MyWifesSkin

The Amish take care of the 'the Somalis don't have all our wonderful PROFESSIONALS' argument, incidentally are people claiming psychiatry as a science!!!!????!!!!????? (sorry to breach board guidelines), you seem to totally equate science with power. This what you mean by 'causal'? 'Thymerosol, added to many vaccines, is an ethyl mercury, think Minimata, delivery system.' These data cast doubt on the efficacy of traditional hair analysis as a measure of total mercury exposure in a subset of the population. In light of the biological plausibility of mercury's role in neurodevelopmental disorders, the present study provides further insight into one possible mechanism by which early mercury exposures could increase the risk of autism. Hair mercury levels in the autistic group were 0.47 ppm versus 3.63 ppm in controls, a significant difference. The mothers in the autistic group had significantly ... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12933322 BBC NEWS | Health | Mercury 'linked to autism' 18 Jun 2003 ... US researchers looked at mercury levels in the baby hair of children who later developed autism, a developmental disability that affects how a ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3000884.stm

Fletcher characterises the fact that there is little autism in Somalia but much autism when they move to aggressively vaccinated countries as 'causal' evidence.

Professor Walker-Smith, Wakefields's co-accused, had this decision reversed by the courts recently. Presumably Wakefield is thereby vindicated.

I thought the reason they measure food value in calories might inform the dietary restriction thing. Yes it is. See book of same name. It is a very active area of research. Here's one ref among thousands: http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/24/6/742.refs

The long journey has to go on forever.... Two different molecules, both, however, give out the same amount of heat when oxidised. If one of the molecules has low entropy, perhaps because the atoms are close together, and the other high entropy then the low entropy one can convert a greater amount of the heat to work. So overall the low entropy molecule does more work. The work quickly dissipates so both molecules, as above, end up yielding the same amount of heat. There is more to it than making the accounting more complex. What I want to know is whether the retardation of aging and disease by dietary restriction really correlates with the heat in the food, 'calories', like they say, or with the work that may be got from the food, ?Helmholtz free energy?

Yes, in the case I'm talking about back into heat. Could come from anywhere, the sun say. E.g. gas cylinder connected to air tool.

I only introduced the negligible energy thing to try to keep things simple. Shove in as much energy as you want from the before and after bonds - it's probably calories. I'm just saying there is then the additional 'energy' that the low entropy glucose, say, can produce by converting the heat of the surroundings to work. Same temperature before and after compression: Most certainly does not gain mass, it is an ideal gas so its internal energy is unchanged by the compression. Could ask the physics lot to pontificate perhaps. 'What's the difference?' - That a very good point. You mean, if the type of food is the same, eating less food involves eating fewer calories but also less free energy? Had not thought of that, rather idiotically. However, would have thought having observed that things live longer if they are 'undernourished rather than mal-nourished' they went on to test if it was some particular component(s) of the food that was producing the effect. Carbohydrate, fat, protein, potassium .... And they presumably discovered that the composition of the food did not matter it was simply the calorie content. Some carbohydrate with x calories in it must be expected to have a very different free energy than some protein with x calories. However they were probably comparing well fed rats with half starved rats, so the latter's food would be lower in both calories and free energy. But I'd still like to know whether they are just being slipshod of whether they really should talk about calories. Anyway this has clarified my thinking somewhat. Perhaps should say ??enthalpy instead of calories?? Animals use chemical potentials, same idea as pressure really, for example the concentration difference between the inside and the outside of the mitochondrial membrane of H+ ions (to ponce about, hydroxonium ions). The ions spin windmills in the holes in the membrane as they make their way through, down the concentration gradient - much like an air tool. You saying an organism uses only the potential energy stored in its food - initial Ep minus Ep when oxidized, it chucks away the rest of the work it could derive from the low entropy nature of the food? It is sort of operation like a heat engine, perhaps. Not arguing with you, I don't know; but if true this is wildly important. Retardation of ageing and disease by dietary restriction as official as it gets.

