They'd Rather See You Dead (conspiracy)

Originally posted by bsl4doc
I am taken aback by Soficrow's post stating that stem cell therapy was being performed as far back as WWII.

Now, explain to me how anyone could have performed any research in this field if the structure and location of DNA wasn't entirely known until 1962, and most of the information about it didn't actually come to fruition until years afterwards. McCulloch and Till were actually the first to discover blood cell stem cells in the late 1960s, and the first embryonic stem cell wasn't isolated until the 1998.

Also, can you provide any sources whatsoever to support your stem cells in WWII and cryogenics for stem cells in the 1960s claims, Soficrow? You seem to make an awful lot of inflammatory statements and then provide no documentation at all. Curious.

...The refs are all over and I get tired of cutting and pasting. But okay. FYI - DNA analysis is not necessary for stem cell therapy - even immunology wasn't performed in the beginning.

Telomerase and telomeres

..."Pioneering genetic studies by Hermann Muller in 1938 and Barbara McClintock in 1941 showed that the ends of chromosomes had to be capped by a special structure termed the telomere to prevent chromosome fusion (Muller, 1962; McClintock, 1941)." ...History says, "It was not until the early 1970s that the mechanisms of leading and lagging strand DNA replication began to be understood," but the fact is, privately funded researchers have been playing with the technology for decades...

FYI - both Muller and McClintock were connected to Cold Spring Harbor - the seat of the Eugenics movement in the USA, which had very strong ties to the Nazis.

See: Immortalizing Human Cells with Telomerase
www.bioinfo.org.cn...

For more history and biology, see "Plant Telomere Biology"
www.plantcell.org...

***

Here's a quick and dirty look at the -public and online- history of stem cell research.

1. Scientists have been working with stem cells for over 50 years.

Note: "Fibroblasts" are connective tissue stem cells; bone marrow transplants are the original source of stem cells.


* [Effect of human umbilical cord extracts on growth of in vitro culture of embryonal fibroblasts.] C R Hebd Seances Acad Sci. 1955 May 16;240(20):2018-20. LASFARGUES E, DANIEL P, DELAUNAY A. PMID: 14390784

* [Bone marrow transplantation.] Ter Arkh. 1950 May-Jun;22(3):63-5. PINSKII II, STEFADU VA. PMID: 15442952

* [Effect of human serum of benign tumor patients on fibroblasts cultivated in vitro.] Rev Soc Argent Biol. 1950 Apr-May;26(1-2):1-7. SACERDOTE de LUSTIG E, MANCINI RE. PMID: 14781570

* [Effect of human cerebrospinal fluid on the fibroblast in vitro.] Rev Soc Argent Biol. 1951 Jun-Jul;27(3-4):114-7. SACERDOTE DE LUSTIG E. PMID: 14900760

* Stimulating effect of nucleoprotein fraction of chick embryo extract on homologous heart fibroblasts. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1953 Jun;83(2):390-5. KUTSKY RJ. PMID: 13064279

* [Studies on growth promoting substances of embryonal extracts in fibroblasts cultures.] Biochem Z. 1953;324(3):195-203. BAYERLE H, BANDIER J. PMID: 13126131



2. Researchers have been transplanting stem cells for over 50 years.

* The development of variations in transplantability and morphology within a clone of mouse fibroblasts transformed to sarcoma-producing cells in vitro. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1954 Oct;15(2):215-37. SANFORD KK, LIKELY GD, EARLE WR. PMID: 13233880



3. The link between stem cell mutations and cancer was recognized over 50 years ago.

* [A case of stem-cell sarcoma of the reticular connective tissue of the endometrium.] Arch De Vecchi Anat Patol. 1956 Jun;24(2):789-805. TARTARINI G. PMID: 13363603

* Transformation of normal human fibroblasts into histologically malignant tissue in vitro. Science. 1956 Mar 23;123(3195):502-3. LEIGHTON J, KLINE I, ORR HC. PMID: 13298708

