|Home||Book||Newsletter||Links and Relevent Publications||Videos||Guestbook|
Epigenetic Biofield Control System of the Organism
Abstract: Developmental biologists, starting with H. Driesch and A. Gurvitsch at the beginning of the 20th century, suggested the existence of a non-chemical level of organization that controls embryogenesis—the “biofield.” In the middle of the century, developmental biologists called it “epiphenomenon of genome.” In the 1960s, Romanian biochemist, Eugene Macovschi, postulated the existence of cellular “biostructure”—an entity that controls processes in living cells and changes chemical properties of constituent molecules. In 2000, at the announcement of deciphering the human genome, Craig Venter, then CEO of Celera Genomics, said exactly the same—to understand the way the genome operates, it should be considered a “different” (presumably, non-chemical) level of organization.
Yet, in 2005, the absolute majority of studies in biochemistry, molecular biology, biophysics, etc., are about chemical signals associated with developmental, normal physiological and aging processes, and diseases—their structure and presumed mechanisms of action. The control system that arranges these signals is almost never mentioned, although it is clear that any gene, a part of a DNA chemical molecule, does not have the ‘mind’ or the ‘plan’ and the feedback mechanism needed to control anything.
How is the control system of the organism structured, what is its physical carrier, and how is the genetic information re-encoded on it? The contemporary, still Newtonian physics, does not have any answers to these questions. This monograph is intended to clarify the formulation of the problem and to suggest some approaches to solving it.
Hypothesis Of The Biofield Control System (BCS)
Alexander Gurwitsch wrote1:
Perhaps, the term “biofield” may be somewhat misleading for the field-like, non-electromagnetic control system of the organism, and a better term would be ‘Biofield Control System’ or BCS. The following postulated definition of the BCS, that is broader than the biofield concept engendered in embryology, comes from viewing the organism as a self-controlled cybernetic, thermodynamically open system2. (Classical thermodynamics was developed for closed systems. Thermodynamics of open systems include effects of external influences and increases of entropy in the extended system.)
Contemporary physics is unable to explain life and life-related phenomena and many physicists have stated this unequivocally. Robert Rosen, who in turn refers to Einstein and Schrödinger, writes:3
The following suggested concept comes neither from a biologist nor from a physicist, but from an engineer and physical chemist who is not bound by the epistemological norms of the current scientific paradigm and who appreciates the universal relevance of Cybernetics. It emphasizes the difference between the field-like control system of the organism and its yet-unknown physical carrier(s). It also suggests ways for further experimental and theoretical studies into both cybernetic and physical aspects of the life phenomenon.
The Biofield Control System (BCS) is the operative control system of the organism. In BCS, the genetic information is re-encoded on some other than biochemical physical carrier. It evolves in ontogenesis into a hierarchy of subordinate BCS of the whole organism, organs, tissues and cells. At all levels it holds four fundamental programs of life: development, maintenance, reproduction, and death. The mind is an essential part of the BCS at the whole organism level, serving behavioral aspects of all fundamental programs (in addition to the physiological aspect—see Fig.1)
Control System of the Organism
|manganese into iron and backwards||Mn55 + H1 = Fe56|
|potassium into calcium||
K39 + H1 = Ca40
|sodium into magnesium||
Na23 + H1 = Mg24
|sodium into potassium||
Na23 + O16 = K39
|magnesium into calcium||
Mg24 + O16 = Ca40
|carbon into silicium||
C12 + O16 = Si28
|aluminum into potassium||
Al27 + C12 = K39
and so on.
Kervran discusses the energy aspects of these nuclear reactions suggesting participation of some ‘specialized enzymes,’ but he definitely doesn’t claim that physics of these reactions is clear. Contemporary physics knows that a great energy—temperature—is needed to overcome electrical repellence of two positively-charged nuclei. Yet, not one experimental result had ever refuted Kervran’s and others’ results. In the Preface to the English edition of his book, Kervran writes:
“It is evident that biological chemistry is mistaken in trying, exclusively, to apply chemical analysis to the study of living matter. When a molecule is taken away from a living cell it is impossible to study the cell’s properties. The latter are dependent on the position of the molecule in a component on the couplings of these components which, together, give rise to the many interactions characteristic of life.” (This statement fully coincides with E. Macovschi’s concept presented in this book.)
