Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread postby bboyer » Fri Apr 25, 2008 4:35 am

From the April 1999 Idaho Observer:

JAMA stats tell the tale


Doctors kill more people than guns and traffic accidents

by Don Harkins

SANDPOINT -- Last St. Patrick's Day, Sandpoint Chiropractor Blaze Welch gave a lecture on how to “get off of the disease scary-go-round” at the Gardenia Center here. The purpose of the talk, which was sponsored by the North Idaho chapter of Vaccination Liberation, was to teach people that they are responsible for their own health. Dr. Welch also discussed figures from right out of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) which prove, through accurate interpretations of their own words, that in the last century we chose the wrong fork in the road with regard to our health care paradigm.

Most people have been conditioned to believe in what is called the “germ theory” of disease -- that germs cause disease. The truth is that germs (bacteria) are everywhere and they are attracted to and proliferate in dis-eased tissues.

Bacteria decompose dead matter. That is their job. For instance, when a tree dies, bacteria come in and eat the tree and it eventually becomes soil. Bacteria does not eat a live, healthy tree. The same thing is true in people -- bacteria are attracted to dead matter. Therefore, if you have dead matter in your body, bacteria will come in and get to work decomposing the dead tissue so that it may eventually become soil.


In the mid 1800s, western medical science had the choice of going one of two ways. Bechamp's theory of disease maintained that every living thing has arisen from the microzyma (the “fundamental unit of the corporate organism”) and “every living thing is reducible to the microzyma.”

Bechamp believed that microzymas secrete fermentative substances that aid in digestion in a healthy body and evolve into bacteria when they encounter dead or damaged cells. Pasteur's germ theory of disease maintained that germs come into our bodies and make disease that we must fight so that we may be rid of them. J.I. Rodale explained Pasteur's “germ theory” of disease by stating that, “Germs live in the air, every once in awhile get into a human body, multiply and cause illness. Nothing to it at all. All you have to do is kill germs and disease is licked.”

Bechamp's theory placed all of the responsibility of disease prevention on the individual and his lifestyle. In a practical sense, there was no money in that and people would be empowered with the ability to resist dis-ease by taking care of themselves.

Western medical science went with Pasteur's theory because it opened the door which created the world's medical and pharmaceutical industries. Since the 1850s, we have been developing new drugs to attack and kill the disease invaders and the result has been epidemics of cancers and sicknesses and diseases -- and a very rich and powerful pharmaceutical industry.

“Last year,” commented Dr. Welch, “the pharmaceutical industry did $182 billion in drug sales world wide.” In contrast to that figure, it cost approximately $183 billion to treat adverse reactions from all of those drugs, said Dr. Welch.

Dr. Welch read off some statistics which should cause concern to anybody who sees an allopathic doctor, has medical insurance or may end up in the hospital someday. Again, the following admissions were taken from JAMA:

The top five causes of death in the United States, in order, are: Tobacco, alcohol, medical malpractice, traffic and firearms.

According to JAMA, doctors kill more people than auto accidents and guns. With that in mind, one has to wonder why gun control is such a hot legislative issue when, perhaps, we should be more concerned about doctor control.

“The number of people that doctors kill per day from medical malpractice is roughly equal to the amount of people that would die if every day, three jumbo jets crashed and killed everybody on board,” commented Dr. Welch who added, in defense of his own profession, “just imagine what headlines would result if a chiropractor or a naturopath accidentally killed just one patient?”

Another JAMA statistic stated that 1/5 (20 percent) of all people who see an allopath will suffer an “iatrogenic” (doctor-induced) injury.

Again, according to JAMA, 16 percent of all people who die in the hospital are determined by autopsy to have died of something other than their admission diagnosis. In other words, the doctor had no idea what was really wrong with the patient and, therefore, the patient may have died for want of appropriate care that would have been subsequent to an accurate diagnosis.

Another trade publication, American Medical News, stated that 28 percent of people admitted to hospitals are there because they have suffered an adverse reaction to prescribed drugs.

“We are miserably losing the battle against viruses and bacteria. Antibiotics do not work. We need to take a different tack because this is obviously not working,” said Dr. Welch.

Dr. Welch made numerous practical and logical observations throughout his lecture. One of them is so obvious that it deserves mention here. “When there is an epidemic of, say, pertussis in a school and 14 of 200 kids get sick, who gets studied?” he asked.

The answer, of course, is that the sick kids get studied. They get studied by the county health district and the health district accumulates its data and then tells the newspapers about the epidemic of sickness and everybody then flocks down to the health district or goes to see their doctor to get vaccinated.

Would it not be more appropriate to study the 186 kids that did not get sick?” asked Dr. Welch.