* Further evidence favoring the concept of the stem cell in ascites tumors of rats. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1956 Mar 14;63(5):818-30. MAKINO S. PMID: 13314436

* Transformation of normal human fibroblasts into histologically malignant tissue in vitro. Science. 1956 Mar 23;123(3195):502-3. LEIGHTON J, KLINE I, ORR HC. PMID: 13298708

* The cytopathogenic effect of the Rous sarcoma virus on chicken fibroblasts in tissue cultures. Bull Johns Hopkins Hosp. 1955 Sep;97(3):248-65. LO WH, GEY GO, SHAPRAS P. PMID: 13284471

* [Morphology and evolutive possibility of the fibroblast in various inflammatory conditions.] Arch De Vecchi Anat Patol. 1955 Aug;23(2):501-24. MIGNANI E. PMID: 13283689

* [Stem-cell leukemia.] J Radiol Electrol Arch Electr Medicale. 1951;32(1-2):119-20. BRU, POUTANSANT, PLANEL. PMID: 14841727

* Reticulo-endotheliosis or stem-cell leukemia; a case report. Conn Med. 1949 Dec;13(12):1128-33, illust. EVANS TS, CIPRIANO AP, FERRELL EH Jr. PMID: 15397554

* Production of malignancy in vitro. XII. Further transformations of mouse fibroblasts to sarcomatous cells. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1950 Oct;11(2):351-75. SANFORD KK, EARLE WR, SHELTON E, SCHILLING EL, DUCHESNE EM, LIKELY GD, BECKER MM. PMID: 14795191



4. Cell transformation works both ways; just as stem cells can mutate and turn cancerous when exposed to chemical and other pathogens or infectious agents, mutated or cancerous stem cells can revert back to normal when exposed to normal stem cells - a fact recognized over 50 years ago. But huge quantities are needed to outnumber the cancer cells, which is why cloning is required.


* Transformation of carcinoma cells into fibroblasts. Acta Unio Int Contra Cancrum. 1956;12(4):459-60. BUENO P. PMID: 13381572

* The effect of aminopterin and partial exsanguination transfusion on a case of acute stem cell leukemia; a case report and review of the literature on these two procedures. Ann Intern Med. 1950 Jan;32(1):123-8. ROSS RT, SCHOEMPERLEN CB. PMID: 15404131

* The effect of serum ultrafiltrate on cultivated mast cells and fibroblasts from human skin. Science. 1954 Jan 15;119(3081):99. ZITCER EM, KIRK PL. PMID: 13122039

Also, how can you use the Korean researcher's information when he himself has admitted to producing fraudulent studies? Obviously, just because that one human embryo study was admitted to be fake doesn't mean all of his work was, but doesn't it cast just the slightest bit of doubt on his work? It seems to me that he was being pressured to produce something immediate or lose his government grant, doesn't it?

IMO - Korea got pressured to back off. Be interesting to see how negotiations went, and how their new status washes out on the economic-political stage...



...oops - just remembered the cryogenics facility stuff... Need to get back to you on that one.
.

The refs are all over and I get tired of cutting and pasting.

Sounds like the line from someone with vaporous sources...

FYI - DNA analysis is not necessary for stem cell therapy - even immunology wasn't performed in the beginning.

Who said anything about DNA analysis? Oh, and FYI, it is necessary to understand the genetics behind stem cells before you can use them for stem cell therapy, as you stated we were beginning to do in WWII. Stem cell therapy involves implanting stem cell tissue into a host, meaning there is a high risk of rejection if the cells do not contain MHC-I markers that are a genetic match to the patient, this is where somatic cell transfer technology TODAY, not in the 1940s, TODAY is having a problem. That is why we need to do the rabbit/human experiment, to see if removing cells from a certain organism will allow us to implant these stem cells into an organism that is a genetic match, thus, harvesting eggs from an adult rabbit, using that rabbits eggs as well as human skin cells to creating a zygote and eventually embryo, and then using the stem cells from the created embryo to implant back into the rabbit which should be very similar, as the majority of cell mass and proteins comes from the egg, not the complementary genetic material from the sperm, or in this case, human skin cell.

