Epigenetic modifications

[David T]

That is an interesting comparison.



The red part is a fresh way of understanding how the so called meme (to borrow a term) of "random chance" came about.

I personally do not deny that "random chance" is a big factor, because we are mostly automatons, having lost the view of intelligent self.The "random chance" surely plays a big role. Yet, how can we deny the role of intentions?

I cannot also understand as to why some self acknowledged automatons, like (for example) Dawkins, became so intelligent? Has god specially endowed him?

Dawkins certainly believes so!!! He is a product of an institution that attacks the institution that created the institution. He clearly understands nothing of history thus he has no understanding of evolution he is only aware of it!!! I can be aware of something project onto it and "believe" I understand it. I then came create a narrative, others agree, and then together we create a narrative reality intellectually in projection onto nature. Dawkins is the bully priest in new clothes. I always visualise his nonsense standing at the bs pulpit with a statue of mary behind him and he going on and on how stupid she is. He is a professor Imeritus at St Mary's.the man has not spent a second out in nature, but he certainly has read a lot of books about nature. There is no such thing as believers, atheists, or agnostics in the wilderness. They only exist in the zoo.

 

[Crystalline]

Epigenetics is a very interesting subject for me and I am curious as to why there is a focus on Lamarc from the 1700s instead of Dr. Bruce Lipton's extensive research that is very current. Epigenetics is a profound new insight as to why we get ill and how we can heal ourselves by changing our thoughts. This is not a new concept however Lipton's work inadvertently proved scientifically it is true. Lipton's work in cancer research and why organ donations are rejected revealed what controls the body processes is not in the body. Most illnesses are a manifestation of how we perceive our situations. IMO, we are ill and to get well, we have to rise to our next highest spiritual level. There's tons of information on youtube about Dr. Bruce Lipton's findings, with the scientific mechanics as to how it works.

 

[Sapiens]

Epigenetics is a very interesting subject for me and I am curious as to why there is a focus on Lamarc from the 1700s instead of Dr. Bruce Lipton's extensive research that is very current. Epigenetics is a profound new insight as to why we get ill and how we can heal ourselves by changing our thoughts. This is not a new concept however Lipton's work inadvertently proved scientifically it is true. Lipton's work in cancer research and why organ donations are rejected revealed what controls the body processes is not in the body. Most illnesses are a manifestation of how we perceive our situations. IMO, we are ill and to get well, we have to rise to our next highest spiritual level. There's tons of information on youtube about Dr. Bruce Lipton's findings, with the scientific mechanics as to how it works.

It might be because Bruce Lipton's a certified waca-doodle.

 

[Crystalline]

It might be because Bruce Lipton's a certified waca-doodle.

Sapiens, people at the highest levels of scientific research hired Dr. Lipton to lead multimillion dollar programs to find cures for cancer and ways to make organ donations more securely accepted by the recipient. What is the logic for an esteemed organization to hire a crazy person for such a project? He must have credentials and a reputation to make him worth leading such an enormous investment. His results indicating a primary focus on a cost effective approach and less to do with a pharmacological patented one indicates he is loyal to his scientific work instead of corporate greed. If you check out his work he explains the scientific mechanics as to why it works and I haven't seen anyone in high regards challenging his findings.
Hindsight shows it is common sense. Most doctor claim many of their patients have stress related illnesses. Our vocabulary expresses this too... what is it that is eating at you, what is a pain in your neck, what is it you can't stomach, did something break your heart, and think about what made your blood boil. Subconsciously we knew it all along.
Mystics knew changing the way we think to cure mental and physical dis-ease worked but didn't understand the scientific mechanics as to why it did. Dr. Lipton wasn't looking to prove this in his research and was actually surprised to discover it

 

[Sapiens]

Sapiens, people at the highest levels of scientific research hired Dr. Lipton to lead multimillion dollar programs to find cures for cancer and ways to make organ donations more securely accepted by the recipient.

I can find no support for this claim, would please list the grants, source and resultant publications for these "multimillion dollar programs" that you believe he lead?

What is the logic for an esteemed organization to hire a crazy person for such a project?

