of Qi--he makes it clear that he feels the relationships are analogous, but never quite exact--I tend to agree with him, and certainly do not dismiss Qi as a " fiction " . Trismegistus <<There are a numerous major researchers who posit pleomorphism. Read them and see what they have in common and how they differ. Don't take my word for it.>> As the theory does interest me, even if I appear to be " devils advocate " , I do plan to explore some of research further. Yes, Gaston Naessans is new to me, glad you referenced him, thanks for the tip. > > > > > - > " ariaksatri2 " <aryaksatriya > <Chinese Medicine > > Tuesday, October 06, 2009 6:52 PM > Re: Pleomorphism > > > > " Mercurius Trismegistus " wrote <<Pleomorphism is the theory that > > bacteria, germs, viruses, fungi and what not are all > > interchangeable...Reich states that " bacteria " spontaneously generate from > > decaying organic material. The pleomorphists would say that, depending > > upon the environment the same material would pleomorph from > > bacteria to virus to fungus, and all the way back again, in any which > > order...TCM practioners are in a unique position to theorize about this > > pleomorphic phenomenon, if there is true to it (and personally, I think > > there is.) We have a unique medical ontology and a unique theory of > > " pathogens. " >> > > > > I agree, however I think that TCM pathogenesis is more > > " symbolic " , and not representative of a literal pleomorphism. > > > > As a simplistic example, let us consider an invasion of > > Tai Yang wind-cold, that penetrates deeper and then manifests with > > Yang Ming symptoms. > > In TCM pattern terms, changes will observed such as clear discharge > > becoming yellow discharge; and slight fever becoming high fever > > (among others). > > > > In biomed terms, what has actually transpired during this > > transformation from Tai Yang to Yang Ming? > > In all likelihood, the initial symptoms were due to a viral > > infection (maybe influenza); the patient was not able to > > recover entirely from the viral infection (in this case), and as a > > result of a weakened and taxed immunity (Wei Qi), they became > > vulnerable to opportunistic bacteria, which then subsequently > > colonized successfully, and engendered a sort of sequelie attack; > > the signs consistent with bacterial infection (especially URI). > > > > So, in pleomorphic language, one *might* say " Ah, the virus > > turned into a bacteria " ; but this seems more like a " short hand " > > to describe the progression of the overall dysfunction, > > rather than a literal notion of a subset of micro-organisms > > spontaneously becoming another kingdom, phylum, so on. > > > > Here is a related example, from common parlance: > > People are often fond of saying (and warning), that if an individual > > stops exercising and working out, that their " muscle will turn to > > fat " . Is this literal truth? > > When one stops exercising, indeed they usually become less toned, > > and loose muscle mass; but, correlation is not causation. > > > > The muscle loss and fat gain are a result of sudden decreased > > metabolic activity, less resistance, and food consumption that > > remains equal to previous levels (no longer needed)--however, > > the actual biological changes that take place, are not literal changes of > > muscle cells into fat cells...it is more akin to a > > substitution, or replacement reaction, if I can borrow an analogy > > from chemistry. Consequently, again, IMO, " pleomorphism " > > ought be look at more symbolically, than literally. > > > > Suppose that pleomorphism IS however literal--what if anything > > supports this? > > If a virus were to spontaneously become a bacteria, it begs a > > number of questions. > > > > We begin with a virus, which is either a strand of DNA or RNA, > > encased by a protein shell. Nothing more, nothing less. Its > > " mission " is to simply " replicate " the genetic info, by " fooling " > > living cells undergoing mitosis, to do the replication for them > > (the virus). Erroneously, the virus gets replicated by the > > host cell, who " thinks " the invasive DNA/RNA was its own, the cell > > swells, ruptures, and more baby viruses spread...at least until > > the " Wei Qi " figures out what is going on! > > > > The bacteria on the other hand, have their own reproductive machinery, > > they can reproduce on their own accord to simple fission, at least when > > nutrients are present. Bacteria don't have to rely on " fooling " > > anybody, or any host cells, to replicate genes. > > Moreover, the bacteria have what the virus does not--complex > > organelles, metabolism, and respiration. > > > > Consequently, I find that any literal pleomorphism must suggest that > > a transition from " virus to bacteria " , a sudden development of > > organelles appears, despite the fact that nothing in the viral > > genes have any codes for organelles, and nothing about viruses > > suggest that they do anything except mindlessly replicate. > > Same goes for prions. > > > > In conclusion, while I'm not dismissing pleomorhism or Reichian > > theories, I'm thinking that their validity exists mostly in terms > > of regarding them as " patterns " , not literal bio-chemical > > events. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times > > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > > > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine > > and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia > > > > > > and adjust > > accordingly. > > > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > > requires prior permission from the author. > > > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > > necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 To continue playing " devil's advocate " , and looking at matters objectively, Ed, I just don't see evidence of polymorphic theory within stem cell theory. Afterall, a stem cell ALREADY possesses cell qualities, such as independent metabolism, reproductive ability, locomotion, membrane (phospho-lipid bilayer), and multiple organelles. The ONLY thing that makes a stem distinct, from other somatic cells, is that it has not yet differentiated, or dedicated itself to becomming a specific TYPE of tissue cell (the mechanisms by which this occurs, which are recognized). This is entirely different, than imagining that something non-cellular, like a prion or virus, suddenly acquires, out of nowhere, cellular qualities, and differentiates itself from non-cellular organic compounds, into a cellular entity. Huge difference! Like I've said already, I'm willing to remain " open minded " about various theories. Yet, I honestly have to conclude that most people don't truly grasp the idea of what a virus " is " . A virus is not " alive " in a biological sense, and not a cell. A virus can not move on its own, reproduce on its own, or perform any metabolism--it is nothing but a genetic strand enclosed by a protein coat, glyco-protein, or lipo-protein. To assume that a virus can " differentiate " like a stem cell, is to project onto viruses qualities and quantities that it simply does not have. I still want to see a sound argument describing how a primitive virus suddenly acquires a gene code that suddenly includes transcription for complex bacterial organelles, in the next generation. I want to see something that supports a virus going from fooling a host cell into replicating genetic material, to a virus possessing the ability to replicate itself (a cellular behavior). Chinese Medicine , " Happy Herbalist " <eddy wrote: > > Stem cells. but > > Methinks to understand Pleomorphism one can't use pre-defined definitions > from a different view. Pleopmorhism to me is more than simply looking at a > cocoon / caterpillar / butterfly and saying aha. Looking from the TCM view I > see Heat, Cold, Damp, Water, Dry, Wind shape and reshape the environment and > life (be)comes from the ever changing environment. Cancer cells. People > develop based upon different stress / conditions. > > > > Ed Kasper LAc > > <http://www.HappyHerbalist.com> www.HappyHerbalist.com > > > > ....... > > Suppose that pleomorphism IS however literal--what if anything > supports this? > > __ ariaksatri2 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Hi All, It's not a tough call regarding the literal. Just run the genome. Proof is in the pudding as they say. Bacteria evolve in hours .... viruses called bacteriophages infect bacteria. The early 20th Century folks were in love with allopathy but didn't get to see genomes. It turns out the a single virial organism does not change, but subsequent generations definitely change, and quickly if one of the variations is resistant to medications or in harmony with a new and difficult environment. Rudolf Virchow from this early 20th Century group is the one who is credited with disproved spontaneous generation. The pleomorphism terminology of those days is not the pleomorphism terminology of current microbiology. Friends here in the biotech realm of San Franicsco were speechless with the thread. Some friends here were reading over my shoulder. All of us like this review paper from Pubmed Central. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2673041 & tool=pmcentrez Folks here at TCM might like it too because it steers away from the realm of " infection " and allopathy's little bug-parade and brings it back to the realm of nutrition and the endogeny of Chinese medicine. Thanks for the refreshing read. Gratefully, Em Segmen Merritt College Biology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 There is more western " science " behind this theory than people are generally aware of. Quite a bit more, really. - " Happy Herbalist " <eddy <Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, October 07, 2009 6:07 PM Re: Pleomorphism > Stem cells. but > > Methinks to understand Pleomorphism one can't use pre-defined definitions > from a different view. Pleopmorhism to me is more than simply looking at a > cocoon / caterpillar / butterfly and saying aha. Looking from the TCM view > I > see Heat, Cold, Damp, Water, Dry, Wind shape and reshape the environment > and > life (be)comes from the ever changing environment. Cancer cells. People > develop based upon different stress / conditions. > > > > Ed Kasper LAc > > <http://www.HappyHerbalist.com> www.HappyHerbalist.com > > > > ....... > > Suppose that pleomorphism IS however literal--what if anything > supports this? > > __ ariaksatri2 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Hi Mercurious, Reading up on it is what I do for a living. I teach with degrees in biochemistry, micro, anatomy/physiology, though this realm of molecular biology was my area of graduate research and part of an engineering credentially program. Try going to Pubmed Central and inputing the word Pleomorphism into the search box. You'll have more than enough reading for the rest of the year from that search. I don't recall quoting any " theories " accepted or otherwise. I don't believe in theories what so ever. Absolutely no one in my department does either to my knowledge. I doubt any of the authors of the papers at PubMed Central believe in any theories either. There's data for evaluation. Selection happens. I don't know of any genome theories. Graduate students who propose theories are usually accused of " blue sky " ... at least in the labs I've worked in. If you tell me there are pleomorphic nanobacteria, and it turns out that they test out as crystalline aggregates of calcium, what theory is being tested? Diet? In all of my years of study and teaching, I've not come across any theories that required my belief to carry on. No one that I know of practices science that way. Regarding creation stories, I've decided that Peach trees invented humans. This is what I tell my students. You see the Peach tree put the word in to Mother Life that she needed some smart little animal to take care of her babies and who was highly addicted to oral gratification. So humans were invented because they loved sweet fragrances and the pink velvet skin of peoples as well as the soft and nourishing flesh of the peach surrounding the peach pit. To this very day the doting human animals care for the Peach tree babies by placing them at just the right distance from each other and help the babies grow up to be big and strong. Although there are times when I kind of think maybe shiitake mushrooms and brussel sprouts were a part of the group that influenced Life with " outside the garden fence " dollars. No one really knows and some people accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. I kind of like the Hawaiian creation stories as well as the Hopi Indian creation stories. Come to think of it, I've rarely heard a creation story that I didn't like. And I have no doubt they are true from the perspective of Mythos. That's what's so wonderful about creation stories. Mythos is always true. Data is only good for the moment. Actually early 20th century pleomorphism is no where near as much fun for me. It's so 1920-ish ... so allopathic. Pretty much an equilibrium mythos rather than a homeostatic mythos. Try embryology. It's much closer to Chinese medicine for my money. I use it all the time to show my students and friends the veracity of Taoist health observations. Hey, ask over at the physics institute if they believe in airplanes. Gratefully, Em Segmen Chinese Medicine , " Mercurius Trismegistus " <magisterium_magnum wrote: > > Thanks for the cool article, btw! > > LOL. Glad to entertain. I made the Physics people at the Institute for Philosophical Studies speechless too. I agree that what you say below is the mainstream theory. However, I question the " genome " theory, among other things. Go ahead and read up on some of this stuff. It's fun! Sometimes you will amaze yourself. You will encounter alot of BS, but you will be astonished at the possibilities that cannot be eliminated. Which is of course all that the Scientific Method can do: DISprove previous theories and hypotheses. (Positive knowledge is beyond it's purvue.) > > > - > " Em_Segmen " <mrsegmen > <Chinese Medicine > > Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:21 PM > Re: Pleomorphism > > > > Hi All, > > > > It's not a tough call regarding the literal. Just run