Also, fibroblasts are not stem cells. They are used to culture stem cells, but fibroblasts themselves can only divide a short number of times. Usually, non-dividing mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEF) are used as the feeder layer for the embryonic stem cell culture. Just because it has "embryonic" in the name, don't think stem cell. They can only grow into fibrous tissues. This is no different than taking an pro-T cell of mine and saying "Well, it can grow into either a CD 4+ cell (helper T) or a CD 8+ cell (cytotoxic T). Since it can form more than one cell type, it MUST be a stem cell. Not so. Just because it forms more than one cell TYPE does not mean it forms more than one cell CLASS. That's why emrbyonic stem cells are so important, they form various cell CLASSES. Now, don't get me wrong, there are plenty of amazing treatments we hope to discover using fibroblasts. There are many diseases affecting the fibrous and connective tissues of the body. None of these, however, have anything whatsoever to do with the embryonic stem cells that this thread is concerned with.
www.ndif.org...
www.eurekalert.org...
(Source 2 has some neat ideas for fibroblast treatments)

Now, on to your sources, which, by the way, are some pretty interesting reads. You should take the time to read them in entirety. No, really, you should read them entirely before posting them. I read a few, so here's what they are really discussing:

The development of variations in transplantability and morphology within a clone of mouse fibroblasts transformed to sarcoma-producing cells in vitro. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1954 Oct;15(2):215-37. SANFORD KK, LIKELY GD, EARLE WR. PMID: 13233880

This article is not indicative in any way of embryonic stem cell research in the 50s, which, by the way, is AFTER WWII, just for your own benefit =). The fibroblasts they are talking about in this article are from full grown mice. Not embryos. Adults. And the purpose is for the culturing of cancer cell, hence sarcomas. You have to provide cancer cells with living cell cultures (i.e. fibroblasts, a common live cell culture medium, also called a "feeder layer"). This is why the HeLa cancer cells are immortal, because they are provided with feeder layers and nutrients. This article has nothing to do with stem cell therapy, stem cell cloning, or embryos.

[Effect of human cerebrospinal fluid on the fibroblast in vitro.] Rev Soc Argent Biol. 1951 Jun-Jul;27(3-4):114-7. SACERDOTE DE LUSTIG E. PMID: 14900760

This article is a study on the effect of adult cerebralspinal fluid on adult fibroblasts in an external culture. Nothing about stem cells here, or embryos.

* Stimulating effect of nucleoprotein fraction of chick embryo extract on homologous heart fibroblasts. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1953 Jun;83(2):390-5. KUTSKY RJ. PMID: 13064279

Now this, this one is getting closer to the bullseye you're looking for, but not quite. It does involve an embryo, but what they did was take a general extract, not a cellular extract, from a chick embryo and feed it into a cultured fibroblast to see what effect new cells would have on the fibroblast. It was actually out of the age range for totipotent cells, however, when using chick embryos. They used a 10 day old chick embryo.

Also, I don't see why you brought up telomeres OR that quote? Telomeres are well known, even taught at the undergraduate level. Your quote is correct to assume telomeres act to prevent chromosome fusion, but they also act to protect genetic information when chromosomes degrade in a cell. While theoretically extending the telomeres might help slow down the apoptosis in a normal cell, it won't stop the normal wear and tear on a cell. Allowing cells to become immortal wouldn't stop the production of new cells, meaning you would produce cancerous masses, and it would also mean virus infected cells would becomes immortal in the case of a prophage. Sounds like a crappy way to go, don't you think?

Ciao,
~MFP

BS - you're quite right, fibroblasts are not embryonic stem cells. They are often called connective tissue stem cells - connective tissue being the primary tissue implicated in many cancers and diseases - and they were big in the 1950's.

I made a point of posting references that could be checked online - not much available before 1950.

