Science

Lockdown (too)

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

The following post may provoke a response from the censers(sic!), and a lockdown which is far from useless, though perhaps needless, may be imposed here, after which you shall be glad never to hear from me again.

What do you think of what was orated by the Lord Hannan of Kingsclere?

The story about the people of Ohio is quite entertaining..


Lord Hannan of Kingsclere speaking in the House of Lords. Published 3rd September 2024

Further comments may be found here: Fake News?

Should the following link fail, you may be sure that a response has been provoked:

Luther’s wisdom

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

It was an interesting discussion about the place of Luther in European and in particular German history, and his continuing influence that prompted me to write, for whilst the conversation was informative, offering perhaps a different perspective than you would be given by an O-level syllabus, there appeared to be a contradiction in it. You may want to listen, or watch for yourself, to judge the matter more carefully

Martin Luther: The Man Who Changed The World from The Rest is History where Tom and Dominic (who?) talk about the man whom we cannot forget.

There is a reference somewhere in the middle of the discussion to the authorities of the age. These authorities are not to be questioned, not because of the civil or political power they hold, though some of them did, and as we shall see do so today, but because they were in the know. They were the cognisant (cognizenci) of their day. Coco does somethings think they are may be more properly described as the gnostics of their day. These people were able to influence the responses of the authorities and the masses to the sometimes new ideas proposed by those who really were in the know, and who had by careful research or experiment been able to demonstrate the veracity of the ideas. A reference may be made to the Copernican revolution; we must not lose sight of this that today we have a different understanding of the revolutions of the planets than any of the three sides of the debate. The science of one year may become the dust of the next.

There was a sense in which the speakers sought to suggest that the day of the cognisant had passed and we now lived in an age where all ideas and thoughts were properly tested for their truth, and that this approach was something introduced by the Renaissance, and built upon by Luther – every man must be free to understand the Word of God by his own conscience: My conscience is captive to the word of God! To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I therefore cannot, and I will not recant! Here I stand. I can do other. But then we had a reference to the epidemiologist. Apparently in recent years we believed them. They became the authorities who would tell us what to think and how to behave. Today the authority behind them is making a power grab in order to be able to control not only what we think and how we behave, but what we can do and where we can go. Should they succeed then all that is required is a word from them, and everyone must fall into line.

Are we lazy? Is that why we do not question the pronouncements of the cognisant? Are they really cognisant, or are such as these pursuing their own agenda? Darwin when he proposed his origin of the species (note not the origin of life) provided clear tests for his hypothesis. The discovery of DNA finally showed that the hypothesis had failed the tests (though it should have been obvious before then), but still the so-called cognisant continue to speak as if it were valid, and even try to extend it beyond the limits Darwin himself imposed. They are pursuing their own agenda, and those who seek to question them, as they tried to do to Galileo and Luther are shut down.

Are we forgetful? The cognisant of old have often had to give up their ideas in the light of evidence. Those who were wise recognised the limitations of their ideas and were careful to express them in such a way that the limits were clear. Boyle’s Law is universal, but read it carefully before you criticise it where it appears to fail.

What really stood in the way of both Luther and Galileo was not true knowledge, but a wisdom of this world. It is a wisdom which leads the fool to say: There is no god. Paul speaks to the Corinthians about this in quite clear terms:

For it is written: I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.1

Now some would like to suggest that this means that all the wisdom of this world is worthless, but let us not so misunderstand what Paul is saying. He makes the context of his remarks quite clear: the world through wisdom did not know God. Paul knew very well that what may be known of God is made known in men, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, as he wrote to the Romans. Paul is not saying that we should not take notice of the world around us, nor is he saying we should not try to understand it. It is in understanding the world correctly that we see the witness that God has left in the world to his invisible attributes as Paul says here.

Paul goes on to say something similar to that which he said to the Corinthians: because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man – and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.2

They thought they knew something. They thought they were wise. But the condition of their heart meant that they used their knowledge to invent a wisdom which would led them eventually to say: There is no God. On the way to that point they invent gods for themselves, which are clearly false gods. They cannot hear, they cannot speak, they cannot move themselves but have to be carried on carts. Some see the foolishness of this behaviour but cannot find a satisfactory intellectual argument to support the statement that there is no God until they exalt the wisdom of man, his power of reasoning, his logical mind above the evidence that is around them, and they invent stories to explain it away. Stories which cannot of course be proven to be false for no-one was around to see the fake story unfold.

