Re: The Wonder of Body Cells... Revisited

[HVAC]

On 10/10/2012 3:37 AM, Painius wrote:
>
> It's a fascinating idea, to be sure. I've read that biologists have
> isolated the cellular mechanism, which is like a little tail on the
> end of the DNA molecule, that dictates whether or not the cell is
> immortal, or it will perish after 53 cell divisions.
>
> Each time a cell undergoes the mitotic division, that little tail gets
> just a little bit shorter in each of the daughter cells. When the
> tail disappears, the cell divisions are over - they have come to an
> end.


Why?

Why do you suppose evolution would make it that way?







PS- Know this and the meaning of life becomes clear










--
"OK you cunts, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girl
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo .. 变亮
http://www.richardgingras.com/tia/images/tia_logo_large.jpg

[HVAC]

On 10/10/2012 8:22 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> I relate cancer cells to killer bees. Person that gets cancer is
> unlucky,so it falls into the uncertainty principle. It is rare when
> cells go uncontroled. I like to think with structues,but cells with
> molecules like ATP.make it impossible fo me. Just knowing that the
> ATP molecule cells use up 80 lb. of it every day((WOW) Feel the
> warmth of your skin. That's your ATP at work. Yes I know what ATP
> stands for,but you can look it up. Could not spell it, that's fo
> sure. Well how cells give instuctions has to be amazing. Post that
> next time TeBet


Never before in human history has one man put so much misinformation and
stupidity into one paragraph. You deserve a Nobel for this, Bert.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/10/2012 9:30 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 3:37 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> It's a fascinating idea, to be sure. I've read that biologists have
>> isolated the cellular mechanism, which is like a little tail on the
>> end of the DNA molecule, that dictates whether or not the cell is
>> immortal, or it will perish after 53 cell divisions.
>>
>> Each time a cell undergoes the mitotic division, that little tail gets
>> just a little bit shorter in each of the daughter cells. When the
>> tail disappears, the cell divisions are over - they have come to an
>> end.
>
>
> Why?
>
> Why do you suppose evolution would make it that way?

So your idea is "random chance" made it that way? Why do you suppose
God made it that way?

> PS- Know this and the meaning of life becomes clear

Now, that statement is correct.

[bja...@iwaynet.net]

On 10/10/2012 9:33 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 8:22 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>>
>>
>> I relate cancer cells to killer bees. Person that gets cancer is
>> unlucky,so it falls into the uncertainty principle. It is rare when
>> cells go uncontroled. I like to think with structues,but cells with
>> molecules like ATP.make it impossible fo me. Just knowing that the
>> ATP molecule cells use up 80 lb. of it every day((WOW) Feel the
>> warmth of your skin. That's your ATP at work. Yes I know what ATP
>> stands for,but you can look it up. Could not spell it, that's fo
>> sure. Well how cells give instuctions has to be amazing. Post that
>> next time TeBet
>
>
> Never before in human history has one man put so much misinformation and
> stupidity into one paragraph. You deserve a Nobel for this, Bert.

Will you PLEASE set poor ignorant TreeBert straight, HVAC?

Explain to him that cancer isn't some act of "luck" but a
well-understood disease for which the cure has LONG been well known.

Explain to him how his "mafia" finds cancer just too useful a tool of
social and political control (not to mention money stealing) to allow
any such information out to the public.

HVAC, will you please explain that all to him?

Thank you.

[G=EMC^2]

On Oct 10, 2:37 pm, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

> Thank you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

That is GOP Mafia. They kill for a buck. Live long enough and you
catch everything. Luck plays a big part in life. It is two sides to a
coin .TreBert

[HVAC]

On 10/10/2012 3:14 PM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>>> Never before in human history has one man put so much misinformation and
>>> stupidity into one paragraph. You deserve a Nobel for this, Bert.
>>
>> Will you PLEASE set poor ignorant TreeBert straight, HVAC?
>>
>> Explain to him that cancer isn't some act of "luck" but a
>> well-understood disease for which the cure has LONG been well known.
>>
>> Explain to him how his "mafia" finds cancer just too useful a tool of
>> social and political control (not to mention money stealing) to allow
>> any such information out to the public.
>>
>> HVAC, will you please explain that all to him?
>>
>> Thank you.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> That is GOP Mafia. They kill for a buck. Live long enough and you
> catch everything. Luck plays a big part in life. It is two sides to a
> coin .TreBert

Watch it, BJ...You might 'catch' cancer too!