I posted the info about teleomere discovery for several reasons:

1. Because bodebliss introduced telomeres into the thread - and really, I'd much rather talk with him than with you;

2. Teleomeres are part of the anti-aging discussion;

3. Related to stem cell therapy;

4. Related to a long-standing eugenics influence on American science.


.

They are often called connective tissue stem cells - connective tissue being the primary tissue implicated in many cancers and diseases - and they were big in the 1950's.

I have honestly never heard or read anything that referred to fibroblasts as "connective tissue stem cells". That is a contradictory phrase. To say that the stem cells give rise to specifically connective tissue makes them not stem cells at all. They are ontogenically non-specified, sure, but not stem cells. And can you show me something that relates telomeres to stem cells? I haven't seen you post any of them. All you did was post a quote that stated common knowledge about chromosome fusion and telomeres. The anti-aging arguement with telomeres is not about injecting stem cells into someone, it's about being able to manipulate their genetics so that the telomeres are longer and thus don't program cell death as early as they currently do. Nothing to do with stem cells.

Hello BSLDoc!

I always thought that fibroblasts came from mesenchymal stem cells, but Wikipedia is telling me otherwise. Cell Biology is too much like hard work!

en.wikipedia.org...

also

en.wikipedia.org...

I always get a bit irritated that my telomeres get shorter over time so I'm pre-programmed for death, but that's evolution for you!

I always thought that the problem with *stopping* your telomeres from getting shorter is that the only really successful instance of this in humans is cancer.

Is there any evidence that families that seem to live longer are 'better' at conserving their telomeres?

Fascinating topic.

TD

Taupe,
Yeah, they are a bit differnt. The fibroblasts divide into tissues that are originally derived from mesodermal cells, but the link between mesenchymal stem cells and fibroblasts is a bit indirect. Good catch, though!

You're right about telomeres, too. The only real instance of cessation of telomere shortening would in fact be cancers. The main issue with the slowing or stopping of telomere degradation is that, although you stop the cells from dieing, you do not stop them from dividing. Just think, if your basal skin cells didn't die but kept dividing, in a few month's time, you'd basically have two sets of skin cells. Not good. This could lead to cancers.

As far as longer-living peoples/cultures having slower telomere degradarion, I'm not sure. I do know that people such as the Sardinians and Okinawans, who have some of the longest life expectancies, practice food and diet patterns that reduce oxidative damage, which reduces tissue and cell degradation, a possible link to your idea about telomere degradation. I think that's a good area of research, you should look into it. I think it really might bear some fruit, so to speak.

Ciao,
~MFP

P.S. You get a vote for Way Above, Taupe. Congratulations!

Great links TaupeDragon. Thanks.

BSdoc -

Fibroblasts can be understood to be mesenchymal stem cells - not stem cells proper as they already are differentiated - and knowledge of their various roles in the body is being expanded rapidly. TaupeDragon's wikipedia links help explain current concepts.

Many cutting edge therapies are concerned with fibroblasts - which I'm saying is primarily a public return to research pioneered in the 1940's and 50's, re: fibroblast references posted above.

Here's a quick and dirty overview of fibroblasts to add to wikipedia's info:

Fibroblasts are ubiquitous mesenchymal cells with many vital functions during development, wound healing, and tissue homeostasis. Fibroblasts from different anatomic sites have distinct and characteristic gene expression patterns, but the full scope of fibroblast diversity and the principles that govern their molecular specialization are not understood.

Quick Overview

***

Fibroblasts are a ubiquitous cell population found in every tissue and organ
throughout the body.

***

Common epicardial origin of coronary vascular smooth muscle, perivascular fibroblasts, and intermyocardial fibroblasts in the avian heart.

...This thread is about disease and aging - and the treatments available or denied to ordinary people. The thread's premise is "They want you dead" - that medical breakthroughs and proven treatments both are denied to ordinary people.

Connective tissue, fibroblasts, and telomeres all are important to the discussion:

Most modern disease -and the aging process- involve degeneration of connective tissue, including: arthritis, asthma, cancer, COPD, heart disease, osteoporosis and stroke.