The wisdom of the world of which Paul speaks here then is that false wisdom which says in its heart that man is self-dependent, that he has no need of a god (other than the false one he makes in his own image but which he often will not acknowledge that he has made). Wisdom is intended to lead us to God, but man in his wisdom corrupts it to turn himself away from God. It is this corrupted wisdom, which Paul describes as the wisdom of this world, of which he speaks here. Paul is fully aware of the proverb which says: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding

Wisdom in itself is to be valued, to be embraced, when it is not corrupt. So Paul in writing to the Corinthians that he will not use the sophistry (another word for wisdom, which we often use in a pejorative sense when false arguments are used) to persuade them to become believers, but will simply speak the truth to them. And this is the truth that Jesus Christ was crucified. This is a fact which runs counter to all the wisdom of this world, that a god should allow the mortals to crucify him (remember that crucifixion was reserved for the lowest of the low) was foolishness to the Greek and Roman world. So he explains it to the Corinthians:

I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he was seen by Cephas (Simon Peter), then by the twelve. After that he was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that he was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all he was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.3

Let us not then be deceived by the foolishness of the sophistry of this world and say in our hearts: There is no God. Rather let us believe the gospel which has been delivered to us that Chris died for our sins. Let us not be wise in our own minds, but receive the wisdom which comes from the fear of the Lord.

But let us also not forget that the study of this world is intended to lead us to God, not away from him for as David said:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the expanse shows his handiwork.
Day unto day utters speech, and night unto night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard.
Their sound has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.4

1 1 Corinthian 1:14-2:16
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. 16 Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect.
Christ the Power and Wisdom of God
18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Glory Only in the Lord
26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.
2 And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. 2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. 4 And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
Spiritual Wisdom
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:
Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.
10 But God has revealed them to us through his Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

2 Romans 1

3 1 Corinthians 15

4 Psalm 19

Rosalind Franklin

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

Congratulations to those who were recognised today by the Rosalind Franklin Society (LinkedIn and FB) among whom you will find the Professor Christine Moffatt

RFS Awards in Science Recognize Outstanding Contributions from Women and Minorities

https://www.rosalindfranklinsociety.org/rfs-awards-in-science-2023

We are thrilled to announce a new publication honouring the scientists receiving the 3rd Annual Rosalind Franklin Society Awards in Science!

In partnership with Mary Ann Liebert Inc., we launched this prestigious annual award in 2021. It recognizes the best paper by a woman or underrepresented minority in science in each of the publisher’s 100 peer-reviewed journals. Our goal is to highlight the important contributions of these scientists and provide role models and mentors for younger scientists following in their footsteps.

“Science, engineering, and technology, critical in a global society, are underappreciated and under attack at a time when extraordinary advances have been accomplished. We have seen the swift introduction of COVID-19 vaccines to quench a pandemic, the widespread introduction of metagenomics to improve human health, and intriguing applications of machine learning and artificial intelligence in the neurosciences. Yet, those who contribute to advances in knowledge and produce innovations that improve our lives do not receive the appropriate recognition and praise their discoveries merit. Nor appreciation of the dedication and perseverance that are the foundation of science and the hallmark of the scientist,” said Rita R. Colwell, PhD, President of the Rosalind Franklin Society, Director of the National Science Foundation (1998–2004), Distinguished Professor at the University of Maryland and Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, and Chair and Founder of CosmosID. “These outstanding individuals and their accomplishments make it clear that their talent cannot be overlooked, and their achievements can now be recognized fully. We salute them and their successes.”

The anthology includes a biography of each winner and an abstract of their selected work. A total of $100,000 has been allocated for these award winners. The book is a remarkable compendium of research in science, engineering, and medicine that has been accomplished by outstanding investigators who, early in their careers, were not considered “real” scientists, engineers, or medical researchers because they did not fit the stereotypical scientist, engineer, or physician role.

The RFS Awards in Science 2023 was produced with generous support from the Rita Allen Foundation, Lyda Hill Philanthropies, and Warren Alpert Foundation.

For interview requests, please contact Kathryn Ryan at the publisher. To obtain a copy of the anthology of the RFS Awards in Science 2023, please contact rfs@rosalindfranklinsociety.org. 

Anthology of the RFS Awards in Science 2023 

DNA

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

It is a wonder indeed. How complex is life! 160 billiard pairs in a single molecule. It is right that they wonder what the functions of all of its parts are. Having measured its length, the really hard work now comes when trying to identify the several different parts, and assessing their possible single or multiple functions. As they have said ‘[m]any plants have big genomes and scientists want to find out why’. One can but wish them success.

The BBC reported as much in their article World record broken for living thing with most DNA.

Is it true however that “[t]he genome is the complete set of DNA instructions within a cell containing all the information needed for a living thing to develop and grow”? We do not begin life with only DNA, we begin life as a complete cell, which contains the machinery required to read the DNA*. Does that machinery not also contain information which is not necessarily, and does not need to be, carried by the DNA? We have at least two complex independent, but interdependent, structures within our cells both of which carry the necessary information to enable them to interact with each other in the processes which sustain our life. It is a wonder indeed. One could wish that a mind such as Darwin’s had been introduced to these things, what difference that would have made to On the Origin of Species? Coco leaves the answer to that to better minds than his own.

But what a wonder life is: I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvellous are your works, and that my soul knows very well.

My frame was not hidden from you, when I was made in secret, and skilfully wrought in the womb, king David says in the 139th Psalm, I will praise you.

* Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition: Fertilization

See the paragraph: The Sperm Provides a Centriole for the Zygote [redacted here]

Once fertilized, the egg is called a zygote. Fertilization is not complete, however, until the two haploid nuclei (called pronuclei) have come together and combined their chromosomes into a single  diploid nucleus. In fertilized mammalian eggs, the two pronuclei do not fuse directly as they do in many other species. They approach each other but remain distinct until after the membrane of each pronucleus has broken down in preparation for the zygote’s first mitotic division (Figure 20-34).

Figure 20-34: The coming together of the sperm and egg pronuclei after mammalian fertilization.

The pronuclei migrate toward the center of the egg. When they come together, their nuclear envelopes interdigitate. The centrosome replicates, the nuclear envelopes break  down, and the chromosomes of both gametes are eventually integrated into a single mitotic spindle, which mediates the first cleavage division of the zygote. (Adapted from drawings and electron micrographs provided by Daniel Szöllösi.)

In most animals, including humans, the sperm contributes than DNA to the zygote. It also donates a centriole [Short cylindrical array of microtubules, closely similar in structure to a basal body. A pair of centrioles is usually found at the center of a centrosome in animal cells.] – an organelle [Membrane-enclosed compartment in a eucaryotic cell that has a distinct structure, macromolecular composition, and function. Examples are nucleus, mitochondrion, chloroplast, Golgi apparatus.] that is lacking in unfertilized human eggs. The sperm centriole enters the egg along with the sperm nucleus and tail and a centrosome forms around it. In humans, it replicates and helps organize the assembly of the first mitotic spindle in the zygote (Figure 20-35). This explains why multipolar or extra mitotic spindles form in cases of polyspermy, where several sperm contribute their centrioles to the egg.

Figure 20-35: Immunofluorescence micrographs of human sperm and egg pronuclei coming together after in vitro fertilization.

Spindle microtubules are stained in green with anti-tubulin antibodies, and DNA is labeled in blue with a DNA stain. (A) A meiotic spindle in a mature, unfertilized oocyte. (B) This fertilized egg is extruding its second polar body and is shown about 5 hours after fusion with a sperm. The sperm head (left) has nucleated an array of microtubules. (C) The two pronuclei have come together. (D) By 16 hours after fusion with a sperm, the centrosome that entered the egg with the sperm has duplicated, and the daughter centrosomes have organized a bipolar mitotic spindle. The chromosomes of both pronuclei are aligned at the metaphase plate of the spindle. As indicated by the arrows in (C) and (D), the sperm tail is associated with one of the centrosomes. (From C. Simerly et al., Nat. Med. 1:47–53, 1995. © Macmillan Magazines Ltd.)

