CharonY

If one posts here, I assume it is for others to read. Being readable is an advantage in this regard. And as already noted there are no good links between cancer and vaccines. In fact given the nature of the vaccines (as insane pointed out) combined with the way cancer cells normally arise, there is also no likely mechanisms by which it could happen. Also, if you have an idea, better be prepared to provide sufficient evidence. There are for some reasons groups out there that advocate against vaccinations, without providing scientific evidence.

They have specific cells that generate energy for wound healing by reducing lead.

Most has been said already. However it is of course important to have risk-benefit assessments (of which there are numerous around, mostly with regards to possible fluorosis) before introducing a policy like this. And there is always the question whether there are certain groups in the population that may react more adversely to any additions to something as basic as drinking water than others. For instance, addition of iodine may sound like a good idea due to the often prevalent iodine deficiency. However, those with Grave's disease, or susceptible to it may have a hard time to avoid a too high concentration of iodine (as IIRC significant amounts can also be absorbed during e.g. bathing, if it is in the water). Again, it boils down to a risk-benefit assessment.

Unless otherwise noted the solvent is normally water. Do not take it as a criticism, but from what you described it appears that you do not have much expertise in creating buffers and suchalikes. I would really recommend you to bring that up with your supervisor to avoid more problems down the road. Believe me, making buffers is the simplest part of the process. If the supervisor dumped you in the lab without actually knowing that you lack training, you won't benefit much from the lab work (even if it is only a summer course). Again, feedback is important.

The evidence presented in the paper actually stresses the natural origin of the virus.

Article in Nature Using genomic comparisons the authors reconstructed the evolutionary history of this particular virus. Apparently the common ancestor of this and other known sequenced virus emerged around 9-17 years ago. This indicates that the ancestors of the pandemic virus might have been circulating and reassorting, unnoticed, 9 or more years in pigs before emerging as a human pathogen.

I am not sure what you mean. You have to create a buffer with the given concentrations (7 and 2 M respectively). Or are you not sure what molarity is? If that is the case I recommend to talk things through with your supervisor rather than try to incorporate suggestions from a forum. He/she is there to help you, but feedback from your side is absolutely crucial.

TBH I do not "get" most online social networking thingies. I lack the desire to present myself in facebook or something similar (though I understand the value of professional sites like linkedin). I am pretty occupied with may email inbox already (especially before exams...sigh). Guess that is how getting old feels. But as long as my lab machines love me I won't feel alone.

In short: it does not matter. Generally you try to use the smallest volume possible in a 2D-compatible buffer that gives a good homogenate. As long as the buffer is 2D-compatible you can always dilute it to the desired amount (after cleanup). If you start with too much solubilization buffer you will need to add a concentration step (e.g. by precipitation or with MWCO filters). The solubilization buffer described in the OP has essentially the same composition as a normal IEF-buffer (with modification for membrane and other insoluble proteins) from what I can see. So there should be no problem there. If you have no guidelines how much protein will be released with you homogenization procedure just use a small amount and work you way up.

Just to add, I do not see much credibility in their theories either. And judging from some of the publications I am not even sure whether they all know that they are on this particular website. I imagine that some of the biologists there may have delivered some specimen to the physicists, but I would be kind of surprised if they were actually believing that biophotons could have the properties ascribed to them on the website. It kind of seems to me like that. As I said, it is not that rare. While I am not working in a biophysics group anymore, I still visit biophysics seminars on a regular basis. And you would not believe what they sometimes say when they think that there are no biologists around. Of course it is rarely as elaborate as the website in question. Of course this does not make them crank scientists per se, as they do not (as far as I can see) publish these things in the journals, but rather smaller elements, like detection of photon emissions in biological systems. But I have not read the papers in full, so I cannot state whether they imply that these emissions may be involved in cell communication within the article somewhere. Depending on the referee it may actually be possible...