In turn, most connective tissue degeneration involves fibroblasts that differentiate incorrectly and become aberrant myofibroblasts. These aberrant myofibroblasts go on to cause tissue degenerations often called "aberrant wound healing" or pathological "tissue remodeling." Ie., see: Myofibroblasts. I. Paracrine cells important in health and disease

A misfolded isoform of the protein "a-smooth muscle actin" (ASMA) is the marker for aberrant myofibroblasts in all connective tissue.

Telomeres are important because they shorten as we -and our cells- age; telomere length is related to cell-aging and the aging process overall. The longer the telomere, the younger and more vigorous the cell; the shorter the telomere, the older and more 'frail' the cell will be. Ie., see: The Potential For Telomerase Activation Therapies: A Scientific Backgrounder

So obviously - the most effective therapies are concerned with healthy connective tissue formation - and fibroblasts and telomeres. However, these therapies and treatments are denied to ordinary people, and are not covered by insurance - usually on the grounds that they are "experimental." Instead, they are being marketed as "anti-aging" therapies - to those who can afford the 'luxury' of good health in an increasingly unhealthy world.

Most modern disease -and the aging process- involve degeneration of connective tissue, including: arthritis, asthma, cancer, COPD, heart disease, osteoporosis and stroke.

In turn, most connective tissue degeneration involves fibroblasts that differentiate incorrectly and become aberrant myofibroblasts. These aberrant myofibroblasts go on to cause tissue degenerations often called "aberrant wound healing" or pathological "tissue remodeling." Ie., see: Myofibroblasts. I. Paracrine cells important in health and disease

A misfolded isoform of the protein "a-smooth muscle actin" (ASMA) is the marker for aberrant myofibroblasts in all connective tissue.

Telomeres are important because they shorten as we -and our cells- age; telomere length is related to cell-aging and the aging process overall. The longer the telomere, the younger and more vigorous the cell; the shorter the telomere, the older and more 'frail' the cell will be. Ie., see: The Potential For Telomerase Activation Therapies: A Scientific Backgrounder

Soficrow, you're not getting what I'm saying about the telomeres. The "anti-aging" arguement involving telomeres is simply defunct. It's part of the realm of science-fiction, not science fact. If you were able to prevent your cells from aging properly, great. But what about cell division? That is no in anyway controlled by telomeres. So what happens when the basal cell layer of your skin keeps pushing new cells up to replace the ones that should be dieing, but aren't? A mass. So, do you really want to live to be 200 but have cysts and masts in every tissue in your body? You'd probably have blockages, as well, due to an overproduction of RBCs, WBCs, and platelets, among others.

Also, you are using the phrase stem cells wrong. By admitting that they are not stem cells "proper", you are admitting they are not, in fact, stem cells. I feel you are just using that word where it doesn't apply because it is a "hot button" word that is emotionally charged. Please don't use it where it doesn't apply. Also, I am not doubting the therapeutic possibilities of fibroblasts. I am, however, doubting your "sources" that showed their therapeutic applications in the 50s. The articles you posted were merely about using them as living cell cultures for other newly developed tissue and cell lines, which is a very common procedure and did indeed begin as far back as world war II. However, research on implanting fibroblasts into people as a treatment is not something that was done in the 50s.

Oh, and on a final note, I have never heard of stroke, heart disease, or asthma being called a disorder of the connective tissue. Where did you get this, wikipedia? Shame.

Ciao,
~MFP

Here's a link to everything you wanted to know about the science of senescence but were scared to ask.

scienceweek.com...

I'm off shopping now - I'll make a point to cut my average calorific intake by 25-50% whilst keeping my nutritional requirements satisfied - certainly sounds a lot easier than playing with telomerase, for now at any rate. Seems to work on rats, they're just starting experiments on monkeys now. Has anyone thought of checking the life expectancy of underfed supermodels?