Fertilization marks the beginning of one of the most remarkable phenomena in all of biology—the process of embryogenesis, in which the zygote develops into a new individual. This is the subject of the next chapter.

The prior section, though not relevant to this article, is rather interesting:

The Mechanism of Sperm – Egg Fusion Is Still Unknown

containing in the light of more recent controversies in its final paragraph the ominous sentences: As the cell biology of mammalian fertilization becomes better understood and the molecules that mediate the various steps in the process are defined, new strategies for contraception become possible. One approach currently being investigated, for example, is to immunize males or females with molecules that are required for reproduction in the hope that the antibodies produced will inhibit the activities of these molecules. 

Given that it was published in 2002 it can neither be accused of bias in relation to the present controversy not can it be represented as fake news.

– with apologies for the false spellings of uncertain words.

James Webb – multiverse fake

~ admin ~ 2 Comments

It was a fake image that prompted the concern:

Chris Gale and Barnard Van Loggernberg had commented on the image. Barnard in sublime praise of the God who made all things, and Chris with a reference to the erroneous understanding promulgated by our contemporary propogandists of atheist thought that “A belief is based on what you have been told and what you personally hold as true. A belief doesn’t need to be supported with factual evidence in order for it to exist and be powerful. In short, beliefs are not facts.”

A belief which does not rest upon evidence is nothing more than a dream. Our belief, and consequently our faith, in God rests upon the evidence of demonstrable historical facts not least of which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The multiverse hypothesis rests upon a quirk in our present ephemeral understanding of the physics of our universe which requires as a sine qua non that the other objects cannot be observed or detected, hence neither a proof nor a negation of the hypothesis is possible, We may therefore understand that there can never be found any evidence for the hypothesis, and therefore it is merely a dream.

Fake image - it should not be difficult to spot

It should not be difficult to spot the errors in the images….

The source is acknowledged, but to follow the link is not recommended.

JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE User: Astronomy Girl

Schrödinger

~ admin ~ 2 Comments

If you have have not read Schrödinger, read this first. As this is a disturbing and not an easy read, perhaps the BBC would be a little easier to grasp.


Schrödinger, The Elusive Intellectual Cat – An Oration
If you prefer to listen than read, you may do so here.

Warning:

This post contains material which may be difficult for those of a sensitive disposition to read and view. If you are likely to take offence at the site or sight of an iron maiden, then you are advised not to proceed but to press the back button on this webpage, to clear your cache, and remove any links to this page from your web-history. Please do not remove any links to the home page but retain them for future delectation and degustation.

If however you are you have understood Schrödinger, then you will understand that no felines have been hurt in the production of the image, which for the most part has been produced by artificial intelligence as instructed by the mind of Coco, which has a modicum of real, though still imaginary, intelligence, and if you have ever visited the Far Side you will also understand that the image is not an attempt to produce a pastiche of the works that you may find there. The skill, albeit aided by computer generated imagery, used in this production cannot match the skill of the artists on the far side, nor their ability to represent and interpret unlikely, but not impossible, social circumstances in a novel, and often bewildering, manner, so as to catch the readers and viewers off guard in their understanding of the words written and the images presented.

Finally, did you hear the radio presenter talking about Coltrain recently? He, in the generic sense, though a musician spoke of always listening to music as a listener and not as a musician. Coco thought that rather odd, because the only way you can listen to music is as a listener. You cannot listen to music as a spectator for the organs of spectacle are not susceptible to providing interpretable responses from the brain (except perhaps for those of allodynia), you must use the organs of hearing to understand the perturbations of pressure in the atmosphere which envelops you. Whether, if you are a musician, you are capable of laying aside your musicianship when listening to another musician is a moot point, but not relevant for there is no disagreement between being a listener who is not a musician and a listener who is, except perhaps when it comes to an interpretation or criticism of the performance to which the listening had been applied. Both the listening musician and the listening non-musician heard, and listened to, the same sounds.

Penultimately, yes, that should precede finally, but Coco now considers that Coco has written enough, though you may disagree and consider that Coco has written far more than necessary (Coco would not wish to disagree with you over your concluded opinion for then we would both waste much hot air, or finger energy should the discussion, debate, argument or conversation proceed in a written form over that which is of less than ephemeral interest to any of the readers of this page) and that this page may now be long enough to have prevented the image below from being viewed before you had read the warning above. If you have not read the warning, please return to the top of the page to read it. If you consider that it is safe to do so, you may proceed.

Please note that if you do proceed, you confirm that you have read the warning, have taken heed to it, and shall hold harmless Coco, his representatives, this website and anyone and everyone else should you suffer any feeling of offence after proceeding other than yourself. Furthermore, if you feel any sense of let down after proceeding, you also hold yourself responsible for following your fingers rather than your nose and your conscience and thus provoking the response within yourself.

You have been warned!

Kitty considered the position carefully and, despite her feline disposition, realised that whatever Schrödinger may have said, there was only one way she would come out of the box.

Anti-scientific?

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

It was a recommendation of and a listening to Professor Angus Dalgleish, physician, oncologist, pathologist, medical researcher and author that prompted the thoughts.

The Professor makes a good point. There is a lack of consensus in many areas of science, and perhaps especially true in the context of cosmological and the design of bio-chemical machines, where radically contrary views may be held by main-stream scientists, but who rise up together when anything approaching a Biblical perspective on the known facts is introduced to silence the proponents of what is an alternative and more credible explanation than their own. Even Coco’s use of the word design in the preceding sentence will provoke the ire of such opponents of the scientific method to which they pretend to adhere but abandon when it does not suit their ideology or philosophy.

It is difficult however for the layman to assess and test the different points of view and ultimately comes down the question, as Coco read elsewhere in a different context, ‘who are you prepared to believe?’ whilst at the same time keeping only a tenuous hold on the current scientific thinking, for as has been seen very clearly in the last 500 years at least, current scientific thinking can be rapidly overturned by a new and aberrant ‘fact’ or a new explanation for a well-known fact that had previously not been adequately explained.

What Coco would suggest however is that we should not believe those who seek only to silence the opposition and are not prepared to let you listen to any alternative presentation or explanation.

The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbour comes and examines him. Proverbs 18.17


Anti-scientific woke

A dangerous work(around)

~ admin ~ Leave a comment

You may have heard the expression: Rubbish in, rubbish out.

Forty years ago Coco used a early version of SuperCalc (SC2 – a spreadsheet like Excel for those who cannot remember) for the preparation of monthly reports under the operating system C/PM. It was ‘cutting’ edge at the time using simple lists of transactions which were converted into a report showing monthly, cumulative and projected figures against a flexible budget. Coco shall not go into the technical details of this. It was not many months before Coco noticed that the report sometimes did not balance.

How could that be? The original data was complete, and balanced. Careful examination of the code indicated that nothing had been left out. It was only when Coco had set the code to run step by step, updating the display at each step, that quite by accident the problem revealed itself. As you will know, and if you do not, ledger accounts have two sides, a debit (on the left) and a credit (on the right). The code identified separately each debit total and each credit total for every account. This is important for the grand total of the debits and the credits must agree. In order to obtain the balance on the account for the report, the difference between the debits and the credits on each account must be determined. That was a very simple action. Put the debits into column A, the credits into column B, calculate the balance in and pick it up from column C.

This is where the mistake occurred. As SuperCalc accepted the values in column B it erased the value in every 16th row, and only every sixteenth row, in column A.

It is said that, for a given set of inputs a computer will always give the same result. You may give it that set of inputs any number of times, nothing will ever be different. If something is different, then it you must look at the programme not the inputs.

Coco never found out what it was in the SuperCalc code that prompted it to do this, but it was consistent. The correct solution was to fix SuperCalc, but my solution was not to try to fix SuperCalc but to fix the data to work around the error. Coco added dummy accounts into the system, each of which would have no data assigned to them and would fall onto these 16th rows. After that the reports balanced. It was a concern however that there might be something else lying around which would creep up unawares. We found such things were lurking later, when the then victorious Excel now and again got an arithmetic calculation wrong. The problem is still with us today if we expect say +(1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1-0.1) to be 0, it is not quite zero.