According to Edmund Storm, very few studies were conducted on biological nuclear reactions.25 One of them is the study at Moscow State University and Kiev State University of Ukraine presented in this book by Alla Kornilova and Vladimir Vysotsky. They observed nuclear synthesis of iron isotopes Fe57 and Fe54 in bacterial cultures growing in media deficient of iron (prevailing isotope in nature is Fe56). This work fully supports the reality of biological nuclear reaction and suggests the necessity of further study into this phenomenon.
Chronologically the next paradoxical observation, though not strictly related to nuclear synthesis, came from China. During the 1980s, Chinese government funded a pioneering study by physicist, Professor Lu Zuyin that included an experiment showing the distant (more than 1000 km) effect of a psi-gifted operator, Yan Xin, on the rate of americium 247Am nuclear decay. The most explicit description of this experiment was published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration in 2002.26
The 1989 publication by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann27 initiated studies of low temperature nuclear reactions, mostly on palladium matrix. In spite of more than 3000 publications reviewed by Storm25 this phenomenon is still ignored by the scientific establishment. Indeed, it is hard to explain within the current physical model how the strongest possible adsorption forces could overcome the repulsion of the only known Coulomb’s forces between nuclei. In our view, the observed inconsistent results might be explained, at least partially, by the effect of the experimenter’s BCS and its carrier(s)—through subconscious expectation.
The effect of the experimenter’s expectation on results of experiments is a separate but a very important topic. Mice in a not blinded experiment behaved as the experimenter expected them to until the experimenter was blinded—i.e., didn’t know what to expect. I called this Speransky’s Effect (blinding the experimenter is still not required in experiments on animals).28 Many pharmaceuticals are known to work for years on huge populations while the medical community believed in their efficacy and then stopped working. J. Solfvin, reviewing paradoxical observations beyond placebo effect, refers to a review by H. Benson and D. McCallie on this subject published in New England Journal of Medicine.29 The role of the experimenter expectancy in electron diffraction experiments is well known, but I don’t know of any study aimed at revealing a possible experimenter’s effect on simple physical systems. The history of science knows cases of suicides of decent scientists when results they observed and reported were not reproduced by other doubting experimenters.30
In 1992, John Bockris, then Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Texas A&M University, undertook in his laboratory to reproduce the typical alchemic reaction—obtaining gold from a mixture of element compounds including lead.**** He recalls events of that time in his recent letter that is attached to this article (Appendix 1). A well-measurable amount of gold (up to 500 ppm) was found in three of four runs when the “Messrs”—the “alchemists” who initiated the test—where around but not allowed to enter the laboratory and no gold was found in 11 runs conducted a few months later when they were not informed about the continuation of the experiment. Bockris in his letter describes the psychological environment of the rerun series because this was the only difference in the conditions of the experiment.
It is difficult to distinguish the information and energy aspects of the unknown physical interaction(s) in the above described observations. The effects of some nuclear forces, other than those we currently know, were clearly observed and these seem to demonstrate the energy aspect.
The current chemistry knows only thermal and electric interactions, and those are insufficient to comprehend the emergence of life on our planet, or elsewhere. As John Bockris wrote in his book,13 complex organic molecules that might have emerged by chance under any imaginable conditions must have been destroyed by thermophysical processes in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. I would say it is if there are no other (as yet unknown) forces reducing free energy of complex organic molecules. These forces may be associated with the physical carrier(s) of the biofield control system.
It is possible that such non-electromagnetic interactions manifest themselves in the field of solubility. Just for instance, in my dissertation in the 1960s,31 I studied solubility and thermodynamic properties of water solutions in non-polar organic liquid dichlorodifluoromethane (CCl2F2). Solubility of water in CCl2F2 increases with increasing temperature from 3 ppm mass at 0oC to 80 ppm at 25oC. This means that each molecule of water at 0oC is surrounded by a sphere of ~50,000 molecules of CCl2F2 since IR spectra show strictly monomolecular distribution of water. With increasing temperature, the outer layers of the spheres yield to chaotic thermal movement as a function of kT (k –Boltzman constant), the radius of spheres decreases allowing additional smaller solvates built around additional molecules of water to enter the solution. Thus, solubility increases and at 25oC each solvate sphere contains only ~1900 molecules of CCl2F2. Each molecule of water is bound to the immediate surrounding layer of the solvate very slightly (the shift of the adsorption picks of the O-H vibration frequencies in the IR spectra of solution is minimal compared to those in gaseous phase), yet the water-CCl2F2 interaction is very strong and electromagnetic forces hardly can explain it (at that time I didn’t think much about this paradox). What is the nature of those forces if they are not electromagnetic?