Bit of evidence. I'll get back, if I may, this evening. http://www.nature.co...ll/479157a.html

<br /><br /><br />Good oh, this is getting absurdist. I said 'negligible', i.e. enough for reaction to take place but not enough to have to add it in and obfuscate the point. Measure the mass of the ideal gas before compression. Compress it and measure it again. The masses are the same. So, E = mc^2, the stored energy is the same - for these purposes there is no stored energy. So how does it spin the air tool? It uses its low entropy to convert the thermal energy of the surroundings into work. If the compressed gas was burned it would yield no heat. We are not talking about some flammable gas obviously. The reason I asked the question was that the 'retardation of aging and disease by dietary restriction' is now officially said to be a matter of *calories*. I want to know if this is just loose talk or whether they mean it literally.

But it is well known that institutions react so as to oppose change. People were stuck with the 4 or is it 5 elements for centuries weren't they? Wakefield tried to reveal the fraud; the system reacted so as to neutralize him. Most people have something they regard to be obviously rubbish but which is apparently universally regarded as true, they should generalise a bit. Psywar trailer: Psywar film: (Serious point: plenty of evidence exists, it is largely that I am zero use at finding it. Perhaps I'll post about how to look for stuff).

Thanks. Fraid a bit mystified. For illustration purposes: oxidize the glucose inside a blind ended cylinder fitted with a sliding piston. Takes place at constant temperature. The glucose's bonds break and the smaller particles fly about, pushing out the piston. How far and how forcibly the piston is pushed depends on the entropy, the ordering, of the glucose molecule. Calories does not measure this ordering. So calories do not measure how much work the organism gets from the glucose surely. (Intuitively, don't know, the heat given out by the animal when the work has dissipated is like you say, but this does not measure the work the animal has been able to do). Thanks. Bit confused but: Imagine there is negligible energy difference between the initial bonds and the final bonds after burning. The animal can still get energy because the smaller product molecules want to spread out to occupy a larger volume, they have a high pressure or chemical potential. It is like a cylinder of compressed ideal gas, it can drive an air tool. This factor is not measured by calories.

Agree he wasn't a scapegoat, his role was to send the signal 'Don't step out of line'. Only speculating but the official line was probably that autism was psychiatric - a science free zone that appalls parents - no clinical investigations are undertaken, no matter how florid the symptoms. Wakefield disagreed. 'Put patient health above everything else' That'll be why they give AZT to pregnant women then? (Just picking the most bizarre thing I could think of). The parents demonstrated in his favor outside the GMC. The GMC are held in contempt by almost everyone. Their job is to police a guild, they know nothing of science and care less.

Why does an animal eat? To give it energy to move about, in general to perform chemical reactions. (Forgetting about any raw materials it may need). But this is *work* energy. So it seems peverse to measure the food value of food in calories which measure the heat energy that would be given out if the food were consumed by fire; a variety of free energy would be better since this measures work. The free energy in glucose is a very different number than the calories. So does anyone happen to know why food value is measured in calories?

Here is a speech on these matters by Dr Andrew Wakefield, the party that got struck off, he certainly has not retracted the paper. Assume it was the learned journal that retracted it; I wonder if they carry advertising from the drug corporations? It is depressing you all take the attitude you do. It should be obvious that power will try to control science, the main object being to say: 'You've got to agree with us, this is science.' Power will not take orders from the scientific method, or anything else. To support power's fake version of science is to betray real science. Wakefield was struck off to keep the rest of them honest. Like historians and economists, scientists should factor in that they have been as much indoctrinated as educated.

1 in 36 South Korean babies are now deemed to have some form of autism. 1 in (48 - 50) in the UK. Three decades ago the US figure was ? 1 in 25,000. (The drugs used to treat autism, atypical anti-psychotics, are frank neurotoxins - so if the autism does not create a Patient For Life the drugs probably will). 54% of US children have chronic illness.