Thanks all, this is a very interesting thread.

TD

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Soficrow, you're not getting what I'm saying about the telomeres. The "anti-aging" arguement involving telomeres is simply defunct.

I simply point out that telomeres are an important part of this discussion.

Also, you are using the phrase stem cells wrong. By admitting that they are not stem cells "proper", you are admitting they are not, in fact, stem cells.

As discussed - fibroblasts now are described as "mesenchymal stem cells."

I feel you are just using that word where it doesn't apply because it is a "hot button" word that is emotionally charged.

It is a phrase that most people are familiar with, and so includes more people in the discussion.

I am, however, doubting your "sources" that showed their therapeutic applications in the 50s. The articles you posted were merely about using them as living cell cultures for other newly developed tissue and cell lines, which is a very common procedure and did indeed begin as far back as world war II. However, research on implanting fibroblasts into people as a treatment is not something that was done in the 50s.

Yes, it was - specifically as a treatment for cancer. And that's the information that's publicly available, and not protected as private property under Intellectual Property Rights laws.

Oh, and on a final note, I have never heard of stroke, heart disease, or asthma being called a disorder of the connective tissue. Where did you get this, wikipedia? Shame.

BS - I had hoped you might find TaupeDragon's wikipedia references to be more accessible to your level of education. The bulk of my own references are found on the National Institutes of Health PubMed database.

Again - this thread is about disease and aging - and the fact that proven treatments are denied to ordinary people.

Why exactly are you working so hard to sabotage fruitful discussion?





ed format

[edit on 15-1-2006 by soficrow]

Originally posted by TaupeDragon
Here's a link to everything you wanted to know about the science of senescence but were scared to ask.

scienceweek.com...

This is good stuff - but it begs the issue that so-called "age-related diseases" now are showing up in neonates and children. These chronic diseases clearly result from a combination of factors including infection and environmental contamination.

Which raises a whole new raft of questions...

Yes, it was - specifically as a treatment for cancer. And that's the information that's publicly available, and not protected as private property under Intellectual Property Rights laws.


quote:
Oh, and on a final note, I have never heard of stroke, heart disease, or asthma being called a disorder of the connective tissue. Where did you get this, wikipedia? Shame.


BS - I had hoped you might find TaupeDragon's wikipedia references to be more accessible to your level of education. The bulk of my own references are found on the National Institutes of Health PubMed database.

Again - this thread is about disease and aging - and the fact that proven treatments are denied to ordinary people.

Why exactly are you working so hard to sabotage fruitful discussion?

Soficrow, please reread your sources. They were about using fibroblasts to CULTURE cancers, not treat them. The technology to implant what you call mesenchymal stem cells (which no one in the medical or biochemical profession seems to call them) did not exist in the 1950s, as easy as that. Also, I am quite offended at your suggestion that I am not intelligent enough to read NIH journal articles. I'm sure my proctors and research partners at the university would be shocked as well! Thank you for making a post personal and pointing out a faux-fault.

Also, you are still avoiding my discussion of telomeres. I agree, they are part of the discussion. I raise the very logical point that just because you stop cells from dieing doesn't mean you stop them from dividing, causing an excess of cells leading to cysts and masses. You seem to not want to approach this problem. Why is that?

Also, if the "anti-aging" treatments are denied to ordinary people, who IS getting this treatment? I certainly don't see any rich, 150 year old beaurocrats walking around...I mean, G. H. W. Bush certainly looks that old, but is oinly in what, his 80s? I would really like to know who is getting this immortality treatment you suggest the "ordinary" people are denied. Just curious.

Ciao,
~MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Also, you are still avoiding my discussion of telomeres. I agree, they are part of the discussion. I raise the very logical point that just because you stop cells from dieing doesn't mean you stop them from dividing, causing an excess of cells leading to cysts and masses. You seem to not want to approach this problem. Why is that?