I can find no evidence of any his leading such a project. His C.V. shows a promising career in its way up from 1966 to 1982 when for some reason he is sidetracked into a third tier unaccredited medical school with no research facilities. This is quite odd and would lead one to look for a personal "life crisis" at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine in 1982 (Lipton says that sometime in the 1980s he abandoned his lifelong atheism and came to believe that the way cells functioned demonstrated the existence of God). After he returns to the states in 1987 he never recovers his former stride and goes through a number of RA and visiting positions and adjunct positions at low tier schools ending up part time at three Chiropractic College of somewhat tenuous repute.

He must have credentials and a reputation to make him worth leading such an enormous investment.

That may be, but it appears to have never happened.

His results indicating a primary focus on a cost effective approach and less to do with a pharmacological patented one indicates he is loyal to his scientific work instead of corporate greed.

That's nice, if true, however his approaches to these issues are base on quackery, the idea that genes and DNA can be manipulated by a person's beliefs.

If you check out his work he explains the scientific mechanics as to why it works and I haven't seen anyone in high regards challenging his findings.

Then you did not look very hard, here's surgical oncologist David Gorski (an American surgical oncologist, Professor of surgery at Wayne State University School of Medicine, and a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, specializing in breast cancer surgery): Epigenetics: It doesn’t mean what quacks think it means

Hindsight shows it is common sense. Most doctor claim many of their patients have stress related illnesses. Our vocabulary expresses this too... what is it that is eating at you, what is a pain in your neck, what is it you can't stomach, did something break your heart, and think about what made your blood boil. Subconsciously we knew it all along.

Gee ... what powerful science you quote. Was this shown by statistically rigorous double blind test or is this the summation of your best stab at common sense?

Mystics knew changing the way we think to cure mental and physical dis-ease worked but didn't understand the scientific mechanics as to why it did. Dr. Lipton wasn't looking to prove this in his research and was actually surprised to discover it

There is no question that your state of mind is coupled to your ability to heal and the may be good evolutionary reason for this, but there is no evidence that Lipton's central claim: that genes and DNA can be manipulated by a person's beliefs, has any credible basis. According to Katherine Ellison, in New Age or "New Biology"? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Vol. 8, No. 2. p. 112.

"Lipton remains on the sidelines of conventional discussions of epigenetics. Mainstream science has basically ignored him."​

 

[Crystalline]

I can find no support for this claim, would please list the grants, source and resultant publications for these "multimillion dollar programs" that you believe he lead?

Sapien, I apologize for the delay in responding, as I am new and just found these notifications in my spam. I have rectified that now.

Thank you for the information Sapien. I admit I am shocked at the widespread derogatory claims about Bruce Lipton on the web. Much of my information came from videos, which he was the speaker, and perhaps the claims I made of him were more of what I felt the information indicated rather than what was actually said.

Even though there aren't the sources sited I had expected, I think your main issue is somehow a religious correlation you have associated with him and his work. I see no need for that connection, as he was an atheist when he discovered this, and his theory doesn't call for one to believe in any deity. Because Lipton later claimed to now believe in spirituality may be a reason staunch atheists have preconceived notions, causing them to automatically look for only perspectives that dismiss his theory.... similar to what the religious right does regarding claims by atheist when they think it supports the idea there is no God.

I suppose these science forums are probably dominated by atheists? I try to be open minded, and I assure you my intentions have nothing to do with promoting a belief in Gods/Goddesses or anything of that ilk.

Here are some sources of those in the community that financially support Lipton's direction in their research and some information on some of his experience. Albeit, the source for his background info is from his own site, so it puts him in a more positive light, yet it is probably true.

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2007/01/17/498371/hbcfawardsinvite.pdf

I listed a claim from the following site, below the link:

https://www.brucelipton.com/about

"joining the Department of Anatomy at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine in 1973. Dr. Lipton’s research on muscular dystrophy, studies employing cloned human stem cells, focused upon the molecular mechanisms controlling cell behavior. An experimental tissue transplantation technique developed by Dr. Lipton and colleague Dr. Ed Schultz and published in the journal Science was subsequently employed as a novel form of human genetic engineering."

Lipton's theory isn't so much concerned with what someone believes, but how they feel. Even so, what anyone believes affects the way they feel, yet it can also be a belief of which they are totally unaware. Rather, one is conscious of their beliefs or not, they effect their health. Bruce Lipton claims there are switches on the genes that can get turned on through one's feelings from the belief, which probably release hormones that set it all in motion.