[HVAC]

On 10/10/2012 2:33 PM, bja...@teranews.com wrote:
>
>>> Each time a cell undergoes the mitotic division, that little tail gets
>>> just a little bit shorter in each of the daughter cells. When the
>>> tail disappears, the cell divisions are over - they have come to an
>>> end.
>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Why do you suppose evolution would make it that way?
>
> So your idea is "random chance" made it that way? Why do you suppose God
> made it that way?

This is a science discussion, BJ. God has no place here. He's out back
in the shithouse waiting for you. Don't worry, Painus will be along as
soon as I school him on the meaning of life.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:30:30 -0400, HVAC wrote:

> On 10/10/2012 3:37 AM, Painius wrote:
>>
>> It's a fascinating idea, to be sure. I've read that biologists have
>> isolated the cellular mechanism, which is like a little tail on the end
>> of the DNA molecule, that dictates whether or not the cell is immortal,
>> or it will perish after 53 cell divisions.
>>
>> Each time a cell undergoes the mitotic division, that little tail gets
>> just a little bit shorter in each of the daughter cells. When the tail
>> disappears, the cell divisions are over - they have come to an end.
>
>
> Why?
>
> Why do you suppose evolution would make it that way?
>
>
>

As a defence against cancer. When cells go cancerous they start dividing
quite rapidly. If they don't overcome the Hayflick limit (set by
telomeres) then they don't "make it" as a cancer, because they quite
quickly lose their ability to multiply.

Notice that cultured cancer cells don't exhibit the Hayflick limit.

Remember that, in the conditions under which this mechanism evolved, it
would have been _extremely_ rare for any individual animal to die of old
age anyway, too many other ways to die.

That's why we don't see immortal mutants, because if the Hayflick limit
is disabled by mutation (which might, for example, turn on the production
of telomerase) then you die of cancer instead of old age.

[HVAC]

On 10/11/2012 2:06 PM, Painius wrote:
>
>>
>> Ed Conrad's "man of coal" that's roughly 250~300 million years old,
>> should be given a fair trial, instead of his being executed on the
>> spot like we did to OBL.
>
> Don't know much about cells in amber or Conrad, however I've often
> wondered how such fossils come about.


Well, can you prove that humans WEREN'T around 300 million years ago?

We're talking Ed Fucking Conrad here. Quite possibly even more insane
that Brad Goth. That's a whole lot of crazy!


> Tree sap moves slowly, and bugs can move pretty fast. Do sap-bearing
> trees actually drip huge globs of sap from their branches? It would
> then be possible for a glob to fall on a spider and wasp in the
> clutches of a life struggle.
>
> Are there other ways for such fossils to come about?


The shit just runs down the side of a tree and if an insect should even
touch it, he'll be stuck like a fly on flypaper...Then suffocated in the
sap/amber.

[HVAC]

On 10/11/2012 1:06 PM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
>>> Each time a cell undergoes the mitotic division, that little tail gets
>>> just a little bit shorter in each of the daughter cells. When the tail
>>> disappears, the cell divisions are over - they have come to an end.
>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> Why do you suppose evolution would make it that way?
>>
>>
>>
>
> As a defence against cancer. When cells go cancerous they start dividing
> quite rapidly. If they don't overcome the Hayflick limit (set by
> telomeres) then they don't "make it" as a cancer, because they quite
> quickly lose their ability to multiply.
>
> Notice that cultured cancer cells don't exhibit the Hayflick limit.
>
> Remember that, in the conditions under which this mechanism evolved, it
> would have been _extremely_ rare for any individual animal to die of old
> age anyway, too many other ways to die.
>
> That's why we don't see immortal mutants, because if the Hayflick limit
> is disabled by mutation (which might, for example, turn on the production
> of telomerase) then you die of cancer instead of old age.

Very detailed answer, but I was really looking for the evolutionary
advantage to killing us off at about age 40-50 without modern medical
care. I say it's because after we raise our children to the age where
they themselves can have children, we are basically just in the way.

[Bill Snyder]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:07:44 -0400, HVAC <mr....@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 10/11/2012 1:06 PM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>
>>>> Each time a cell undergoes the mitotic division, that little tail gets
>>>> just a little bit shorter in each of the daughter cells. When the tail
>>>> disappears, the cell divisions are over - they have come to an end.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Why do you suppose evolution would make it that way?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> As a defence against cancer. When cells go cancerous they start dividing
>> quite rapidly. If they don't overcome the Hayflick limit (set by
>> telomeres) then they don't "make it" as a cancer, because they quite
>> quickly lose their ability to multiply.
>>
>> Notice that cultured cancer cells don't exhibit the Hayflick limit.
>>
>> Remember that, in the conditions under which this mechanism evolved, it
>> would have been _extremely_ rare for any individual animal to die of old
>> age anyway, too many other ways to die.
>>
>> That's why we don't see immortal mutants, because if the Hayflick limit
>> is disabled by mutation (which might, for example, turn on the production
>> of telomerase) then you die of cancer instead of old age.
>
>
>Very detailed answer, but I was really looking for the evolutionary
>advantage to killing us off at about age 40-50 without modern medical
>care. I say it's because after we raise our children to the age where
>they themselves can have children, we are basically just in the way.

More a matter of when you aren't likely to raise any more
children, I'd say. Once your reproductive career is over,
evolution is through with you, so any more genetic "investment" in
your continued survival is a loser.

--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[HVAC]

On 10/11/2012 3:20 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>
>> Very detailed answer, but I was really looking for the evolutionary
>> advantage to killing us off at about age 40-50 without modern medical
>> care. I say it's because after we raise our children to the age where
>> they themselves can have children, we are basically just in the way.
>
> More a matter of when you aren't likely to raise any more
> children, I'd say. Once your reproductive career is over,
> evolution is through with you, so any more genetic "investment" in
> your continued survival is a loser.

Exactly. We are evolutionarily programed to die.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:07:44 -0400, HVAC wrote:

> On 10/11/2012 1:06 PM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>>
>>>> Each time a cell undergoes the mitotic division, that little tail
>>>> gets just a little bit shorter in each of the daughter cells. When
>>>> the tail disappears, the cell divisions are over - they have come to
>>>> an end.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why?
>>>
>>> Why do you suppose evolution would make it that way?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> As a defence against cancer. When cells go cancerous they start
>> dividing quite rapidly. If they don't overcome the Hayflick limit (set
>> by telomeres) then they don't "make it" as a cancer, because they quite
>> quickly lose their ability to multiply.
>>
>> Notice that cultured cancer cells don't exhibit the Hayflick limit.
>>
>> Remember that, in the conditions under which this mechanism evolved, it
>> would have been _extremely_ rare for any individual animal to die of
>> old age anyway, too many other ways to die.
>>
>> That's why we don't see immortal mutants, because if the Hayflick limit
>> is disabled by mutation (which might, for example, turn on the
>> production of telomerase) then you die of cancer instead of old age.
>
>
> Very detailed answer, but I was really looking for the evolutionary
> advantage to killing us off at about age 40-50 without modern medical
> care. I say it's because after we raise our children to the age where
> they themselves can have children, we are basically just in the way.

No, actually humans life an anomalously long lifespan (we get three
billion heartbeats where most mammals get one) and the reason for that is
probably because we found a use for grandparents.

Grandparents, though post-reproductive, can still benefit their genes by
helping to raise the grandchildren.

But, in any case, you have to explain why we age and loose our
reproductive potential. Why would evolution "want us out of the way"
when, if there were no ageing process, we would (through experience)
actually have a higher reproductive potential the older we were?

Evolution discounts our value with age, because the older you're talking,
the less chance you would have to survive to that age, even without the
ageing process, because of the accumulated chance of dying of violence or
by accident. There's not much to be gained by giving us a potential 200
years in an environment where we have, say, a 5% chance of being killed
each year.

It's exactly the same reason why we, as individuals, discount benefits
the further into the future they are promised.

So if the Hayflick limit saves us from a high probability of early death
from cancer at the _expense_ of a limited life expectancy, well from our
genes' point of view, that's a very good deal.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:58:56 -0400, HVAC wrote:

> On 10/11/2012 3:20 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>>
>>> Very detailed answer, but I was really looking for the evolutionary
>>> advantage to killing us off at about age 40-50 without modern medical
>>> care. I say it's because after we raise our children to the age where
>>> they themselves can have children, we are basically just in the way.
>>
>> More a matter of when you aren't likely to raise any more children, I'd
>> say. Once your reproductive career is over, evolution is through with
>> you, so any more genetic "investment" in your continued survival is a
>> loser.
>
>
> Exactly. We are evolutionarily programed to die.

I don't know why so many people want to believe this. No, evolution just
_discounts_ our value at old age, because in a natural environment it's
unlikely to happen anyway. It doesn't take our value as negative, just
low.

So if some particular feature, like the Hayflick limit, benefits us why
we're young, at the expense of old age it's going to be selected for.

[G=EMC^2]

On Oct 10, 2:33 pm, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:

> Now, that statement is correct.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Instant canser killed those 21 engineers that quite Mafia NASA. They
were going to go public with all they knew. Instant cancer pill is
cheap,and a useful tool for killing white collor trouble makers. It
gives brain cancer,and was given to Ted Kennedy. Its used world
wide. TreBert

[Bill Snyder]

It seems to me that might slightly overstate a good case. If you
live long enough, there comes a time when your contribution to the
gene pool is "signed, sealed, and delivered." In deference to
your point about grandparents (& relatives generally), let's
hand-wavingly define it as the time at which it becomes very
unlikely that you'll either a) make any more 50%-copies of your
genome yourself, or b) contribute significantly to the overall
reproductive success of other partial copies.

It's tempting to conclude that when that time comes, evolution
"loses interest," and you're free to coast along for as long as
you can. But if resources are really scarce -- if every bite of
food you eat is one bite less to be shared among your younger
relatives -- it might indeed be in your genome's best interest to
have you pop off quickly; a line whose "dead-enders" exited stage
left sooner rather than later might have a noticeable advantage.

[Father Haskell]

On Oct 10, 2:33 pm, "bjac...@teranews.com" <bjac...@iwaynet.net>
wrote:
>

> So your idea is "random chance" made it that way?  Why do you suppose
> God made it that way?

The rules governing chemical reactions are far from random.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:33:45 -0400, "bja...@teranews.com"
<bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote:


>So your idea is "random chance" made it that way?

Lie noted.

Is it possible to be an honest creationist?

> Why do you suppose
>God made it that way?

What fucking "God", question-begging moron?

>> PS- Know this and the meaning of life becomes clear
>
>Now, that statement is correct.

What a fucking moron.

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:09:15 -0500, Bill Snyder wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 21:40:05 +0000 (UTC), Malcolm McMahon
> <mal...@theriomorph.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:58:56 -0400, HVAC wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/11/2012 3:20 PM, Bill Snyder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Very detailed answer, but I was really looking for the evolutionary
>>>>> advantage to killing us off at about age 40-50 without modern
>>>>> medical care. I say it's because after we raise our children to the
>>>>> age where they themselves can have children, we are basically just
>>>>> in the way.
>>>>
>>>> More a matter of when you aren't likely to raise any more children,
>>>> I'd say. Once your reproductive career is over, evolution is through
>>>> with you, so any more genetic "investment" in your continued survival
>>>> is a loser.
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly. We are evolutionarily programed to die.
>>
>>I don't know why so many people want to believe this. No, evolution just
>>_discounts_ our value at old age, because in a natural environment it's
>>unlikely to happen anyway. It doesn't take our value as negative, just
>>low.
>>
>>So if some particular feature, like the Hayflick limit, benefits us

while

>>we're young, at the expense of old age it's going to be selected for.
>
> It seems to me that might slightly overstate a good case. If you live
> long enough, there comes a time when your contribution to the gene pool
> is "signed, sealed, and delivered." In deference to your point about
> grandparents (& relatives generally), let's hand-wavingly define it as
> the time at which it becomes very unlikely that you'll either a) make
> any more 50%-copies of your genome yourself, or b) contribute
> significantly to the overall reproductive success of other partial
> copies.
>

But that's the point when old age has _already_ begun killing you.
Without the detrimental effects of ageing such a time would never occur.

[HVAC]

On 10/12/2012 4:38 AM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
>> It seems to me that might slightly overstate a good case. If you live
>> long enough, there comes a time when your contribution to the gene pool
>> is "signed, sealed, and delivered." In deference to your point about
>> grandparents (& relatives generally), let's hand-wavingly define it as
>> the time at which it becomes very unlikely that you'll either a) make
>> any more 50%-copies of your genome yourself, or b) contribute
>> significantly to the overall reproductive success of other partial
>> copies.
>>
>
> But that's the point when old age has _already_ begun killing you.
> Without the detrimental effects of ageing such a time would never occur.

But you have it backwards...Old age kills you BECAUSE you are eating
their food and drinking their water. You've done your part, now you're
just in the way.

[G=EMC^2]

> Without the detrimental effects of ageing such a time would never occur.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

There is no reason for aging when you can eat MSP Babies don't age
they grow till 26,and after 26 is the time to eat MSP. Stay young and
fit. Only the super rich can afford MSP pills. TreBert

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Friday, 12 October 2012 12:31:03 UTC+1, HVAC wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 4:38 AM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> It seems to me that might slightly overstate a good case. If you live
>
> >> long enough, there comes a time when your contribution to the gene pool
>
> >> is "signed, sealed, and delivered." In deference to your point about
>
> >> grandparents (& relatives generally), let's hand-wavingly define it as
>
> >> the time at which it becomes very unlikely that you'll either a) make
>
> >> any more 50%-copies of your genome yourself, or b) contribute
>
> >> significantly to the overall reproductive success of other partial
>
> >> copies.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > But that's the point when old age has _already_ begun killing you.
>
> > Without the detrimental effects of ageing such a time would never occur.
>
>
>
>
>
> But you have it backwards...Old age kills you BECAUSE you are eating
>
> their food and drinking their water. You've done your part, now you're
>
> just in the way.
>
>

You are trying to explain the ageing process on the assumption that the ageing process already exists.

It doesn't make sense to say we get old and decrepit because, being old and decrepit, we're in the way.

If it weren't for the ageing process you _wouldn't_ be "just in the way", on the contrary you'd be producing more sprogs, more sucessfully than the younger people.

[HVAC]

On 10/12/2012 7:35 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>
> There is no reason for aging when you can eat MSP Babies don't age
> they grow till 26,and after 26 is the time to eat MSP. Stay young and
> fit. Only the super rich can afford MSP pills. TreBert

And of course you have the double-blind studies to back this up?

No?


Snake oil will let you live forever. Send me $100.00 for yours now!

[eridanus]

El miércoles, 10 de octubre de 2012 14:30:10 UTC+1, HVAC escribió:
> On 10/10/2012 3:37 AM, Painius wrote:
>
> >
>
> > It's a fascinating idea, to be sure. I've read that biologists have
>
> > isolated the cellular mechanism, which is like a little tail on the
>
> > end of the DNA molecule, that dictates whether or not the cell is
>
> > immortal, or it will perish after 53 cell divisions.
>
> >
>
> > Each time a cell undergoes the mitotic division, that little tail gets
>
> > just a little bit shorter in each of the daughter cells. When the
>
> > tail disappears, the cell divisions are over - they have come to an
>
> > end.
>
>
>
>
>
> Why?
>
>
>
> Why do you suppose evolution would make it that way?
>

Because with the time the living beings machinery gets worn
and they cannot live eternally? Then the telomeres are like
a clock to tell when a living being mus die?

Eridanus

[eridanus]

El viernes, 12 de octubre de 2012 12:31:03 UTC+1, HVAC escribió:
> On 10/12/2012 4:38 AM, Malcolm McMahon wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> It seems to me that might slightly overstate a good case. If you live
>
> >> long enough, there comes a time when your contribution to the gene pool
>
> >> is "signed, sealed, and delivered." In deference to your point about
>
> >> grandparents (& relatives generally), let's hand-wavingly define it as
>
> >> the time at which it becomes very unlikely that you'll either a) make
>
> >> any more 50%-copies of your genome yourself, or b) contribute
>
> >> significantly to the overall reproductive success of other partial
>
> >> copies.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > But that's the point when old age has _already_ begun killing you.
>
> > Without the detrimental effects of ageing such a time would never occur.
>
>
>
>
>
> But you have it backwards...Old age kills you BECAUSE you are eating
>
> their food and drinking their water. You've done your part, now you're
>
> just in the way.
>

No. People die as a consequence of being alive. To have a right to die
you must be alive first. Somebody that is not living can last for
all eternity.

Eridanus

[Malcolm McMahon]

On Friday, 12 October 2012 14:33:13 UTC+1, eridanus wrote:
> El miércoles, 10 de octubre de 2012 14:30:10 UTC+1, HVAC escribió:
>
> > On 10/10/2012 3:37 AM, Painius wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > It's a fascinating idea, to be sure. I've read that biologists have
>
> >
>
> > > isolated the cellular mechanism, which is like a little tail on the
>
> >
>
> > > end of the DNA molecule, that dictates whether or not the cell is
>
> >
>
> > > immortal, or it will perish after 53 cell divisions.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Each time a cell undergoes the mitotic division, that little tail gets
>
> >
>
> > > just a little bit shorter in each of the daughter cells. When the
>
> >
>
> > > tail disappears, the cell divisions are over - they have come to an
>
> >
>
> > > end.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Why?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Why do you suppose evolution would make it that way?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Because with the time the living beings machinery gets worn
>
> and they cannot live eternally? Then the telomeres are like
>
> a clock to tell when a living being mus die?
>
>

No, if the machinery wears out you don't need telling. That kills you.

Evolution just doesn't engage in the kind of altruism were one organism dies just to "get out of the way".

The only reason why an evolutionary mechanism seems to go out of it's way to harm an organism is when there's a compensating advantage.

[Brad Guth]

Perhaps excessive MSP is lethal in some folks.

Many super wealthy tend to die off before we do, so perhaps taking
large dosages of MSP isn't all that you crack it up to be.

Abstract:
Three different doses of a combination of mefloquine-sulfadoxine-
pyrimethamine (MSP), given double-blind as a single dose to 60
children, were evaluated for efficacy and tolerance. The children, 42
boys and 18 girls aged between 5 and 15 years, received a mefloquine
dose equivalent to 1, 1.5, or 2 standard MSP (Fansimef) tablets.
Radical cure was obtained in all patients with only mild to moderate
side effects of nausea and vomiting, which were not worse in the
higher dose groups. For children living in an endemic malarious area,
a single dose of mefloquine 7.1-12.5 mg/kg, given in combination with
sulfadoxine (14.3-25.0 mg/kg) and pyrimethamine (0.7-1.3 mg/kg), is a
safe and effective treatment for uncomplicated chloroquine-resistant
Plasmodium falciparum malaria. This dose of MSP is approximately 10 mg/
kg, 20 mg/kg and 1.0 mg/kg respectively of mefloquine, sulfadoxine and
pyrimethamine, which is equivalent to a single standard tablet of
Fansimef (mefloquine, 250 mg; sulfadoxine, 500 mg; pyrimethamine, 25
mg) given to a child weighing 20-30 kg.

http://www.igenericdrugs.com/?s=MSP
MSP - MSP is a narcotic pain management agent indicated for the
relief of pain in patients who require opioid analgesics for more than
a few days. MSP interacts predominantly with the opioid mu-receptor.
These mu-binding sites are discretely distributed in the human brain,
with high densities in the posterior amygdala, hypothalamus, thalamus,
nucleus caudatus, putamen, and certain cortical areas. They are also
found on the terminal axons of primary afferents within laminae I and
II (substantia gelatinosa) of the spinal cord and in the spinal
nucleus of the trigeminal nerve. In clinical settings, MSP exerts its
principal pharmacological effect on the central nervous system and
gastrointestinal tract. Its primary actions of therapeutic value are
analgesia and sedation. MSP appears to increase the patient's
tolerance for pain and to decrease discomfort, although the presence
of the pain itself may still be recognized. In addition to analgesia,
alterations in mood, euphoria and dysphoria, and drowsiness commonly
occur. Opioids also produce respiratory depression by direct action on
brain stem respiratory centers. Oral Pain relief Adult: Initially,
5-20 mg every 4 hr (or equivalent for modified release formulations).
Start with low dose and adjust according to response.
More: http://www.igenericdrugs.com/?s=MSP

Sounds like 120 mg/day per 100 kg adult is a maximum dosage, but
without frequent blood testing how do you know how much or little to
be taking?

Is this the same MSP as you're taking?

How many hundred mg/day are you consuming?

[HVAC]

I think you're on to something here, Goth...Bert certainly TYPES like he
was on some narcotic drug. While it may help in pain relief, it is
certainly deleterious to his English skills.

[HVAC]

On 10/13/2012 11:16 AM, Painius wrote:
>
> Yes, maybe even just a very hot day. The sunlight against the bark of
> a tree for most of the morning or most of the afternoon might make it
> warm enough for the sap to ooze more quickly. And as Harlow
> suggested, all that has to happen is a touch by the insect and it will
> be stuck like flypaper to the sap. The sap continues to cover the
> insect, and viola! Several million years later we have an interesting
> fossil to discuss!


I pretty much know everything. You're welcome.
Feel free to ask me any question. Answers guaranteed.

[Painius]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:09:15 -0500, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>

". . . if resources are really scarce . . ." must be thought of as a
special case that seldom happens and so would contribute very little
to evolution.

Old age still has its purpose. A study of pelicans revealed an
interesting behavior along these lines. In the flock was an old,
blind bird that was no longer able to fish for food. As it turned
out, the other pelicans were catching fish and feeding them to the old
one. Even pelicans value old age. Question is: Why?

Old age in our society can mean ensuring (or trying to ensure) that
younger people don't make the same mistakes of the previous
generations. Survival tends to become more effective with each
generation.

And yet, nothing in particular was discernible in the pelican flock
that gave value to keeping the old, blind pelican around. Must've
been "love"? lol

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
"You make a living by what you get, you make a life by what you give."

[G=EMC^2]

On Oct 14, 12:58 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:09:15 -0500, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net>

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
> "You make a living by what you get, you make a life by what you give."- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Painius at 85 life is not as funnry. TeBet

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 13, 9:58 pm, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 19:09:15 -0500, Bill Snyder <bsny...@airmail.net>

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "You make a living by what you get, you make a life by what you give."

The humans species should appreciate old age a lot more than they do.