the genome. Proof > > is in the pudding as they say. > > > > Bacteria evolve in hours .... viruses called bacteriophages infect > > bacteria. The early 20th Century folks were in love with allopathy but > > didn't get to see genomes. It turns out the a single virial organism does > > not change, but subsequent generations definitely change, and quickly if > > one of the variations is resistant to medications or in harmony with a new > > and difficult environment. Rudolf Virchow from this early 20th Century > > group is the one who is credited with disproved spontaneous generation. > > The pleomorphism terminology of those days is not the pleomorphism > > terminology of current microbiology. > > > > Friends here in the biotech realm of San Franicsco were speechless with > > the thread. Some friends here were reading over my shoulder. All of us > > like this review paper from Pubmed Central. > > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2673041 & tool=pmcentrez > > Folks here at TCM might like it too because it steers away from the > > realm of " infection " and allopathy's little bug-parade and brings it back > > to the realm of nutrition and the endogeny of Chinese medicine. > > > > Thanks for the refreshing read. > > > > Gratefully, > > > > Em Segmen > > Merritt College Biology Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Never heard of Spagyrie, but Reich sterilized his tubes and stuff. I mean he controlled for contamination. The thing that we are getting at here is medical ontology. Ontology can be thought of as " theory or reality, " since the rejection of " metaphysics " as an a priori structure of the universe. " Science " cannot address ontological questions, as it is based on many presuppositions about reality. For instance, the possibility of metaphysics. Efficient causality, objecthood, identity across time, the idea that the universe operates according to " laws, " and that these laws are objectively knowable. To me, that's alot of superstition, but I'm radical. - " ariaksatri2 " <aryaksatriya <Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, October 07, 2009 6:57 PM Re: Pleomorphism > > " Mercurius Trismegistus " wrote <<No, these phenomena are theorized to be > " literal, " not symbolic.>> > > I realize that to a pleomorphist purist the theories are posited > as " literal " ; I'm just suggesting that *maybe* to get more > mileage from them in a TCM setting, it might be more practical to > view them more along the lines of " patterns " . > > Trismegistus <<Reich posited that " bions " (as he called them) > spontaneously generated from decaying organic material in the body. (He > also filmed it, btw.) See BION EXPERIMENTS ON THE CANCER PROBLEM and BION > EXPERIMENTS ON THE ORIGINS OF LIFE.>> > > I've seen the photos, and read some of Reich's books years ago > (maybe it is time to re-read them). > > Since your screen name is Mercurius Trismegistus, I'm going to make > as assumption that you have a hand in Spagyrie as well as TCM. > If that is the case, you likely are familiar with the > " Golden Chain of Homer " , and the various experiments with differing > fractions of distilled thunderstorm water. > In these experiments (I'm abridging), the fractions are taken to > correspond with the classical " elements " , and when recombined in > certain ways, can generate minerals, plants, and animals (worms, > insects). And, this usually works to some degree, when done > properly. > Now, the question is, are the phenomenon we observe, to be taken as > literal spontaneous generation, as a result of mingling fractions of > these " elements " ? Or, is it more likely, that the various densities > of the distilled fractions, contain seeds, spores, and larva, which > distill according to their own weights and densities? > I *suspect* that similar types of explanations might exist behind > the generation of " bions " ; but don't get me wrong, I'm open minded > about " alternative " thinking on all this as well. > > Trismegistus <<I do not believe that TCM theory is merely > " symbolic " .>> > > Nor do I, and I hope I haven't given that impression; I do > however think that a great deal of the language and jargon is > symbolic. Dr. Freihoff perhaps gets nearer than anybody else > about this, as in for example, his essay and interviews about > " Gu " syndrome. > > Trismegistus <<I also do not believe that " qi " is an explanatory > fiction.