Dr. Welch also read a quote from the British Medical Journal which states that only one percent of all scientific research papers which explore medicine are scientifically sound.

So, if that is true, then not only are allopathic doctors incorrect in their understanding of the basic nature of disease, they are basing 99 percent of their conclusions, and therefore their diagnosis and treatment of people, on flawed science.

http://proliberty.com/observer/19990403.htm
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread postby bboyer » Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:47 pm

There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread postby bboyer » Fri Apr 25, 2008 1:35 pm

A 2004 response of a skeptic to Uwins and colleagues nanobe paper.

Part 1. Nanobes - alien underworld: just a lot of spin?

In January a member suggested we have a talk on "nanobes" following a repeat (on January 13th 2004) of a TV program first put to air on the ABC on 21 August 2002. I missed both − fortunately. Entitled "Alien Underworld" the credits for this program enthused (http://www.abc.net.au/alienunderworld/ )…. [the only link abc.net.au now apparently has is at http://www.abc.net.au/tv/alienunderworld/ - arc-us]

"Ten times smaller than any living creature... with a bizarre appetite for plastic and with relatives that may have come from Mars... Nanobes are very strange creatures indeed. A young Australian geologist has possibly made one of the most significant biological discoveries of the last 100 years. Dr Philippa Uwins is currently battling a hostile international scientific community, desperately seeking funding for vital research and yet continuing to make breakthroughs in what has been called the 'Jurassic Park' of bacteria. Working on a routine consulting project for a petrolium (sic) company, Dr Uwins stumbled across mysterious structures measuring mere millionths of a millimetre in her rock samples. When she discovered the structures were not mineral, but biological, her nanobes became instant media celebrities. Is Dr Uwins on the trail of a revolutionary new life form, or are her "nanobes" literally too small to live? In years to come, will she be hearlded (sic) as a pioneer who unravelled a key to the secret to life, or just another in a long line of scientific 'crackpots'?"

The background to this program is described by Dr Uwins and her colleagues in a paper in American Mineralogist (Vol 83 (1998) pp1541-50). [http://www.minsocam.org/MSA/AmMin/TOC/Articles_Free/

1998/Uwins_p1541-1550_98.pdf]. Philippa Uwins observed structures ranging in size from 20 to over 150 nanometres (dubbed "nanobes") in Western Australian oil-containing sandstone derived from a depth of 3400-5100m and at a temperature of 117 -170 o C. She suggested these might represent communal organisms dependent on each other. She claims stains demonstrate the presence of both DNA and RNA in her nanobes. In the article the authors described growth at ambient temperatures of colonies of these nanobes on the surface of copper, polystyrene and glass substrates exposed, during storage, to the mineral samples. Growth on the freshly fractured sandstone was observed over a period of 2-3 weeks.

Well, as a microbiologist, I am highly sceptical that the 20-200 nm diameter structures Dr Uwins has observed are nanobacteria growing in oil saturated sandstone.

Firstly the size is a problem. I do not believe cells growing on mineral deposits, even ones laced with organic material such as oil, could, at 20-50 nm diameter, contain the required synthetic machinery for life as we know it. The smallest known bacteria (Mycoplasma, Nanobacteria) are 150 nm diameter, but when "starved" may drop to 50 nm diameter. Mycoplasma and Nanobacteria are basically parasitic on other higher organisms or live in a rich organic environment, and can dispense with the synthesis for themselves of many essential cell components. In contrast, some bacteria can use minerals as an energy/nutrient source, but to do this, requires a complex array of enzymes and membranes under control of DNA/RNA: they are much larger than Mycoplasma and contain thousands of genes, as every organic molecule they posses has to be made from carbonates, salts and water. Viruses are smaller life forms. For example influenza virus (100 nm diameter) and poliovirus (25-30 nm diameter) are known to contain only a few proteins and some RNA nucleic acid. The amount of RNA packaged into a poliovirus particle codes for a few genes only and, even if the virus contains enzymes for replicating the RNA (as does flu virus), the building blocks for this have to be acquired from elsewhere i.e. other living cells, or a complex nutrient soup. A free-living organism in oil shale could not do this and would have to be considerably bigger.

Second the staining for RNA and DNA is a problem. The authors give no indication they used strict aseptic technique; indeed, as we will see, they clearly demonstrate they didn't. The sandstone samples were described as "freshly" fractured. Left lying around just a few hours in air (before the reported storage in a "dessicator" (sic) for 24h) would result in contamination with settled microorganisms and if handled, or breathed on, contaminated with normal microbial flora immediately. So the staining could be of these, or − as asserted by others − non-specific and an artefact.