Respect for the experiences and subsequent wisdom that only the old
can contribute is offering a method of survival that would otherwise
be lost. The same goes for history that is either lost or corrupted
past the point of no return, is actually a much greater loss to the
new generations that'll get to not only pay for the past but also
making the same old mistakes over and over, if not having to suffer
much worse consequences.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

[HVAC]

On 10/14/2012 8:52 AM, G=EMC^2 wrote:
>
>> Old age still has its purpose. A study of pelicans revealed an
>> interesting behavior along these lines. In the flock was an old,
>> blind bird that was no longer able to fish for food. As it turned
>> out, the other pelicans were catching fish and feeding them to the old
>> one. Even pelicans value old age. Question is: Why?
>>
>> Old age in our society can mean ensuring (or trying to ensure) that
>> younger people don't make the same mistakes of the previous
>> generations. Survival tends to become more effective with each
>> generation.
>>
>> And yet, nothing in particular was discernible in the pelican flock
>> that gave value to keeping the old, blind pelican around. Must've
>> been "love"? lol
>>
>> --
>> Indelibly yours,
>> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/
>> "You make a living by what you get, you make a life by what you give."- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Painius at 85 life is not as funnry. TeBet

Ya. Oftentimes being 85 seems to be the same as being a retard.

No offense.

[HVAC]

On 10/14/2012 12:58 AM, Painius wrote:
>
> Old age still has its purpose. A study of pelicans revealed an
> interesting behavior along these lines. In the flock was an old,
> blind bird that was no longer able to fish for food. As it turned
> out, the other pelicans were catching fish and feeding them to the old
> one. Even pelicans value old age. Question is: Why?
>
> Old age in our society can mean ensuring (or trying to ensure) that
> younger people don't make the same mistakes of the previous
> generations. Survival tends to become more effective with each
> generation.
>
> And yet, nothing in particular was discernible in the pelican flock
> that gave value to keeping the old, blind pelican around. Must've
> been "love"? lol

The moral of Painus' story is that we should eat fish, go over to see
Bert, and then puke the fish up into his mouth.

Bert Livingston Seagull

[HVAC]

On 10/14/2012 9:19 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>
> The humans species should appreciate old age a lot more than they do.
>
> Respect for the experiences and subsequent wisdom that only the old
> can contribute is offering a method of survival that would otherwise
> be lost. The same goes for history that is either lost or corrupted
> past the point of no return, is actually a much greater loss to the
> new generations that'll get to not only pay for the past but also
> making the same old mistakes over and over, if not having to suffer
> much worse consequences.

I'd agree with you except we have a startling example here in this group
named Bert. He is proof that age does not equal knowledge and in fact
he is mentally on a level with an 8 year old.

I only say this because it's true.


If anyone wants to defend Bert's intellect, please feel free.


I'll wait right here.

[Brad Guth]

When we get to know more about the truth as to what really happened in
the past, is when LOL becomes sadistically cruel, to think of how the
next K12 generation is going to mange to survive when they're being
mainstream taught such lies, and made to paid for the mistakes, greed
and ethnicity policies of previous mafia generations.

[Painius]

>Painius at 85 life is not as funnry. TeBet

Life is fun, Bert. Never ignore your inner child. Love it,
discipline it, and always acknowledge it. It is your inner child that
has the ability to see through the "grown-up" tenets and dogma.

Those who ignore their inner child, even at 85, are doomed to be too
strict and rigid in their thinking. Those who love, discipline and
acknowledge their inner child are still doomed, however for them, life
has lots of meaning and enjoyment. "Out-of-the-box" thoughts are
always generated by one's inner child.

Inner children ROCK !

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our
wits to grow sharper."

[HVAC]

On 10/15/2012 3:44 PM, Painius wrote:
>
> Life is fun, Bert. Never ignore your inner child. Love it,
> discipline it, and always acknowledge it. It is your inner child that
> has the ability to see through the "grown-up" tenets and dogma.
>
> Those who ignore their inner child, even at 85, are doomed to be too
> strict and rigid in their thinking. Those who love, discipline and
> acknowledge their inner child are still doomed, however for them, life
> has lots of meaning and enjoyment. "Out-of-the-box" thoughts are
> always generated by one's inner child.
>
> Inner children ROCK !

You don't EVEN want to meet MY inner child.
That evil little prick's sort of an asshole.

[G=EMC^2]

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "The universe is full of magical things, patiently waiting for our
> wits to grow sharper."