Organization of hydrophobic clusters in living cells is broadly discussed in biochemical studies. It cannot be excluded that such clusters, based on non-polar bonds, are built around individual water molecules as in the solution described above.
The memory of biologically-active substances initially dissolved in water and then diluted to 10-60 mol, as in homeopathy, or to 10-12–10-22 mol, as in experiments of the Institute of Biochemical Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences (see article by E. Burlakova et al. in this monograph), definitely cannot be explained by the ‘structural memory of water’ which is too short, ~50 fsec as was recently determined.32 Then, what carries this memory in water? Clearly, the carrier is not of an electric or electromagnetic nature.
Living organisms are presumed to resist thermal and chemical destruction by degrading external energy—food, solar radiation, etc. They are called “thermodynamically open systems” since their low entropy is presumed to be compensated by the increase of the entropy of the extended thermodynamic system. We associate the Biofield Control System that carries fundamental programs of life strictly with living organisms. But before organic molecules became living organisms—that is, before they acquired a mechanism of degrading external energy—what kept and keeps them intact? What keeps viruses intact? They do not have any mechanism of metabolism, a self-reproduction program, or programmed death. Moreover, unless the dead cell is artificially or naturally, chemically or by freezing mummified, the cellular organelles and complex organic molecules like DNA and proteins are decomposed by cellular BCS’ program of death. The conserving forces no longer protect them from chemical and thermophysical destruction.
The above-mentioned paradoxical manifestations observed in chemistry and biochemistry most likely reflect properties of the physical carrier(s) of the biofield control system, particularly its energy-carrying component.
Communications between living beings beyond known sensory perceptions were observed abundantly. Famous English physicists and psychologists including J. J. Tompson, Sir William Crookes and other founded in 1880’s the Society for Psychical Research and recorded observations that later gave birth to parapsychology and psychotronics.33 Yet, using humans as recipients of this kind of information/energy communication will not lead to solving the core problem of defining the physical nature of the carrier(s) of this communication. Human organism is too complex to control and reproduce all factors affecting the outcome of such experiments. It seems logical to use as objects of such experiments the simplest organisms. This would allow scientists to register reactions at biochemical and biophysical levels by means currently available. Also, if humans are used as inductors of the communication in question, it is necessary to keep in mind that what is called psi ability is broadly variable in the population with respect to its quality and intensity, as is any talent—Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, DaVinci and Roden, Shakespeare and Pushkin are very rare genii.
Biologist Beverly Rubik and physicist Elizabeth Rauscher conducted the first known to me such a study in 1978-1982. 34, 35 They used a very talented psi healer Olga Worrell to see her effect on bacteria Salmonella typhimurium (ST1) poisoned by an antibiotic. Bacteria in control showed much lesser viability and motility than cultures treated by (BCS of) Olga Warrell. The rate of growth was determined by measuring the optical density of cultures at 620 nm. Using the analytical arsenal of today’s biochemistry, one can expect to see very fine biochemical changes occurring in bacteria under the influence of psi-gifted individuals.
Russian Microbiologist, Konstantin Chernoshchekov employed capable healers to observe mutations of enterobacteria. Although a proper genetic analysis was not available to his group, they found by means of standard microbiological identification that bacteria that were transformed from harmful to neutral maintained their identity and reproduced.36 Chernoshchekov also observed the increased rate of mutations in bacteria associated with geomagnetic perturbations, though the nature of this global factor is not magnetic.37
The recent study of biochemist, Juliann Kiang, at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research in Washington, DC, showed effect of human operators on human T-cells in vitro. Selected operators by their intent increased Ca2+ concentration in intracellular solutions by 25%. The detailed methodology is presented in her article published in this book. Also, she reviewed numerous reports of studies on distant biological communications conducted in different countries and at different levels of scientific scrutiny.