It is not an area that interests me per se - as I explained earlier, I was acknowledging bodebliss' introduction of the topic and recognizing that teleomeres are an important part of the discussion. That's it.

quote: Originally posted by bsl4doc
Also, you are still avoiding my discussion of telomeres. I agree, they are part of the discussion. I raise the very logical point that just because you stop cells from dieing doesn't mean you stop them from dividing, causing an excess of cells leading to cysts and masses. You seem to not want to approach this problem. Why is that?


It is not an area that interests me per se - as I explained earlier, I was acknowledging bodebliss' introduction of the topic and recognizing that teleomeres are an important part of the discussion. That's it.

It was interesting enough earlier for you to post a source, quote, and defend in several posts...strange that now that there is a logical opposition to the idea you feign disinterest.

Ciao,
~MFP

Originally posted by bsl4doc

It is not an area that interests me per se - as I explained earlier, I was acknowledging bodebliss' introduction of the topic and recognizing that teleomeres are an important part of the discussion. That's it.

It was interesting enough earlier for you to post a source, quote, and defend in several posts...strange that now that there is a logical opposition to the idea you feign disinterest.

...?

GOOD GRIEF!

You need to reread the thread BSdoc.



[edit on 15-1-2006 by soficrow]

I need to read it better. Hrmm..let's see. Bodebliss first posts a very interesting article on telomeres. Then you post this:

Telomerase research and stem cell therapy dates back to WW2. Telomerase was discovered in the USA at the government-owned eugenics-run Salt Springs Lab; Nazi medical researchers did their part too.

By the end of the 1950's, it was clear that young stem cells worked best because their telomeres are longer - and that therapies worked best when the patient's own stem cells were used - immunity was a problem.

So you are the first to suggest telomere research in the 40s and 50s. No one mentions is again until I ask you for evidence of the time period. You follow it up with this:

Telomerase and telomeres

..."Pioneering genetic studies by Hermann Muller in 1938 and Barbara McClintock in 1941 showed that the ends of chromosomes had to be capped by a special structure termed the telomere to prevent chromosome fusion (Muller, 1962; McClintock, 1941)." ...History says, "It was not until the early 1970s that the mechanisms of leading and lagging strand DNA replication began to be understood," but the fact is, privately funded researchers have been playing with the technology for decades...

FYI - both Muller and McClintock were connected to Cold Spring Harbor - the seat of the Eugenics movement in the USA, which had very strong ties to the Nazis.

See: Immortalizing Human Cells with Telomerase
www.bioinfo.org.cn...

For more history and biology, see "Plant Telomere Biology"
www.plantcell.org...

Now, no matter that I have asked you twice now about a topic YOU continually brought up, can you tell me how you would tackle the problem of telomeres and cell division? You keep dodging the issue by saying you aren't interested in telomeres, but you apparently are as you have brought them up several times now. Oh, and it's also interesting to note that if you actually read the WHOLE artcile your telomere quote is from, it explains that telomeres weren't linked to the Hayflick limit until the early 1970s, and that the telomerase enzyme wasn't discovered until 1985 in T. thermophila, an extremophile bacterium. Interesting.

Ciao,
~MFP


[edit on 1/15/2006 by bsl4doc]

Originally posted by bsl4doc
Bodebliss first posts a very interesting article on telomeres. Then you post ...(about) telomere research in the 40s and 50s. No one mentions is again until I ask you for evidence of the time period. ...
Now, no matter that I have asked you twice now

As you say - bodebliss introduced telomeres - I added a tidbit from my files, then responded to your queries. I tell you telomeres are not really my interest, but you grab on to my shirttail and grip it like a mutant chihuahua, yapping that I must, absolutely positively must must must continue talking about teleomeres and that I am only "feigning disinterest"...

FYI - I am studying fibroblasts, myofibroblasts, ASMA, and systems biology - telomeres are entirely peripheral to my interests. Bodebliss expressed an interest in telomeres - I tripped over something in my files, and posted the reference. An acknowledgment and a BTW, as I said.