If you look more closely you will find that a number of these guys actually have published in established (if mostly low-ranking) journals. An interesting aspect is that they are almost all exclusively (at least those I noticed and which were at least partially in the direction of what the website proposes) physical journals (e.g. Phys letters). In addition the papers are not (from my understanding) supporting the claims that they make on the website. In fact, the biological oriented paper do not actually mention biophotonics or anything else, from what I can see. I do agree that the website looks more like an opinion piece than anything else, though. I suppose you went to the section with "Internet Publications". Curiously they made this one more prominent than their actual research papers. Further supporting the notion that they want to sell an opinion. While I obviously cannot vouch for any of them, the people themselves appear to be "real" scientists.

Well, it is not easy to answer. Just from the look of it they appear to be genuine. However, their theories are hardly backed up by hard data. In fact, their published papers give only weak evidence, if at all (at least to the more outrageous claims). You have to keep in mind, however that these guys are physicists. It is not too unusual for them to come up with some weird ideas, often based on little biological knowledge. In fact some actually believe that "biological knowledge" is too limited and actually only a purely physical approach will lead to new findings. This is a bit sad as I believe that interdisciplinary work is actually of paramount importance for progress, but unfortunately too often both sides are to be too dug in in their viewpoints to facilitate true collaboration (I have some personal experience with that as I have collaborated as well as worked as a member of chemistry and biophysics groups). Personally I believe this topics it is less a case of pure nuttiness but more of physicists trying their hand on biology and overstating their findings. This opinion is based on a rough screening of only a few articles, though.

First please post what you did (in class) and then give some ideas so that we can comment on them.

Actually what ecoli describes echoes what an Iranian colleague (who emigrated to Germany, but his family is still in Iran) wrote me. From what little I understand of Iran (almost completely herasay) the political situation in Iran is incredibly complex and as usual the media representation is lousy at best (it doesn't stop them from giving uninformed opinions, though). Of course, my view is also extremely biased as the few Iranians I know are academics and probably be what the media would call "moderate" (they do hate the label, though). Incidentally he also sent me that, which is kind of hilarious (if probably a bit unfair): http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231547&title=jason-jones-behind-the-veil

Logical statements depend on the validity of the given premises. If the latter are wrong, logical inductions based on these are also invalid.

This is the third thread with an overall similar theme, btw.

I think the combatants also should have at least a party together and get to know each other's family before they are allowed to kill.

Coffee and sugar. And then another cup.

Yes indeed. Interestingly the further exposures strongly shape the following colonization events in neonates. E.g. preterm babies often undergo additional treatment in the hospital and tend to get a different flora than other neonates during the same period at home. I think the flora is subject to relatively rapid changes over the first year until a more stable community is settled in.

While afaik there are no reports on sterile humans there are studies on the development of the intestinal flora. In fact, the fetal gut is sterile but is getting colonized during development. In other words, in a somewhat controlled environment a beneficial colonization is possible and, in fact, a normal process in child development.

Sounds like masochism to me

What would be the motivation to do so?

From a quick glimpse from abstracts (e.g. Ciurea et al. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 2006 Apr;148(4):421-6. Epub 2005 Dec 30) It appears that (once cysts have formed) the removal of the cysts is supplemented with vermicides. But even then it appears that there is a rather high chance of the emergence of new cysts (25% in that study).

Essentially the survival chance are probably low due to mainly two reasons. 1st, the immune system has not been exposed to a variety of bacteria and thus is more susceptible to potential pathogens (vaccines available are only against a select few). 2nd, due to lack of colonization potentially harmful and even normally harmless bacteria can settle with more competitively than on persons who have a more or less equilibrated flora on them. Thus there is a chance of harmful settlement or proliferation of pathogenic or opportunistic pathogenic bacteria. And actually this is probably the wrong subforum. I will move it to the appropriate one.

First, not all genes require an activator for transcription. Sometimes it just enhances the transcription rate. Most viral systems, for instance, do not rely on positive regulation via activators, but rather on strong promoters plus negative regulation via repressors. That being said there are a number of viruses known that express transcriptional activators. These, however, do not necessarily bind to the DNA (and thus e.g. promote closed complexes), but can actually induce transcription by starting a signaling cascade. An example that I read recently is the X protein from HBV. Or they hijack transcriptional activators (or repressors) from the host, to couple their replication to the cellular state of their host.