So we consider the mRNA vaccine, where it is reported (Covid study: mRNA vaccines could be fine-tuned) that there is a one in three probability that the ribosome will incorrectly read the data held in the mRNA. The solution is, so they say, to use non-slip mRNA, which will eradicate the incorrect reading of the data. They speak of the data as code, and code it is, just as this note is itself written in an alphabetic code which we read with our eyes and interpret with our brains.

The data, the code, however is read (just as Coco’s data was read by the SuperCalc code) by a ribosome, which is itself a complex chemical machine with its own code that interacts with the data in the mRNA. If one in three times the reading of the data produces a different result it suggests that it is something in the ribosomes that are reading the data that is different. Changing the data may, as it did for Coco, skip the thing that we do not understand that actually makes the difference, but the thing we do not understand is still there waiting to catch us out in different circumstances.

There is another possibility. Coco mentioned above that a given set of inputs will always yield the same output. We have seen many situations in the electronic world where this did not seem to be the case. Careful examination showed however that the starting conditions, which we thought were identical were not. A prior process, which may or may not have taken place, influenced the results of the later inputs. There was, if you like, an unknown input over which we had no control, which changed the result. This was unlike Coco’s SuperCalc problem.

Should we not try to understand why the same set of data, the same code, produces different outcomes one in three times before we say we have fixed it? Coco did not fix his problem, Coco merely worked around it, not knowing what other problems may arise later. What is it that causes the ribosome to read the data ‘incorrectly’ one in three times? Or is it that it is the two in three times that it does what we want it to do that is the incorrect result?

The unintended result of the misreading, or possibly correct reading, of the mRNA is the production of a few unintended proteins. Coco thinks that the implication is ‘harmless’ proteins, but that is not actually said. So the workaround is to change the mRNA, the data, in such a way that the ribosome will always read the data as we want it to: but do we understand why it read the original data in two different ways, not just occasionally but quite regularly? What else was going on? What was the unknown input that caused the data to be read in either of the two different ways? We have not addressed that, have we?

To address the matter with a workaround in the data is both reckless and negligent. When Coco used a workaround, he was only dealing with the reporting of how money gathered and how it had been used, the reporting is important, yes, but mRNA affects people’s lives.

International Lymphoedema Framework – Uganda Framework

~ admin ~ 1 Comment

There is excitement in the world as the ILF begins an epidemiological (for those of you who do not understand that word, let Coco stand alongside you) study to ascertain the prevalence of lymphoedema in Uganda.

It is well known that lymphatic filariasis is endemic in tropical countries, alongside other mosquito borne diseases, but the real extent of the problem and its expression among the people is not properly understood.

Lymphatic filariasis is only one of the causes of lymphoedema in East Africa, all of the other causes, whether primary or secondary are also present, though the mix will be different than in Europe, and other parts of the world.

The International Lymphoedema Framework, through its chairman, has provided funding for the study which will be lead by Dr Arthur Bagonza of Makerere University in two districts in the village regions of Uganda.

Basic training in the identification of three stages of progression of the disease has been completed in Kampala this week and the lead field workers are ready to take the tool out into the field to complete their survey. Dr S Narahari of the IAD, India, and Professor Christine Moffatt will act as referees to confirm or vary the stage assessments made by the field workers.

The survey will assess the numbers and proportion of individuals in the community affected together with the impact of the disease upon the quality of life of the sufferers. The results will be used to inform the Ministry of Health, who have given their unqualified support to the study, in the allocation of resources to combat the problem and relieve the suffering.

Dr Arthur with Dr Alfred Mubangizi, Assistant Commissioner Health Services – Vector Borne and Neglected Tropical Diseases, Ministry of Health with the rest of the team who attended the inaugural meeting.

The Ugandan framework, lead by Dr Arthur Boganza and Lydia Kabili, is a newly formed framework within the International Lymphoedema Framework and benefits from a longstanding relationship with Prof. Linda Gibson and Makerere University.