Tatiana Zagranichnaia, a Russian biochemist currently at the University of Chicago, worked with human embryonic kidney cells using standard experimental methodology. She compared the longevity of these cells in regular water and in water treated by a healer with the intent of increasing the cell vitality. Cellular cultures on pre-treated water lived almost twice as long as those on regular water in control.38
Finally, Cleve Backster’s article in this book describes in detail only two experiments of many conducted by him during the last ~40 years.39 In the first series, shrimps at the moment of being thrown into boiling water (by an automated device—to exclude any human effect) induced spikes of electrical potential in plants located meters in distance from them. Electrodes of high-resistance potentiometers were attached to the leaves of these plants. Another experiment showed existence of distant communication between white blood cells extracted from a human donor and the donor. Extracted and concentrated cells in a test tube produced a spike of electrical potential at moments when donors went through emotional excitements.
Inadequacy of the current physical paradigm in describing life and life-related phenomena has been mentioned by many great physicists, including Albert Einstein, Niles Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger and David Bohm. All experimental studies presented in this book can be reproduced and broadened if we want to understand the physical basis of life and the biological evolution.
Presented in the third part of this book are articles by distinguished physicists suggesting new theoretical approaches to broaden the paradigm.
John O’M Bockris (Molecular Green Technology, USA) discusses the accumulated incoherencies of contemporary physical concepts and their inability to explain the emergence and maintenance of life. He calls for the broadening of the paradigm to include the actions of Consciousness.
William A. Tiller (Stanford University, USA) presents an 11-dimensional model with two four-dimensional conjugated space-time realms and three higher dimensions. His experiments lead him to suggest that human intent may engage the reciprocal four-dimensional space-time that transforms space (particularly in a laboratory) causing changes in physical processes. At one of the annual meetings of the Society for Scientific Exploration Dr. Norman Don showed a video clip that he filmed in Brazil. The healer “conditioned” the space where treatments were performed so that patients without any individual pre-treatment or anesthetics felt no pain while their bodies were “tortured.” 40 Also, effect of the biologically active substances diluted to 10-120, as in J. Benveniste’s work, demonstrated memory that seems associated with the space in which solutions were prepared.41
Hal Puthoff (USA) in his short article, “Physics and Metaphysics as Co-emergent Phenomena,” presents the history of his search for an adequate physical model. He believes that the physical vacuum may hold answers to puzzles of life by carrying both memory and information. .
Nina Sotina (Moscow State University, Russia) discusses paradoxical observations indicating that human intent interacts at a distance with living and inanimate objects at the quantum mechanical level. She suggests a model of superfluid vacuum with structures that may carry memory and energy. She also presents results of telekinetic experiments conducted in Russia indicating that the interaction between human operators and objects occur at the quantum mechanical level.
James Beichler (USA) proposes a five-dimensional physical model that incorporates the Kaluza-Einstein model of the 1920’s and D. Bohm’s concept of hidden variables. His model incorporates a broad spectrum of phenomena from quantum particles entanglement to life and so-called paranormal manifestations.
One way or another, an alternative physical model must be “crazy” enough to reflect the tremendous complexity of the real world.
The cost of health care, particularly in the United States, is skyrocketing and there is no political power to stop it. The process will continue, leading to a crisis if biomedical science and pharmacology holds on to the current theoretical and methodological basis—compensating for wrong or missing signals of a deregulated or aging organism. This approach has proven to be viable in many cases such as diabetes, saving millions of lives. However, the deeper into the organizational levels of the organism it goes—organs, tissues, cells—the more inadequate and unpredictable become reactions of the organism. Anticoagulants used by cardiologists may kill patients by inducing brain hemorrhages; anti-cancerous drugs kill by destroying the immune system, etc. The growing rate of adverse effects and mortality associated with the current medico-pharmacological practices are reported in the Journal of American Medical Association.42 An increasing number of newly developed drugs will not pass safety tests and the society will be pressed to pay for this.
The problem is that there is no adequate concept of the organism’s control system, its structure and the nature of its physical carrier. Further progress of the biomedical science requires a revision of the current scientific paradigm so that it would include the physical basis of life, mind and life-related phenomena. Systems Biology is one of the recently-emerged advanced fields of studies. It is aimed at putting in order the immense volume of biochemical experimental results. G. Stolovitzky and A. Califano, who represent the state of the art in this field, clearly understand the impossibility of accomplishing the task within the framework of the current paradigm. In the Update of the NYAS they write:
“If there is an epistemologist out there studying how the paradigms are changing, she may report in 20 or 30 years that the dream of finding the equivalent to Newton’s physical laws within biology was misguided. She might conclude that the search for universal principles, which served physics so well, was not the right approach to unravel the design principles that govern the networks of intracellular and multicellular events.” 43
Indeed, studying the bricks and building blocks cannot lead to the understanding of architecture and aesthetics of the edifice of life. Moreover, recently published studies indicate that the basic premise of genetics (gene-mRNA-protein) is crumbling.44, 45 How far can biology go without inquiring into the hierarchical control system of life?
A growing number of scientists, research laboratories, and institutions throughout the world are already working on this subject. Credible scientific publications, including those published in this book, suggest that the operation of the organism cannot be reduced to chemical interactions since contemporary chemistry knows only electric and thermodynamic forces; that the biological nuclear synthesis presented by Louis Kervran in 1960-80’s is not a myth; that the non-structural memory of water manifests itself at organism, cell, and enzyme levels; that human intent and/or expectation may cause bacterial mutations or affect cellular equilibrium, etc.
One of the practical recommendations that follow from our approach is that studies on the effect of new drugs on animals must be blinded to the researcher.
We hope that this book will lay the ground work for an international scientific symposium with the objective of forming an international scientific consortium on advanced biophysics. No immediate gratification may be expected but there are no other ways to solve existing problems.
1. Gurwitsch, A.G. The Theory of the Biological Field. Sovetskaya Nauka, Moscow, 1944, (in Rissian)
2. Savva, S. The Concept of MISAHA The Latest Lesson and the Next Step. Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, #175/176, 1998, pp. XX
----- A Systems Approach in Biology and Biophysics. MISAHA Newsletter #18-19, 1997, pp. 2–9 See also Proceedings of the 41 Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, Atlanta. GA, 1998 (on CD)
----- Toward a Cybernetic Model of the Organism. Advances of Mind Body Medicine V.14, #4, 1998 pp.292–301
----- Biofield and a Cybernetic Model of the Organism: Suggestion for Empirical Study. Proceedings of the 42 Annual Meeting of the ISSS, Asilomar, CA 1999 (published on CD)
----- Alternative Biophysics: Investing in the Study of the Biofield. MISAHA Newsletter #24-28, 1999, pp. 2–10
----- Alternative Biophysics. Journal of New Energy, V.4, #4, 2000. pp. 79–89
----- Ultimate Biophysics. World Futures, Vol.57, 2001, pp. 1–19
----- The Biofield—Proposed Research Methodology. Proceedings of the ISSS Annual Meeting , 2001, Asilomar (on CD)
----- Hypothesis of the Biofield, Proceedings of the III International Congress: Weak and Superweak Fields and Radiations in Biology and Medicine, Saint Petersburg, 1–4 July, V.3, 2003, pp. 25–32
3. Robert Rosen. Essays on Life Itself. Columbia University Press. NY, 1999, pp.17–24
4. Snyder, Evan. Stem Cells: Interviews. QUEST, Invitrogen Publication for Discovery, V 2, # p.54, 2005
5. Macovschi, Eugene. The Nature and Structure of Living Matter. Romanian Academy of Sciences, 1976 in Russian. Translated from Romanian version. Bucuresti, 1972.
6. Ling, G. Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level, Pacific Press. NY, 2001
7. Nasonov, D. N. Local Reaction of the Protoplasm and Spreading Excitation, USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow-Leningrad, 1959.
8. Clegg,J.S. Properties and Metabolism of the Aqueous Cytoplasm and its Boundaries. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 246:133–151,1984
9. Choucharo, P. Societes Animal’s, Societe Humain, Paris, 1956
10. Savva, S. Philosophy of History—SOCIOGENESIS. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of ISSS, Louisville, KY, 1994, pp.1315–1322
11. Bassler, B and Losick, R. Bacterially speaking. Cell, V.125, #2, 2006, pp. 237-246
12. Longo V.D., J. Mitteldorf and V. Skulachev. Programmed and altruistic aging. J.Nature, V.6, 2005, pp.866–872
13. Madeo, F., E. Harker et al. Apoptosis in yeast. In Current Opinion in Microbiology, Elsevier Ltd., 2004
14. Lewis, K. Programmed Death in Bacteria. Microbiol. and Molec. Biol.Reviews. Sept. 2000, pp.503–514
15. F.A.Popp, J.J.Chang, A.Herzog, Z.Yan and Y.Yan: Evidence of non-classical (squeezed) light in biological systems. Physics Letters A 293, 2002, 98–102
16 Behe, M.J. Darwin’s Black Box. The Free Press, NY, 1996
17. Bockris, J. O’M. The New Paradigm. D&M Enterprises Publisher, 2005
18. Berg, L.S. Nomogenesis, or Evolution Determined by Law. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1969 (original Russian edition 1922)
19. Stern, C.M. Two or three bristles. Am. Sci. V.42, 1954 pp. 213-247.
20.Geodakian,V.A., The Role of Sex in Transmission and Transformation of Genetic Information. Problemi Peredachi Inf.,.V.1, # 1, 1965, pp.105-112. (in Russian, English text is available on the Internet)
21. Rubik, B. The Biofield Hypothesis: Its Biophysical Basis and Role in Medicine. J.Altern.and Complem. Medicine. V 8,# 6, 2002, pp.703–717
22. Bischof, M. The History of Biological Holism and Field Theories in the 20th Century. MISAHA Newsletter #22-23, 1998, pp. 7–11
23. Elsasser, W.M., Reflections on a Theory of Organisms. J. Hopkins Univ. Press, 1988
24. Kervran, C.L Biological Transmutations. Beekman Publishers Inc, NY, 1980
25. Storm E. Cold Fusion—the Experimental Evidence. 21 Century Science & Technology, Winter 2004-05
26. Yan Xin et al., Certain Physical Manifestation and Effects of External Qi of Yan Xin Life Science Technology, JSE, V.16, #3, 2002, p.381
27. Pons, S and Fleischmann, M. Public announcement of March 23, 1989
28. Speransky, S. Mice Behave as Scientist Expects Them To. MISAHA Newletter, #2, 1993
29. Solfvin, J. Beyond the Placebo Effect, MISAHA Newsletter #30–31, 2000. Benson, H. and McCallie, D.P. Jr. Angina pectoris and the placebo effect. NEJM, V.300, 1979, pp.1424-1429
30. Mahoney, M.J. Scientist as Subject: The Psychological Imperative (Foundations of Psychology). Percheran Press, 2004
31. Zhukoborsky, (Savva) S.L. Thermodynamic Properties of Water Solutions in Freon 12. Kholodilnaya Tekhnika, #11, 1973, 36–42 (in Russian)
32. Cowan, M.L. et al. Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O. J. Nature, V.434, March 2005, pp. 199–202
33. Keen, M., Ellison, A. Fontana, D. The Score Report. Proceedings of the Society for Psychical Research, V.58, 1999
34. Rauscher, E. and B. Rubik. Effect on Motility Behavior and Grows Rate of Salmonela Typhimurium in the Presence of Olga Worrall. Research in Parapsychology 1979, London. Scarecross Press,140–142.
35. Rauscher, E. and B. Rubik. Human Volitional Effect on a Model Bacterial System. PSI Research, 2(1), 1983, 38–48
36. Private communication. Unpublished article in Russian is available from the editor.
37. Chernoshchekov K.A. and M.A. Chernoshchekov. The Regular Patterns and the Cell Mechanism of the Emergence of Spontaneous Mutations in Enterobacteria. Biophysics, V.46, # 5, 2001, pp.849–859 (in Russian)