Researching this online, I found lots of information to support your beliefs effect your health, yet I wanted to present you some of the most credible sources I could find on the first couple pages. The correlation between beliefs/emotions and health seems to be well accepted, and Lipton simply claims to have found the biological mechanisms in which it works. Below I sited claims to support this from Berkley, lots from Mayo but I only posted one site of theirs, and the same with Harvard, which I also only posted one of several.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_positive_emotions_improve_our_health

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/positive-thinking/art-20043950

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/anxiety_and_physical_illness

IMO, this theory has roots all the way back to ancient times. Louise Hay, Mary Baker Eddy, and even in the Bible, and I know those I've just listed have religious affiliations so in this arena, it probably hurts my position rather than help it. Even so, the Bible has a strong correlation to Egypt and I could surmise this came from Egypt too. Ancient people were far more sensitive to identifying internal states, as in the mudras from India.

Sapien, when you are emotionally distressed, depressed, have anxiety, for an ongoing period of time, can you tell it takes a toll on your health? We've subconsciously developed a lot of our expressions around this epigenetics concept given by Bruce Lipton, like what is eating at you, who is your pain in your neck, or what is your gut telling you, and I wonder why that is?

 

[Sapiens]

Sapien, I apologize for the delay in responding, as I am new and just found these notifications in my spam. I have rectified that now.

Thank you for the information Sapien. I admit I am shocked at the widespread derogatory claims about Bruce Lipton on the web.

That is because he is a quack. He may be a nice guy, he may help little old ladies across the street, he may lend his name to groups that do good work, but when it comes to science, he is a quack.

Much of my information came from videos, which he was the speaker, and perhaps the claims I made of him were more of what I felt the information indicated rather than what was actually said.

That is an explanation but not an excuse.

Even though there aren't the sources sited I had expected, I think your main issue is somehow a religious correlation you have associated with him and his work. I see no need for that connection, as he was an atheist when he discovered this, and his theory doesn't call for one to believe in any deity.

The problem is that he is a quack. His science is no damn good.

I suppose these science forums are probably dominated by atheists? I try to be open minded, and I assure you my intentions have nothing to do with promoting a belief in Gods/Goddesses or anything of that ilk.

I don't know what your intentions are, but lining up behind Lipton makes you a quack also.

Here are some sources of those in the community that financially support Lipton's direction in their research and some information on some of his experience. Albeit, the source for his background info is from his own site, so it puts him in a more positive light, yet it is probably true.

http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2007/01/17/498371/hbcfawardsinvite.pdf

That's helping little old ladies across the street not performing respectable scientific inquiry.

I listed a claim from the following site, below the link:

https://www.brucelipton.com/about

"joining the Department of Anatomy at the University of Wisconsin’s School of Medicine in 1973. Dr. Lipton’s research on muscular dystrophy, studies employing cloned human stem cells, focused upon the molecular mechanisms controlling cell behavior. An experimental tissue transplantation technique developed by Dr. Lipton and colleague Dr. Ed Schultz and published in the journal Science was subsequently employed as a novel form of human genetic engineering."

That was prior to his apparent breakdown and inability to hold down an academic position.

Lipton's theory isn't so much concerned with what someone believes, but how they feel.

But ... that's not epigenetics.

Even so, what anyone believes affects the way they feel, yet it can also be a belief of which they are totally unaware. Rather, one is conscious of their beliefs or not, they effect their health.

But ... that's not epigenetics.

Bruce Lipton claims there are switches on the genes that can get turned on through one's feelings from the belief, which probably release hormones that set it all in motion.

That is his claim, made with no actual scientific support.

Researching this online, I found lots of information to support your beliefs effect your health, yet I wanted to present you some of the most credible sources I could find on the first couple pages. The correlation between beliefs/emotions and health seems to be well accepted, and Lipton simply claims to have found the biological mechanisms in which it works. Below I sited claims to support this from Berkley, lots from Mayo but I only posted one site of theirs, and the same with Harvard, which I also only posted one of several.