Thirdly the authors incubated their samples in Petri dishes at laboratory temperature (22 oC). Growth on the freshly fractured sandstone was observed over a period of 2-3 weeks. Now, organisms adapted to live at high temperatures and pressures (a depth of 3400-5100m and a temperature of 117 -170 oC) have a very special chemistry and just do not grow at ambient temperatures and pressures. The authors dismissed, on the basis of their elemental composition, the possibility that the observed structures were minerals saturated at high temperature and pressure coming out of solution under laboratory conditions. Fair enough if there really were microbes growing on the sandstone − but is that where they actually came from?

Fourthly the Achilles heel of all this research is poor technique. It was not done using strictly aseptic technique and the authors admit that contamination was possible. Indeed they describe growth of colonies on fingerprints on the polystyrene petridish! Examination of the micrographs shows filaments of variable diameter greater and less than 200 nm and of considerable length. I have often observed what appear to by microcolonies of a mould with very fine filaments growing in stored unsterile petridishes in a humid atmosphere − probably using, as nutrient, the lubricant needed to get the polystyrene dishes off the machine used in their manufacture and/or plasticiser used in the moulded plastic (and not using the polystyrene itself as nutrient). Oil rich sandstone would be an even better substrate, and condensed oil vapour on the surface of glass and plastic Petri dishes containing the stored samples would provide a growth medium for contaminating moulds. In my view these growths are certainly not derived from the samples as the authors claim, but, from the laboratory atmosphere or during drilling or in transit to Brisbane.

It's amazing what gets past the reviewers into the peer-reviewed literature these days. And it's amazing how some journalists get sucked in by University spin merchants. I could give a talk debunking nanobes if readers wish − but it would tend to be rather technical, and difficult to make entertaining. Let me know if you want one.

One thing students of small round structures in mineral deposits rarely acknowledge is that bacteria can in fact store materials in subcellular deposits. Polyphosphate is stored in "volutin granules", iron in "magnetosomes" and carbohydrates as polyhydroxybutyrate. Where these complex with counter ions in sedimentary deposits they may well be preserved as regular spherical deposits 20-50 nanometres in diameter. These may be evidence of early bacteria, but not of the bacterial cells themselves.

http://finch.customer.netspace.net.au/s ... apr04.html
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread postby bboyer » Thu May 01, 2008 10:44 am

Synthesis of the Work of Enderlein, Bechamps and other Pleomorphic Researchers

©Copyright 1997 by Dr. Karl Horst Poehlman, Australia
(Explore Issue: Volume 8, Number 2)

All mammals and most likely all other animals have two parasites. They are in a particular relationship and supplement each other.

Those two parasites or endobionts are called Mucor racemosus Fresen and Aspergillus niger van Tiegham.

Bechamp, Rife and Naessens could demonstrate that they are virtually indestructible. Neither carbonizing temperatures nor radioactive radiation can harm them.

Enderlein believed that they entered the cells of higher differentiated cell colonies as parasites while Antoine Bechamp believed that they are the essence of life in the cell.

The endobiont is always present and cannot be removed from the living cell; the clinical symptoms of a disease depend on the stadium of its development. This "fungal parasite" can be present in all tissues and organs.

Today's mainstream medicine is governed by consent of opinions rather than hard scientific evidence. This is the reason why false and fraudulent teachings can survive even though the truth has been known for a long time. There are basically three dogmas that are still adhered to:

The first and probably most disastrous error originates from Ferdinand Cohn, who in 1870 proclaimed that all microbes and bacteria have only one form (Monomorphism). This was also taught by Louis Pasteur. This teaching was opposed to the teaching of Antoine Bechamp who, roughly at the same time, could demonstrate that microbes can alter their form and appear as different germs (pleomorphism). Enderlein basically confirmed this and many other researchers after him.

All microbes that permanently live in our organism go through the same stages of their development. According to Enderlein they are as follows: Colloid -- microbe (primitive phrase), bacteria (middle phase), fungus (end phase). Royal Rife could show that with increased toxicity the transformation goes into non-filterable forms, not visible with ordinary light microscopes (viruses). This also disproves Pasteur's infection theory as the "pathogenic bacteria" do not have to come from outside and in fact hardly ever do. The state of development depends on the medium the germ lives in:

Primitive phases live in a strong alkaline pH
Bacterial phases live in mild alkaline pH
Fungal forms live in a medium acid pH
Viral forms live in a strong acid pH


In order to keep the right environment, every microbe produces an organic acid:
Mucor racemosus -- lactic acid,
Aspergillus niger -- citric acid.