38. Private communication. Unpublished table of results is available from the editor.
39. Backster C. Primary Perception. White Rose Millennium Press.CA
40. Don, N. S. & Moura, G. Trance surgery in Brazil. Alternative Therapies. Health and Medicine, 6(4), 2000, 39-48.
41. Davenas, E. 11 coauthors and J. Benveniste. Human Basophil Degradation Triggered by Very Dilute Antiserum Against IgE. NATURE, V.333, 30 June,1988, pp.8161-4818
42. Starfield, B. Is US Health Really the Best in the World? J.Amer.Med. Assoc. July 26, 2000; 284(4):483145
43. Stolovitzky, G. and A. Califano. Systems Biology. UPDATE NYAS Magazine, March-April 2006, p. 20
44. Pearson,H. What is a gene? Nature, V.441, May 25, 2006, p.399
45. Rassoulzadegan,M. et al. RNA-mediated non-mendelian inheritance of an epigenetic change in the mouse. Nature, V.441, May 26, 2006, pp.469-474
E-letter from Dr. John Bockris of April 2006
“…[W]e found tritium and published it in 1989, the same year as that in when Fleischman and Pons published their initial paper. The reference to our paper is Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 270, 451, 1989.
Having found that very elementary particles, the lightest atom known, hydrogen and its isotopes could be involved in nuclear processes at room temperatures in solution, we proceeded further to ask ourselves whether such transmutational (and really: Alchemical!) reactions could occur with elements of high atomic weight. Of course, it is tempting to choose the synthesis of gold and that is what we did. Here, a relatively unqualified electronics technician enters the story for it was he who came to us saying that he knew a method whereby a nuclear reaction could be carried out with high atomic weight members. The essence of this was to cause a chemical explosion to occur, in the presence of, say, lead or tin, and examine the antecedent material after it had been subject to the explosion, and particularly after a three-day pause.
We did this using two mature post-doctoral fellows, both in their 40’s, one an experienced nuclear physicist, Dr. Lin, and one an experienced material scientist, Dr. Bhardwaj. The first experiment we did was a failure. In the next three experiments (along with a multiple analysis by various analytical organizations, each reaction takes about three weeks to come to the final answer) we found three, consecutively, which gave rise to convincingly high numbers of gold atoms, up to 500 ppm within the mixture. We also found much smaller amounts in the order of 10 ppm of other noble metals. It seemed that this was a complete success and vindicated entirely the hypothesis that higher atomic weight materials could undergo nuclear transformation in a beaker.
Now, Lin and Bhardwaj had been borrowed from other projects—we are talking about the summer of 1992—and they had to hurry back to pick up the projects in which they had been originally employed, and get on with the other work. Therefore, we did not try to resume the work on transmutation for about three months. Lin and I then went on Christmas Vacation and Bhardwaj tried to replicate the work that we had done during the summer. He made 11 experiments and could not find gold at all. The only anomalous act that he observed was that in one of the experiments the radioactive beta emission was found, completely anomalous, of course.
There may be two reason for Dr. Bhardwaj’s failure. On the one hand he had begun to hate Mr. Champion and his backer, Telander. Bhardwaj is a devout Muslim and he could not stand the womanizing and drinking of Messrs, Telander, and Champion. He began to hate them and he could not bring in his mind to think that such people could be associated with the discovery which is mind-boggling. Another reason, a more scientific one, is that Bhardwaj’s shortened experiment, which he looked only for gold, did not wait for the necessary three-day pause, and may have initiated the process.”
* Since the concentration of sodium ions Na+ in the intercellular solution is around 30 times higher than that inside the cell while the concentration of potassium ions K+ is more than 30 times lower than inside the cell, long chains of chemical reactions for different ions are considered to occur at the cell membrane using the metabolic energy produced in the cell —see for instance the article by J. Kaing in this book.
** Liquid obtained by pressure from living cells.
*** Author thanks Dr. T. Soidla for referring him to these works. To avoid mentioning any bacteria or yeasts group control system, along with programmed cell death concept, authors seriously discuss “altruistic suicide” of individual bacteria and yeasts, i.e., committing suicide to save the population. Tear drops of compassion are falling from my eyes.
**** Dr. Bockris and his co-workers at Texas A&M were the first to examine the Pons and Fleischman discovery and the first to register nuclear synthesis of tritium, He3 in an aqueous solution as a result of the heat giving reaction between deuterium ions. They found many new nuclei formed from hydrogen inside palladium.
Copyright © MISAHA, 1990-2013. All Rights Reserved.
Site Administrator - Alex Savva - NFSInformatica gmail.com
Privacy Policies  SiteMap