Beyond that, I do happen to find it MOST interesting that teleomeres were discovered in 1938 and 1941 - by Hermann Muller and Barbara McClintock - in the course of doing genetics research. Also that both Muller and McClintock were connected to Cold Spring Harbor - a seat of the Eugenics movement in the USA, with very strong ties to the Nazis. ...I like to share my tidbits.






[edit on 15-1-2006 by soficrow]

You're right, they were discovered in 1938, much the same way von Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria in 1676. Telomeres were thought to play a role only in preventing cell fusion at their discovery. Just because something was discovered in year x doesn't mean they are immediately put to use. Miescher technically discovered DNA in 1869, but we didn't even know what it looked like until 1962. Now, if telomeres were discovered in 1938, what makes you think that 10 years is enough time to begin immortality experiments? Can you qualify this with evidence? We have known about embryonic stem cells for a number of years and are no where near a real stem cell therapy treatment outside of small steps.

Ciao,
~MFP

For those that like to keep updated on life-extension new , the Mouse Prize has a newsreader:


www.mprize.org...


I use it w/o any problems(it won't glitch your computer).














[edit on 1/16/2006 by bodebliss]

Originally posted by bsl4doc
You're right, they were discovered in 1938, much the same way von Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria in 1676. Telomeres were thought to play a role only in preventing cell fusion at their discovery. Just because something was discovered in year x doesn't mean they are immediately put to use...

Can't you look through the jungle of today's world and see, just see that certain technologies do not need cross reference (although it potentially helps our understanding) and extensive empirical research to work?

see, antibiotics, extracted from fungus, bacteria, whatever can be cultivated without even remotely knowing what you're exactly doing. same for bacteriophages, you can have OUR level of antibacterial treatement AND MUCH MORE as a stone age civilisation [i'd wager, hadn't the Romans (thx, Cesar and ***you) and the Roman catholic church (doubly **you) killed the druids along with their knowledge, we could still have it]. guess why the chinese have an edge on us? because they didn't kill everything that didn't fit into their worldview!

as for 'native' tribes, the world's people were pretty much unable to offer any of their knowledge (and probably rather unwilling), since they were busy working as slaves or being killed outright by the 'enlightened' west. add to that the fuehrer principle,, which will result in total ignorance of anything that's not ordained from above and it's clear why such knowledge is mostly gone.

judging by successfully developed crops (what doesn't originate from the americas except wheat?) it's obvious they had an edge on us in many repects, but no, the conquistadores killed them - because they could. who sent them? the elite?

you see, growing a fungus is something even ants can do, don't need a lab for that, bacteriopahges are similar, just need a 2 step process.. wait, do you even know how effective and efficient phages are? have you ever used them? heard of them? no? why is that? because you're mind controlled, that's why.

i don't mean to insult you, but please, please look beyond and understand that our entire society is based on control. THAT's why microchips, as small as a fingernail are produced in large complex production plants, why chemical antibiotics are preferred over phages, because phages regrow themselves, you couldn't sell them, everyone could cultivate the stuff and it doesn't take repeated doses, because they are capable of self-replication.


There you have it! this system creates demand (=utter misery), then offers a 'treatment' instead of a cure for a horrendous price (including your soul), then goes on rambling about progress... what a shame, that people let themsleves be blinded by shiny suits and polished weapons, it's self-deception, all the power in the world will not keep this society from self-destrucing, to be exact, that very notion of 'power' is what exectute disintegration.



THAT's why certain crops are banned under phony provisions, many worthwhile varieties destroyed, so we couldn't access fuel and fiber locally if we wanted to. (now derived from oil) and why paper is made from wood instead of field crops, inflicting tremendous damage upon the environment and inevitably raising overall costs.

Remember, they got all the money, more wouldn't matter, so they crave power, preferrably over life&death. never expect moderation or insight, their sole vaguely human trait is their outer appearance.

sorry for OT, but i feel this could cut down the amount of bickering..


edit: spelling, and reshuffling artefacts

[edit on 16-1-2006 by Long Lance]