The pathogenity of a particular germ lies only in one phase of its development. Our "constant tenants" are the only exemption where all but the very early stages are pathogenic. Only what Enderlein termed protit and chondrite are completely avirulent and play an important regulatory role in reducing higher virulent forms to primitive forms by copulating with them.

Those phases can be easily seen in living blood under the microscope, but only in "darkfield" as the small primitive forms are invisible in "brightfield."

Even Louis Pasteur said in the last minutes of his life: "Bernard is right; it is the soil and not the germ, that makes the plant grow."

The second major error originates from William Harvey who stated in 1651 (!!) that the cell is the smallest unit of life. This statement can be easily understood considering the very limited magnification and resolution of the microscopes of his time. Enderlein demonstrated and published in 1921 and 1925 that the smallest unit of life is not the cell but the protit, named microzyma by Bechamp and somatid by Gaston Naessens.

The third error came again from Pasteur who claimed that the blood is sterile, a piece of nonsense still taught by modern bacteriologists. A look through a high power darkfield microscope quickly disproves this theory (provided one wants to see). Pasteur had the talent of teaching the biggest nonsense and of making people believe it. It is now well known that he even falsified the results of his research when it did not show the results he wanted. He was also quite ready to plagiarize the results of others. The vaccination fraud is based on his manipulated "research". Whole generations of researchers followed his example. Modern "scientific medicine" became a collection of long disproven theories (blood clot and obstruction theory of coronary heart disease, germ theory and infection theory, single cell theory of cancer, etc.).



Microbes follow the same basic urges as other living beings:
a) Urge for survival;
b) Urge for sex and multiplication;
c) Urge for power.

a) The urge for survival shows in the urge to eat. Our "endobiont" eats protein. Naturally it also has a typical metabolism which produces lactic acid (Mucor racemosus) and citric acid (Aspergillus niger) as mentioned before.

b) The urge for sexual multiplication can be seen in the strong attraction in all stages of development from the very first stages, even when they are within blood cells. This leads to the formation of "clots" (called symplasts) which can block our blood vessels with the relevant consequences. Symplasts can be made out of colloids or symprotids, thrombocytes, erythrocytes, leukocytes or a mixture of all.

c) The urge for power is seen in the urge to combine with other cells to form a higher, more stable form. In this combination (systatogenesis), all stages of development can be involved as this is not a sexual combination. But it is strictly within the same kind. This combination stops all forms in further development. On the other hand those formations are a major obstacle for the circulation. (They can be impressively demonstrated by staining and are often misdiagnosed as fungus structures.)

All those structures can be easily observed in the living blood, and from the observed stages we can draw conclusions regarding the health of our patients.

We have to finally stop believing in long disproven theories and stick to the old principles of science: when reality shows results different from the theory, the theory is wrong, not reality. Medicine has to change from a religion with popes and dogmas into a real science.

The most important terms created by Prof. Enderlein

Ascit Name for all phases of bacterial development. The nuclei are in a row (katatakt)
Chondrit Name for the very first primitive phases
Cystit a Mychit with polydynamic nucleus
Dioekothecit a Colloidthecit, filled with very small nuclei
Filum linear unification of several Protits
Kolloidthecit a cell without nucleus
Mych the symprotit in its function as nucleus in a cell
Mychit the first bacterial cell; it has only one nucleus
Protit the most primitive form of every microbe
Spermi the sexual cell = 1 Filum and 1 Symprotit
Symplast the unification of all different phases in order to copulate
Symprotit the three-dimensional unification of several protits (spherical shape)
Synascit name for all bacterial phases with multiple nuclei in all directions
Systatogenie the desire of primitive units to get together and form a more stable form
Thecit a Mychit with more than 8 nuclei
Thrombocyte a Mychit with 2 to 8 nuclei
Enderlein could find the following errors in the official teachings:


Bacterium paracoli is not a "degenerated" Bacterium coli but the Phytit of the endobiont.

The cause for the infectivity of filtrates from tuberculous material is the chondrit of mycobacterium tuberculosum. This was already proven in 1910 by Fontes (Brasil) -- (cf. Mem. Instit. Oswaldo Cruz, I, 2, 1910, pg. 186).

Dostal could demonstrate that it is easily possible to convert mycobacterium tuberculosum into a spherical form (Basit) -- (Wien. Med. Wochenschr., 60 Jahrg., 1910, pg. 2098-2100 and 63. Jahrg. 1913)

Fibrin is not the result of precipitation of protein but Thecits of the endobiont.

Megacariocytes (Metschnikov) are not "normal" cell elements but a mass infestation with primitive forms of the endobiont which disabled the ability of the cell and nucleus to divide. They do not originate from a leukocyte but from an erythrocyte!

