[ExI] DNA - The Next Internet: True or False?

[Jeff Davis]

Hugely, thrillingly bogus.

2010/3/14 Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com>

>
>
> 2010/3/14 Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc>
>
>   Can any scientist on the list offer a scientific explanation for the
>> relationship between cells and what is perceived as their talking with
>> light?
>>
>> http://www.viewzone.com/dna.html
>> WARNING:  Does contain words such as "homoeopathy".
>>
>> [image: Nlogo1.tif] Natasha Vita-More <http://www.natasha.cc/>
>>
>>
>
> This reads like something sitting in the grey borderlands between science
> and woo. It feels as though there is a real effect here somewhere, but I
> can't find much more detailed information to read, just vast crapscapes of
> woo pages mentioning Dr Popp.
>
> First thing that leaped out at me, was reasonable sounding discussion of
> photons playing some role in "communication" inside the cell, then jumping
> to
>
> "Dr. Popp exclaims, "We now know, today, that man is essentially a being
> of light."
> "Cancer is a loss of coherent light"
> "In one experiment, he compared the light from free-range hens' eggs with
> that from penned-in, caged hens. The photons in the former were far more
> coherent than those in the latter."
> "Just the opposite is seen with multiple sclerosis: MS is a state of too
> much order. Patients with this disease are taking in too much light, thereby
> inhibiting their cells' ability to do their job."
> (and much more)
>
> It seems like rubbish to me.
>
> Note also the claim that signaling with photons "explains" something about
> how cells work, while no actual explanation of anything is presented: saying
> photons are used isn't an explanation, it's just a statement with little
> context, an observation?
>
> Dr Popp seems to be central to the "International Institute for
> Biophysics", here's some more on "biophotons" from their site:
>
> http://www.lifescientists.de/ib0200e_.htm#Development%20of%20Biophotons
> http://www.lifescientists.de/ib0200e_.htm#Definition%20of%20Biophotons
>
> The "Development of Biophotons" stuff matches what's in that woo article.
>
> If this effect is so strong and useful, why isn't it hugely represented in
> the biology community? It seems pretty fringy.
>
> But I am not a biologist. I can't get any further here. Anyone else?
>
> --
> Emlyn
>
> http://point7.wordpress.com - My blog
> Find me on Facebook and Buzz
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100315/e89a27eb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 731 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100315/e89a27eb/attachment.jpg>