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_positive_emotions_improve_our_health

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/stress-management/in-depth/positive-thinking/art-20043950

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/anxiety_and_physical_illness

IMO, this theory has roots all the way back to ancient times. Louise Hay, Mary Baker Eddy, and even in the Bible, and I know those I've just listed have religious affiliations so in this arena, it probably hurts my position rather than help it. Even so, the Bible has a strong correlation to Egypt and I could surmise this came from Egypt too. Ancient people were far more sensitive to identifying internal states, as in the mudras from India.

But ... that's not epigenetics.

Sapien, when you are emotionally distressed, depressed, have anxiety, for an ongoing period of time, can you tell it takes a toll on your health? We've subconsciously developed a lot of our expressions around this epigenetics concept given by Bruce Lipton, like what is eating at you, who is your pain in your neck, or what is your gut telling you, and I wonder why that is?

But ... that's not epigenetics.

 

[Crystalline]

That is because he is a quack. He may be a nice guy, he may help little old ladies across the street, he may lend his name to groups that do good work, but when it comes to science, he is a quack.
That is an explanation but not an excuse.
The problem is that he is a quack. His science is no damn good.

Sapien, I never meant it as an excuse but an admission of error on my part. I concede I lacked critical analysis of his credentials and assumed things that appear to be over reaching. Sincerely, thank you for enlightening me. However, even you admit he has had some valid accomplishments in his career. Further, it seems you could consider he may be a nice guy that would help old ladies cross the street, so even “if” his theory is wrong, it was probably done unintentionally with no devious scheme.

[QUOTE/]I don't know what your intentions are, but lining up behind Lipton makes you a quack also.
That's helping little old ladies across the street not performing respectable scientific inquiry.[/QUOTE]

I’m not sure I’m unequivocally aligning with Lipton on epigenetic, but we now know beliefs are effecting our health issues. I am willing to entertain why his epigenetic theory may be flawed in regards to what flips the switch in genes to make a gene express a specific phenotype, but his theory on beliefs instigating the process seems logical since there is some strong correlation…. excluding any deity input, of course.

[QUOTE/]That was prior to his apparent breakdown and inability to hold down an academic position.[/QUOTE]

Herein lies my issue. Bruce Lipton has had some acclaimed accomplishments as an atheist. There are clearly at least three different camps of scientists. One tends to instantly reject any assertion with connections to religious views, another tends to do the opposite, and there are those willing to judge it on its merit regardless of any person’s spiritual affiliation or lack thereof. The first two camps have hampered scientific research, as with Copernicus / Galileo’s solar system to initially rejecting the Big Bang because it was too much like the Bible. IMO, it seems Bruce Lipton’s spiritual epiphany has scared the first camp, and atheists’ preconceived dispositions only allow them to dismiss his theories now that he claims a spiritual conversion. The sites claiming to debunk Lipton’s theory all seem to be skeptics or nonbelievers of spirituality of any kind. Lipton may have pierced into a new level of understanding and to disregard it based primarily on an associated spiritual epiphany while doing his research would be unfortunate if his personal epiphany has no bearing on it. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE/]But ... that's not epigenetics.
But ... that's not epigenetics.
That is his claim, made with no actual scientific support.
But ... that's not epigenetics.
But ... that's not epigenetics.[/QUOTE]

It is an epigenetic claim if one theorizes there is so much of a correlation between a belief / feeling and the following expression of a phenotype that it probably plays a part in flipping the genetic switch. IMO, this does nothing to discredit natural adaptation and selection as a way to flip a genetic switch also, and even then it would be difficult to know if feelings actually impact that process also.

You call Lipton a quack, but what makes Lamarck’s theories of the early 1800s more compelling than Lipton’s more current and scientifically explicit one? Darwin even rejected much of Lamarck’s work. Lipton never claims a belief to consciously direct a gene to flip its switch off to stop its expressed phenotype, but that changing how one believes something else indirectly makes it happen.

 

[Sapiens]

Sapien, I never meant it as an excuse but an admission of error on my part. I concede I lacked critical analysis of his credentials and assumed things that appear to be over reaching.

Thank you for your honesty.

Sincerely, thank you for enlightening me. However, even you admit he has had some valid accomplishments in his career.

His early years were normal, his later years bizarre, they seem to be separated by a shift from doing respectable science to doing crap and hanging with weirdos. You can call it a rebirth in Christ if you want but all evidence point to a mental breakdown.

Further, it seems you could consider he may be a nice guy that would help old ladies cross the street, so even “if” his theory is wrong, it was probably done unintentionally with no devious scheme.

Motivation is not the issue, quality of science is. He has no scientific cred, and the weirdos he hangs with have no scientific cred either.

I’m not sure I’m unequivocally aligning with Lipton on epigenetic, but we now know beliefs are effecting our health issues.

I think you meant "affecting" rather than "effecting.

Once again, Lipton is not studying epigenetics, he's looking at the effect of endorphin levels (whether he realizes it or not). I'll not bore you with the entire rap but it is rather easy to see that people who are depressed are naturally selected against and people that are happy with low stress are naturally selected for. Now, that's no so hard to see, is it?

I am willing to entertain why his epigenetic theory may be flawed in regards to what flips the switch in genes to make a gene express a specific phenotype, but his theory on beliefs instigating the process seems logical since there is some strong correlation…. excluding any deity inp .ut, of course.

But to be epigenetics it must be flipping the switch for offspring ... a case that Lipton is not making.

Herein lies my issue. Bruce Lipton has had some acclaimed accomplishments as an atheist.

Yup. But as a believer he turned into a troubled person doing crappy work, or perhaps he tuned into a troubled person doing crappy work and then became a Christian ... it would be interesting to know which/

There are clearly at least three different camps of scientists. One tends to instantly reject any assertion with connections to religious views, another tends to do the opposite, and there are those willing to judge it on its merit regardless of any person’s spiritual affiliation or lack thereof.

No. There are many scientists who are also practicing thiests, Francisco J. Ayala (whom I took classes from), Robert T. Bakker (a friend and fellow fellow of the Explorers Club, Kenneth R. Miller (biology professor at Brown University) and Mary Higby Schweitzer (paleontologist at North Carolina State University), to name a few. But none of these believers have stepped over the line into the miasma of hawking false hope, fake cures and crap science in the name of God.

The first two camps have hampered scientific research, as with Copernicus / Galileo’s solar system to initially rejecting the Big Bang because it was too much like the Bible. IMO, it seems Bruce Lipton’s spiritual epiphany has scared the first camp, and atheists’ preconceived dispositions only allow them to dismiss his theories now that he claims a spiritual conversion. The sites claiming to debunk Lipton’s theory all seem to be skeptics or nonbelievers of spirituality of any kind. Lipton may have pierced into a new level of understanding and to disregard it based primarily on an associated spiritual epiphany while doing his research would be unfortunate if his personal epiphany has no bearing on it.

Lipton is no Galileo and the situations are far from analogous. What's more, Galileo was right and science bore him out against the theists, Katherine Ellison writing in New Age or "New Biology"? (Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Vol. 8, No. 2. p. 112.) noted that: "Lipton remains on the sidelines of conventional discussions of epigenetics. Mainstream science has basically ignored him."

It is an epigenetic claim if one theorizes there is so much of a correlation between a belief / feeling and the following expression of a phenotype that it probably plays a part in flipping the genetic switch.

No. It is an epigenetic claim if one theorizes there is so much of a correlation between a belief / feeling and the following expression of a change in the genotype of succeeding generations. That's not the same thing.

IMO, this does nothing to discredit natural adaptation and selection as a way to flip a genetic switch also, and even then it would be difficult to know if feelings actually impact that process also.

Actually the experiment would not be all that hard, but the human subjects committee might not like it.

You call Lipton a quack, but what makes Lamarck’s theories of the early 1800s more compelling than Lipton’s more current and scientifically explicit one?

They were/are both quacks, but Lamarck was operating in a world that had far less information already on the shelf. Lipton should know better, and kid with a half hour in a decent library or access to wiki should know better.

Darwin even rejected much of Lamarck’s work. Lipton never claims a belief to consciously direct a gene to flip its switch off to stop its expressed phenotype, but that changing how one believes something else indirectly makes it happen.

Consciousness is not the issue, epigenetics is. Lipton is not proposing epigenetics, but rather just "feel good medicine" with a passel of technical terms thrown in for cover. HE IS A QUACK!