The megaloblasts in anaemia perniciosa are not erythrocytes with nuclei but erythrocytes which have a colony of endobiont chondrites (pseudonucleus) inside them which causes the abnormal size.

Normoblasts are erythrocytes that do not have a nucleus but a pseudonucleus made out of colonies of endobiont-chondrites.

Macrocytes are enlarged erythrocytes without nucleus. This is also caused by a massive invasion of endobiont-chondrites.

Reticulocytes (Heilmeyer) are not erythrocytes with special organellae but erythrocytes that have a little "tree" of endobiont-chondrites inside.

The Round- and Spindlecells of sarcomas do not contain round-and spindle- cells of the host but (round) cells and (spindle) cells of mycelias of the endobiont.

Royal R. Rife stated that there are only about ten different germs. All the various appearances that are classified in bacteriology are adaptations (pleomorphic changes) to the toxicity (or varying pH) of the medium they live in.He describes the pleomorphic development of E. coli as follows:

E. coli
salmonella typhi
mycobacterium tuberculosum
yeast forms
BX (bacterium X)
BY (bacterium Y)

Rife could isolate BX from all cancerous tumors, the BY he found in sarcomas. The change from one form into another happens in about 36 hours. BX and BY pass readily through 000 ceramic filters and cannot be seen in an ordinary light microscope.

Antibiotics severely increase the toxicity of the host organism, especially when highly toxic halogenated antibiotics are used. The "disappearance" of a particular germ from the culture does not mean that the germ is dead; it only became invisible due to its transformation into an invisible form. That means, that the host organism is now in a cancerous state.

http://www.explorepub.com/articles/enderlein3.html

http://curezone.com/forums/fm.asp?i=919966
http://curezone.com/forums/default.asp
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread postby bboyer » Thu May 01, 2008 11:17 am

I believe this is James Bare's (D.C.) Rife home page.

http://www.rt66.com/~rifetech/ Welcome To Royal Rife Technologies Homepage

I have no personal experience with any of the devices listed or referenced. As always, caveat emptor and due diligence.
There is something beyond our mind which abides in silence within our mind. It is the supreme mystery beyond thought. Let one's mind and one's subtle body rest upon that and not rest on anything else. — Maitri Upanishad
User avatar
bboyer
 
Posts: 2410
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:50 pm
Location: Upland, CA, USA

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Thu May 01, 2008 12:59 pm

The usual sorry tale of profit before people.

Doctors kill more people than guns and traffic accidents


We don't have 'guns' here in the UK but otherwise the statement is equally applicable to our medical 'profession'. Also equally applicable is the fact about people in hospitable dying of something other than what they went in with.

If we had bumper-stickers over here, mine would read: 'Save the planet - shoot an expert'.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread postby polarityparadox » Thu May 01, 2008 9:22 pm

My homeopathc org. NUPATH had Bare come and demo his machine, very interesting how it combines sound, light and RF and then generates a plasma wave via the resonance of a noble gas in a glass tube with the three modes of frequency: sound, light and RF. Bare said the plasma wave has a unique ability to radiate into a the whole room and only impinge upon you only what you need, like love he said..... We send people to him occasionally to combat cancer virus or other nasty deep-seated infectious based disease conditions in parallel with heilkunst treatment
Truth is higher than everything but higher still is true living.

- Nanak

Complexity leads to perplexity and simplicity leads to Eternity.

- Kirpal Singh
User avatar
polarityparadox
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread postby Plasmatic » Fri May 02, 2008 12:47 am

Bare said the plasma wave has a unique ability to radiate into a the whole room and only impinge upon you only what you need, like love he said.....



:lol: :lol: Did he name this machine the finger of God???
"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification"......" I am therefore Ill think"
Ayn Rand
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Aristotle
Plasmatic
 
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:14 pm

Re: Pleomorphic Theory of Microorganisms

Unread postby Grey Cloud » Fri May 02, 2008 5:35 am

Plasmatic wrote:
Bare said the plasma wave has a unique ability to radiate into a the whole room and only impinge upon you only what you need, like love he said.....



:lol: :lol: Did he name this machine the finger of God???


I'm guessing that Bare was thinking more along the lines of the feeling of connectedness and/or bliss that is accessible, for instance, via a meditative state.
Bare seems far too intelligent a person to imagine for one moment that 'God' has fingers.
If I have the least bit of knowledge
I will follow the great Way alone
and fear nothing but being sidetracked.
The great Way is simple
but people delight in complexity.
Tao Te Ching, 53.
Grey Cloud
 
Posts: 2477
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 5:47 am
Location: NW UK

Previous

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests