Comments for BIOpinionated

Comment on Honors to …. by sciphu

sciphu — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 14:42:50 +0000

Yes, but by using technology to heal – how are you going to avoid making better and better replacements, by prohibiting this technology ? What are the alternatives ? Besides what we define as disease is changing, – as you know even failure to conceive is considered a disease even though many would define that as “normal”. Also, when we grow older – our bodily functions deteriorate (in a normal fashion), you wouldn’t tell an old lady to lay off those artificial hips just because you do not consider her “sick” would you. Transhumanism is about giving everyone the possibility and the right to define their own “normal”. And to live as long as possible with all functions intact or improved. You misunderstand if you think it is about pushing everyone into becoming super-humans. That in the future, we will all have the possibility to become super-humans is the goal, but the coercion thing is something you put on top to distort things.

Comment on Honors to …. by Rebecca Taylor

Rebecca Taylor — Mon, 02 Jan 2012 19:43:16 +0000

I certainly do not oppose using technology to “heal disease and improve health.” But that is not transhumanism and you know it. Transhumanism is taking a perfectly good limb and replacing it with an artificial one. Transhumansim is genetically engineering otherwise healthy individuals to have abilities no natural human has It is disingenuous to pretend that transhumanism is only about healing the sick and fixing the broken because it is really about taking normal healthy individuals and making them something other than human. Hence the term “transhumanism.” Trans meaning “beyond” so “beyond human.” That is not medicine. That is something entirely different.

Comment on A tribute to Dr. Sergio Stagnaro, – consider yourself warned… by Stavros Saripanidis

Stavros Saripanidis — Sat, 13 Aug 2011 19:52:13 +0000

His claims are worth investigating.

This Doctor has published hundreds of articles, over the years, in prestigious medical journals explaining his clinical approach.

Is it possible that no one ever decided to perform a randomized double-blind trial?

Thousands of scientists work investigating the effect of cancer on the sexual life of small animals worldwide.

How come nobody is interested in investigating Dr Stagnaro’s method of predicting early, diabetes, cancer and cardiovascular disease?

Comment on Warfarin Pharmacogenetics: The Biochemistry by Vitamin K Coumadin | Medicine Blog

Vitamin K Coumadin | Medicine Blog — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:48:03 +0000

[...] The enzyme Vitamin K-epoxide biopinionated.com [...]

Comment on Warfarin Pharmacogenetics: The Biochemistry by Vitamink Warfarin | Medicine Blog

Vitamink Warfarin | Medicine Blog — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 07:47:02 +0000

[...] The enzyme Vitamin K-epoxide biopinionated.com [...]

Comment on Warfarin Pharmacogenetics: The Biochemistry by Vitamin K And Warfarin | Medicine Blog

Vitamin K And Warfarin | Medicine Blog — Sat, 26 Mar 2011 05:32:25 +0000

[...] The enzyme Vitamin K-epoxide biopinionated.com [...]

Comment on More crap from the junkies by Sharron Clemons

Sharron Clemons — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:18:53 +0000

sciphu, On the one hand, you state: “I do not think there’s little or no “junk” at all.” I interpret this to mean that you agree there is a significant amount of “junk DNA” in, e.g., mammalian genomes. Yes? But then you say you feel the term “junk” is misplaced. Would calling it “non-functional DNA” address your concern? Or is your concern that, even if we’re sure that big parts of our genome are “junk,” we can’t be sure whether any particular bit is really junk? In any case, I think we’re all in agreement that small bits of what we previously thought was junk is actually functional. My objection (and Dr. Moran’s, I think) is when people cite that data as an indication that most or all “junk” DNA is actually functional.

Comment on Hammering nails in the “junk-DNA” coffin by Eindeloos typende apen - GeenCommentaar

Eindeloos typende apen - GeenCommentaar — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 01:46:49 +0000

[...] nogal denigrerend ook wel junk DNA genoemd. Hoewel over de precieze rol van dit niet-coderend DNA het laatste woord nog niet gezegd is, lijken typfouten in dergelijk junk-DNA – zo is de huidige wetenschappelijke consensus [...]

Comment on More crap from the junkies by Allan Miller

Allan Miller — Wed, 26 May 2010 15:33:49 +0000

The explanation for most of the genome, BTW? The debris of infection. Many selfish genetic elements are STDs spreading through meiosis; retroviral insertions the equivalent of smallpox scars.

Sex is a marvellous way to spread for parasites internal and external (see Burt & Trivers’ excellent Genes in Conflict). Baterial transposons exist, of course, by jumping ahead of the replication fork, but dead weight is more highly selected in their ecological world. It costs us a tiny fraction of our lifetime needs to replicate in our germ line. There is an eventual interplay with selection, but the ceiling is higher in the eukaryote.

Comment on More crap from the junkies by Allan

Allan — Wed, 26 May 2010 08:58:51 +0000

Since we have reasons to divide DNA into discrete classes (functional/non-functional; coding/regulatory, etc), there is no sensible naming system that can anticipate a misappellation. It’s reminiscent of some of the problems of taxonomy. “Provisionally non-functional” would be cumbersome … and a synonym of the commonly-used ‘junk’. How big that set ‘really’ is is another matter. My own bet is >90%, but I’ve been wrong before.