>> > > Again, nor do I; yet, often it is a word/concept to describe a > broad range of events, that upon closer look, *can* reveal some > concrete mechanisms, that certainly serve as a " support " , or > means by which the given Qi is manifested. > Dr. Wang Ju Yi, in his excellent channel theory text, is often > drawing comparisons from Western science with various traditional > expressions of Qi--he makes it clear that he feels the relationships > are analogous, but never quite exact--I tend to agree with him, > and certainly do not dismiss Qi as a " fiction " . > > > Trismegistus <<There are a numerous major researchers who posit > pleomorphism. Read them and see what they have in common and how they > differ. Don't take my word for it.>> > > As the theory does interest me, even if I appear to be " devils > advocate " , I do plan to explore some of research further. > Yes, Gaston Naessans is new to me, glad you referenced him, > thanks for the tip. > > >> >> >> >> >> - >> " ariaksatri2 " <aryaksatriya >> <Chinese Medicine > >> Tuesday, October 06, 2009 6:52 PM >> Re: Pleomorphism >> >> >> > " Mercurius Trismegistus " wrote <<Pleomorphism is the theory that >> > bacteria, germs, viruses, fungi and what not are all >> > interchangeable...Reich states that " bacteria " spontaneously generate >> > from >> > decaying organic material. The pleomorphists would say that, depending >> > upon the environment the same material would pleomorph from >> > bacteria to virus to fungus, and all the way back again, in any which >> > order...TCM practioners are in a unique position to theorize about this >> > pleomorphic phenomenon, if there is true to it (and personally, I think >> > there is.) We have a unique medical ontology and a unique theory of >> > " pathogens. " >> >> > >> > I agree, however I think that TCM pathogenesis is more >> > " symbolic " , and not representative of a literal pleomorphism. >> > >> > As a simplistic example, let us consider an invasion of >> > Tai Yang wind-cold, that penetrates deeper and then manifests with >> > Yang Ming symptoms. >> > In TCM pattern terms, changes will observed such as clear discharge >> > becoming yellow discharge; and slight fever becoming high fever >> > (among others). >> > >> > In biomed terms, what has actually transpired during this >> > transformation from Tai Yang to Yang Ming? >> > In all likelihood, the initial symptoms were due to a viral >> > infection (maybe influenza); the patient was not able to >> > recover entirely from the viral infection (in this case), and as a >> > result of a weakened and taxed immunity (Wei Qi), they became >> > vulnerable to opportunistic bacteria, which then subsequently >> > colonized successfully, and engendered a sort of sequelie attack; >> > the signs consistent with bacterial infection (especially URI). >> > >> > So, in pleomorphic language, one *might* say " Ah, the virus >> > turned into a bacteria " ; but this seems more like a " short hand " >> > to describe the progression of the overall dysfunction, >> > rather than a literal notion of a subset of micro-organisms >> > spontaneously becoming another kingdom, phylum, so on. >> > >> > Here is a related example, from common parlance: >> > People are often fond of saying (and warning), that if an individual >> > stops exercising and working out, that their " muscle will turn to >> > fat " . Is this literal truth? >> > When one stops exercising, indeed they usually become less toned, >> > and loose muscle mass; but, correlation is not causation. >> > >> > The muscle loss and fat gain are a result of sudden decreased >> > metabolic activity, less resistance, and food consumption that >> > remains equal to previous levels (no longer needed)--however, >> > the actual biological changes that take place, are not literal changes >> > of >> > muscle cells into fat cells...it is more akin to a >> > substitution, or replacement reaction, if I can borrow an analogy >> > from chemistry. Consequently, again, IMO, " pleomorphism " >> > ought be look at more symbolically, than literally. >> > >> > Suppose that pleomorphism IS however literal--what if anything >> > supports this? >> > If a virus were to spontaneously become a bacteria, it begs a >> > number of questions. >> > >> > We begin with a virus, which is either a strand of DNA or RNA, >> > encased by a protein shell. Nothing more, nothing less. Its >> > " mission " is to simply " replicate " the genetic info, by " fooling " >> > living cells undergoing mitosis, to do the replication for them >> > (the virus). Erroneously, the virus gets replicated by the >> > host cell, who " thinks " the invasive DNA/RNA was its own, the cell >> > swells, ruptures, and more baby viruses spread...at least until >> > the " Wei Qi " figures out what is going on! >> > >> > The bacteria on the other hand, have their own reproductive machinery, >> > they can reproduce on their own accord to simple fission, at least when >> > nutrients are present. Bacteria don't have to rely on " fooling " >> > anybody, or any host cells, to replicate genes. >> > Moreover, the bacteria have what the virus does not--complex >> > organelles, metabolism, and respiration. >> > >> > Consequently, I find that any literal pleomorphism must suggest that >> > a transition from " virus to bacteria " , a sudden development of >> > organelles appears, despite the fact that nothing in the viral >> > genes have any codes for organelles, and nothing about viruses >> > suggest that they do anything except mindlessly replicate. >> > Same goes for prions. >> > >> > In conclusion, while I'm not dismissing pleomorhism or Reichian >> > theories, I'm thinking that their validity exists mostly in terms >> > of regarding them as " patterns " , not literal bio-chemical >> > events. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > --- >> > >> > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times >> > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com >> > >> > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine >> > and acupuncture, click, >> > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia >> > >> > >> > and >> > adjust >> > accordingly. >> > >> > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the >> > group >> > requires prior permission from the author. >> > >> > Please consider the environment and only print this message if >> > absolutely >> > necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Yeah, the pleomorphic theory isn't about stem cells. I'd say it's generally more about normal red blood cells, which " pleomorph " into one kind of pathogen after another. I'd say the " virus " phase is a phase of dormancy. I would also suggest that the " DNA " theory is just that -a theory. Personally, I'm a neo-Lamarckist. I believe that " heredity " and growth are based on something like morphic resonance, moreso than some mechanical reproduction from " DNA. " Perhaps even moreso on the microbial/single cell level. (I'm not big on " atomic " theory either. Do atoms exist? Maybe. But like Freud said, it's just a theory.) - " ariaksatri2 " <aryaksatriya <Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, October 07, 2009 8:30 PM Re: Pleomorphism > > To continue playing " devil's advocate " , and looking at > matters objectively, Ed, I just don't see evidence of polymorphic > theory within stem cell theory. > Afterall, a stem cell ALREADY possesses cell qualities, > such as independent metabolism, reproductive ability, locomotion, > membrane (phospho-lipid bilayer), and multiple organelles. > The ONLY thing that makes a stem distinct, from other somatic cells, > is that it has not yet differentiated, or dedicated itself to > becomming a specific TYPE of tissue cell (the mechanisms by which this > occurs, which are recognized). > > This is entirely different, than imagining that something > non-cellular, like a prion or virus, suddenly acquires, out of > nowhere, cellular qualities, and differentiates itself from > non-cellular organic compounds, into a cellular entity. > Huge difference! > > Like I've said already, I'm willing to remain " open minded " about > various theories. > Yet, I honestly have to conclude that most people don't truly > grasp the idea of what a virus " is " . > > A virus is not " alive " in a biological sense, and not a cell. > A virus can not move on its own, reproduce on its own, or perform > any metabolism--it is nothing but a genetic strand enclosed by a > protein coat, glyco-protein, or lipo-protein. > To assume that a virus can " differentiate " like a stem cell, is to > project onto viruses qualities and quantities that it simply does not > have. > > I still want to see a sound argument describing how a primitive > virus suddenly acquires a gene code that suddenly includes > transcription for complex bacterial organelles, in the next > generation. I want to see something that supports a virus going from > fooling a host cell into replicating genetic material, to a virus > possessing the ability to replicate itself (a cellular behavior). > > > > > > Chinese Medicine , " Happy Herbalist " > <eddy wrote: >> >> Stem cells. but >> >> Methinks to understand Pleomorphism one can't use pre-defined >> definitions >> from a different view. Pleopmorhism to me is more than simply looking at >> a >> cocoon / caterpillar / butterfly and saying aha. Looking from the TCM >> view I >> see Heat, Cold, Damp, Water, Dry, Wind shape and reshape the environment >> and >> life (be)comes from the ever changing environment. Cancer cells. People >> develop based upon different stress / conditions. >> >> >> >> Ed Kasper LAc >> >> <http://www.HappyHerbalist.com> www.HappyHerbalist.com >> >> >> >> ....... >> >> Suppose that pleomorphism IS however literal--what if anything >> supports this? >> >> __ ariaksatri2 >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 LOL. Glad to entertain. I made the Physics