As a child I thought of the wonders of the universe,and at 85 I have
found more wonders than ever before. I don't know when I will spin m
gyro for the last time but till then its wonders will never cease.
TreBert

[Brad Guth]

Indeed, mass in motion is a very nifty energy storage method that's
nearly 100% efficient in the case of spinning stars, planets and
essentially all things of our vast universe from atoms on up.

So, what happened to the terrific spin energy of Venus? (did it go
back into the sun?)

[Painius]

>> As a child I thought of the wonders of the universe,and at 85 I have
>> found more wonders than ever before. I don't know when I will spin m
>> gyro for the last time but till then its wonders will never cease.
>> TreBert
>
>Indeed, mass in motion is a very nifty energy storage method that's
>nearly 100% efficient in the case of spinning stars, planets and
>essentially all things of our vast universe from atoms on up.
>
>So, what happened to the terrific spin energy of Venus? (did it go
>back into the sun?)

Oh no. As Venus' rotation very slowly sort of "rocks back and forth",
while it completes becoming tidal-locked to the Sun, the planet
maintains all of its angular momentum. That inertia is still mostly
tied up in its revolution around the Sun, however the energy of Venus'
rotation is sometimes moreso "potential energy" rather then "kinetic",
as it is right now.

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine @ http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

"Science, all science, is either physics or stamp collecting."

[Painius]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:07:23 -0400, Painius <stars...@aol.com>
wrote:

> . . .

> Oh no. As Venus' rotation very slowly sort of "rocks back and forth",
> while it completes becoming tidal-locked to the Sun, the planet
> maintains all of its angular momentum. That inertia is still mostly
> tied up in its revolution around the Sun, however the energy of Venus'
> rotation is sometimes moreso "potential energy" rather then "kinetic",
> as it is right now.

To clarify a bit - During the process of becoming tidal-locked, a body
will sometimes rotate slower and sometimes faster. While it's
spinning slowly, most of its spin energy is "potential" energy. When
it begins to spin faster, that potential energy converts to kinetic
energy.

Right now, Venus is spinning very slowly, so its spin energy is mostly
potential.

[Brad Guth]

On Oct 17, 2:39 am, Painius <starswir...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 05:07:23 -0400, Painius <starswir...@aol.com>

> wrote:
>
> > . . .
> > Oh no.  As Venus' rotation very slowly sort of "rocks back and forth",
> > while it completes becoming tidal-locked to the Sun, the planet
> > maintains all of its angular momentum.  That inertia is still mostly
> > tied up in its revolution around the Sun, however the energy of Venus'
> > rotation is sometimes moreso "potential energy" rather then "kinetic",
> > as it is right now.
>
> To clarify a bit - During the process of becoming tidal-locked, a body
> will sometimes rotate slower and sometimes faster.  While it's
> spinning slowly, most of its spin energy is "potential" energy.  When
> it begins to spin faster, that potential energy converts to kinetic
> energy.
>
> Right now, Venus is spinning very slowly, so its spin energy is mostly
> potential.
>
> --
> Indelibly yours,

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "Science, all science, is either physics or stamp collecting."

In other words, Venus wasn't spinning very fast to begin with, or it
either picked up or having lost a great deal of mass while it has been
with us.

Are we thinking that perhaps the innards of Venus are sloshing about?

[G=EMC^2]

> Paine @http://astronomy.painellsworth.net/

> "Science, all science, is either physics or stamp collecting."

Painius I can not think of a reason for Venus spinning at the speed of
a walk. It has no moon. I have only a weak theory It has Venus
with a very large liquid core rotating in the opposite direction of
the crust. This creates great friction,and acts like a brake. What
gave me this theory is Venus's very weak magnetic field. Core spin is
also slow. TreBert

[Brad Guth]

That's actually a very good theory for a captured planet, as having a
retrograde core.

Perhaps our moon once belonged to Venus.

[HVAC]

On 10/25/2012 8:38 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
>
>> Painius I can not think of a reason for Venus spinning at the speed of
>> a walk. It has no moon. I have only a weak theory It has Venus
>> with a very large liquid core rotating in the opposite direction of
>> the crust. This creates great friction,and acts like a brake. What
>> gave me this theory is Venus's very weak magnetic field. Core spin is
>> also slow. TreBert
>
> That's actually a very good theory for a captured planet, as having a
> retrograde core.
>
> Perhaps our moon once belonged to Venus.

HAHAhahahaha! Good one, Goth!
I almost spewed coffee all over my keyboard.




You *did* intend for that to be funny, right?

[G=EMC^2]

> dose equivalent to 1, 1.5, or2standard MSP (Fansimef) tablets.

MSP Is Mexican Sweet Potatoes I eat 4 pounds per week.Use to eat
more. TeBet