 

[Crystalline]

His early years were normal, his later years bizarre, they seem to be separated by a shift from doing respectable science to doing crap and hanging with weirdos. You can call it a rebirth in Christ if you want but all evidence point to a mental breakdown.

Sapiens, if his early years were normal, yet his later years were bizarre and evidence points to a mental breakdown, then why did he become so much more popular in his later years? What indicates he had a mental breakdown? Please avoid siting his new found spirituality.

I don't see where Lipton correlates spirituality and its affects on gene mutations. Clearly the evolving fish that crawled out of the ocean was due to something other than a spiritual epiphany.

But to be epigenetics it must be flipping the switch for offspring ... a case that Lipton is not making.

That weighs heavily in your favor. Again, I concede I had thought epigenetics was about changing genetic material, not necessarily passed onto offspring. I did read in Wikipedia, omitting the mutated gene as being generational was a ploy done by quacks in the epigenetic field. I am surprised that would be accepted into Wikipedia. It seems more respectable to refer to it as a point where their claims were missing a key component and leave their opinions out of it. And that is my opinion.

Epigenetics is a new science. Clearly natural adaption and selection is widely accepted. I understand this is based on a genetic mutation that improves their ability to survive and can be a slow progressive process as a species further adapts to exploit their environment.

Therefore, it seems Lipton's theory could still be applicable to that process. When a gene mutates by flipping a switch (possibly to varying degrees) in a male's genetic material, do we know that this mutation is not passed to the next generation by the sperm generated after that change? Further, do we know the altering of switches are not happening gestational in tandem to them happening with the mother? Once the genetic material becomes a zygote, can the mother have an affect on it as hers is simultaneously changing? The genetic material is very versatile in the beginning. It seems plausible any adjustment in that switch could be a contribution to the next generation by those means.

But none of these believers have stepped over the line into the miasma of hawking false hope, fake cures and crap science in the name of God.

First, I have seen no statement about God as necessary for Lipton's theory. Let's forget about that part. Putting the epigenetic perspective aside too for a moment, his claims are not original, go back millenniums, and have been endorsed by a huge group of people. Call it the placebo affect or whatever, but there are many that attest to its profound results. I use to think of it as craziness until a choice to try it became a worthwhile effort. Since then, it has worked over and over. Hypnotherapists use an affect bridge to locate the initial synthesizing event causing a health condition to manifest. Resolving the discovered issue, healing often happens very quickly. Sometimes a few sessions are needed.

No scientific studies are done because no one has any monetary gain from such an expensive endeavor. If it could be patented, we'd see it in widespread use.

Lipton is no Galileo and the situations are far from analogous.

I had no intention of equating Galileo with Lipton. The analogy was with the religious people denying Galileo's claims because they thought is wasn't Biblically based and what an error that was! Even so, many atheist oriented scientists denied the Big Bang at first, claiming it was too much like the Bible's account. Another error from the other extreme, both based on preconceived ideas concerning God.

Lipton should know better, and kid with a half hour in a decent library or access to wiki should know better.

Other than an omission of his changed genetic material being hereditary, and I concede that is a big one, what is wrong with his science in the mutation of the gene by emotions? Although I don't recall his videos asserting it is generational, he might be inferring it and / or labeling it as such to promote research in that vein of thought... even if not commonly done.

As for your statement about "any" kid in the library.... etc., the insinuation is noticed, duly noted, perhaps well deserved. However, it would have to be a very intelligent kid to garnish such an overall understanding of epigenetics in a half hour, recall all the details, and to then discern there was no intent by Lipton to use its implications in a generational sense. Some of us were not lucky enough to be born with such an aptitude. Therefore, I would have to bring your word "any" (kid) into question.

Consciousness is not the issue, epigenetics is.

Especially with all the theories in quantum mechanics concerning consciousness, how do you know epigenetics and consciousness are exclusive of each other? It seems there is a wave of possibilities that collapses onto one event. A popular belief is that consciousness can be a strong contributor to a specific event being chosen.

 

[atanu]

'Woo' word is the favourite word of those who think that TOE is totally blind. But what about their insight? Blindly generated but vey insightful. Anyway. Epigenetic research is gaining acceptance.

Epigenetics Research News