people at the Institute for Philosophical Studies speechless too. I agree that what you say below is the mainstream theory. However, I question the " genome " theory, among other things. Go ahead and read up on some of this stuff. It's fun! Sometimes you will amaze yourself. You will encounter alot of BS, but you will be astonished at the possibilities that cannot be eliminated. Which is of course all that the Scientific Method can do: DISprove previous theories and hypotheses. (Positive knowledge is beyond it's purvue.) - " Em_Segmen " <mrsegmen <Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:21 PM Re: Pleomorphism > Hi All, > > It's not a tough call regarding the literal. Just run the genome. Proof > is in the pudding as they say. > > Bacteria evolve in hours .... viruses called bacteriophages infect > bacteria. The early 20th Century folks were in love with allopathy but > didn't get to see genomes. It turns out the a single virial organism does > not change, but subsequent generations definitely change, and quickly if > one of the variations is resistant to medications or in harmony with a new > and difficult environment. Rudolf Virchow from this early 20th Century > group is the one who is credited with disproved spontaneous generation. > The pleomorphism terminology of those days is not the pleomorphism > terminology of current microbiology. > > Friends here in the biotech realm of San Franicsco were speechless with > the thread. Some friends here were reading over my shoulder. All of us > like this review paper from Pubmed Central. > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2673041 & tool=pmcentrez > Folks here at TCM might like it too because it steers away from the > realm of " infection " and allopathy's little bug-parade and brings it back > to the realm of nutrition and the endogeny of Chinese medicine. > > Thanks for the refreshing read. > > Gratefully, > > Em Segmen > Merritt College Biology > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 1: Ok, you obviously have a personal issue with me/what I'm saying. I'm not going to get into an argument or urinating match. 2: There is plenty of information around that promotes the mainstream theory. Or " data " representing the mainstream theory, if you prefer. Yeah, pubmed's all right, but if you have a radical theory, you're generally not going to get published in a mainstream journal. 3: I didn't say you were " quoting " theories, but clearly you do posit theories. You said " run the genome. " This implies that you believe that the " genome " is what causes outcome as far as growth and development of the organism. This also implies that you presuppose the many superstitions (politely referred to as " axioms " ) upon which " science " is based. Some of which I addressed earlier. 4: If you tell me that pleomorphic nanobacteria " test out as " aggregates of calcium, many theories could be being tested. One would have to look at the study to see what the hypothesis was. However, you apparently have some personal issue with what I was saying which has nothing to do with this study. If I told you there were studies that isolated normal red blood cells, then turned them into various different types of bacteria, then viruses, then fungi, etc, would you call me a liar? 5: Never said any theory requires your belief to carry on. Nice digression on peach trees. I think the purpose is to insinuate that what I am saying has no basis in " science, " which appears to be your chosen superstition. However, this is not factually the case. 6: It was the Institute for Philosophical Studies, not Physics. Big difference. In Philosophy, we learn metaphysics and ontology, so we have a much wider view of things. For instance, is something a particle or a wave? This is unanswerable in science. It is like asking if something is a forest or a set of trees. Is a river an object or an event, unfolding in time? 7: I know that some of the things I say are radical. I get these types of condescending responses from people all the time. I don't take it personally. I'm sure you're a very nice person. - " Em_Segmen " <mrsegmen <Chinese Medicine > Wednesday, October 07, 2009 11:04 PM Re: Pleomorphism > Hi Mercurious, > > Reading up on it is what I do for a living. I teach with degrees in > biochemistry, micro, anatomy/physiology, though this realm of molecular > biology was my area of graduate research and part of an engineering > credentially program. Try going to Pubmed Central and inputing the word > Pleomorphism into the search box. You'll have more than enough reading > for the rest of the year from that search. > > I don't recall quoting any " theories " accepted or otherwise. I don't > believe in theories what so ever. Absolutely no one in my department does > either to my knowledge. I doubt any of the authors of the papers at > PubMed Central believe in any theories either. There's data for > evaluation. Selection happens. I don't know of any genome theories. > Graduate students who propose theories are usually accused of " blue sky " > ... at least in the labs I've worked in. > > If you tell me there are pleomorphic nanobacteria, and it turns out that > they test out as crystalline aggregates of calcium, what theory is being > tested? Diet? In all of my years of study and teaching, I've not come > across any theories that required my belief to carry on. No one that I > know of practices science that way. > > Regarding creation stories, I've decided that Peach trees invented humans. > This is what I tell my students. You see the Peach tree put the word in > to Mother Life that she needed some smart little animal to take care of > her babies and who was highly addicted to oral gratification. So humans > were invented because they loved sweet fragrances and the pink velvet skin > of peoples as well as the soft and nourishing flesh of the peach > surrounding the peach pit. To this very day the doting human animals care > for the Peach tree babies by placing them at just the right distance from > each other and help the babies grow up to be big and strong. > > Although there are times when I kind of think maybe shiitake mushrooms and > brussel sprouts were a part of the group that influenced Life with > " outside the garden fence " dollars. No one really knows and some people > accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. > > I kind of like the Hawaiian creation stories as well as the Hopi Indian > creation stories. Come to think of it, I've rarely heard a creation story > that I didn't like. And I have no doubt they are true from the > perspective of Mythos. That's what's so wonderful about creation stories. > Mythos is always true. Data is only good for the moment. > > Actually early 20th century pleomorphism is no where near as much fun for > me. It's so 1920-ish ... so allopathic. Pretty much an equilibrium > mythos rather than a homeostatic mythos. Try embryology. It's much > closer to Chinese medicine for my money. I use it all the time to show my > students and friends the veracity of Taoist health observations. > > Hey, ask over at the physics institute if they believe in airplanes. > > Gratefully, > > Em Segmen > > Chinese Medicine , " Mercurius > Trismegistus " <magisterium_magnum wrote: >> >> Thanks for the cool article, btw! >> >> LOL. Glad to entertain. I made the Physics people at the Institute for > Philosophical Studies speechless too. > I agree that what you say below is the mainstream theory. However, I > question the " genome " theory, among other things. Go ahead and read up on > some of this stuff. It's fun! Sometimes you will amaze yourself. You will > encounter alot of BS, but you will be astonished at the possibilities that > cannot be eliminated. Which is of course all that the Scientific Method > can > do: DISprove previous theories and hypotheses. (Positive knowledge is > beyond it's purvue.) > > >> >> >> - >> " Em_Segmen " <mrsegmen >> <Chinese Medicine > >> Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:21 PM >> Re: Pleomorphism >> >> >> > Hi All, >> > >> > It's not a tough call regarding the literal. Just run the genome. >> > Proof >> > is in the pudding as they say. >> > >> > Bacteria evolve in hours .... viruses called bacteriophages infect >> > bacteria. The early 20th Century folks were in love with allopathy but >> > didn't get to see genomes. It turns out the a single virial organism >> > does >> > not change, but subsequent generations definitely change, and quickly >> > if >> > one of the variations is resistant to medications or in harmony with a >> > new >> > and difficult environment. Rudolf Virchow from this early 20th Century >> > group is the one who is credited with disproved spontaneous generation. >> > The pleomorphism terminology of those days is not the pleomorphism >> > terminology of current microbiology. >> > >> > Friends here in the biotech realm of San Franicsco were speechless with >> > the thread. Some friends here were reading over my shoulder. All of >> > us >> > like this review paper from Pubmed Central. >> > http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2673041 & tool=pmcentrez >> > Folks here at TCM might like it too because it steers away from >> > the >> > realm of " infection " and allopathy's little bug-parade and brings it >> > back >> > to the realm of nutrition and the endogeny of Chinese medicine. >> > >> > Thanks for the refreshing read. >> > >> > Gratefully, >> > >> > Em Segmen >> > Merritt College Biology > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.