# Life after death? - Scientific Study



## Guest (Oct 9, 2014)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largestever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-neardeath-experiences-may-actually-be-real-9780195.html

"Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences may be real

There is scientific evidence to suggest that life can continue after death, according to the largest ever medical study carried out on the subject.

A team based in the UK has spent the last four years seeking out cardiac arrest patients to analyse their experiences, and found that almost 40 per cent of survivors described having some form of "awareness" at a time when they were declared clinically dead.

Experts currently believe that the brain shuts down within 20 to 30 seconds of the heart stopping beating - and that it is not possible to be aware of anything at all once that has happened.

But scientists in the new study said they heard compelling evidence that patients experienced real events for up to three minutes after this had happened - and could recall them accurately once they had been resuscitated.

Dr Sam Parnia, an assistant professor at the State University of New York and a former research fellow at the University of Southampton who led the research, said that he previously that patients who described near-death experiences were only relating hallucinatory events.

One man, however, gave a "very credible" account of what was going on while doctors and nurses tried to bring him back to life - and says that he felt he was observing his resuscitation from the corner of the room.

Speaking to The Telegraph about the evidence provided by a 57-year-old social worker Southampton, Dr Parnia said: "We know the brain can't function when the heart has stopped beating.

"But in this case, conscious awareness appears to have continued for up to three minutes.

"The man described everything that had happened in the room, but importantly, he heard two bleeps from a machine that makes a noise at three minute intervals. So we could time how long the experienced lasted for.

"He seemed very credible and everything that he said had happened to him had actually happened."

Dr Parnia's study involved 2,060 patients from 15 hospitals in the UK, US and Austria, and has been published in the journal Resuscitation.

Of those who survived, 46 per cent experienced a broad range of mental recollections, nine per cent had experiences compatible with traditional definitions of a near-death experience and two per cent exhibited full awareness with explicit recall of "seeing" and "hearing" events - or out-of-body experiences.

Dr Parnia said that the findings of the study as a whole suggested that "the recalled experience surrounding death now merits further genuine investigation without prejudice".

Dr Jerry Nolan, editor-in-chief of the journal which published the research, said: "The researchers are to be congratulated on the completion of a fascinating study that will open the door to more extensive research into what happens when we die."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/life-after-death-largestever-study-provides-evidence-that-out-of-body-and-neardeath-experiences-may-actually-be-real-9780195.html


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2014)




----------



## Pyrite (Mar 25, 2014)

Based on this, I think there needs to be a revaluation on the idea that the brain can't function in any capacity 30 seconds after the heart stops, if anything it looks like this studied showed that fact to not be 100% accurate.


----------



## missjess (Jun 1, 2012)

Ha ha ha I wish science wud stop trying to "prove" a spiritual existence ...there's just some things science will never be able to prove scientifically

There are so many things that are happening spiritually and in the spiritual world that science just cannot measure upto


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

missjess said:


> Ha ha ha I wish science wud stop trying to "prove" a spiritual existence ...there's just some things science will never be able to prove scientifically
> 
> There are so many things that are happening spiritually and in the spiritual world that science just cannot measure upto


I'm a firm believer that if there is something to spirituality, which I know there is, then it can potentially be scientifically studied.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

missjess said:


> Ha ha ha I wish science wud stop trying to "prove" a spiritual existence ...there's just some things science will never be able to prove scientifically
> 
> There are so many things that are happening spiritually and in the spiritual world that science just cannot measure upto


I'm with you on this Jess. Even if 'they' do prove some kind of spirituality (which I can't see coming for a long long time), it's only going to 'prove' what half the world knows anyway. Kind of useless really. Besides.. there's no certainty in science, so there'll always be question marks in their findings.

I love the first line&#8230;'"Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences may be real'.. hahaha 'out of body experiences MAY be real'. Really? lol. I don't know if anyone here has had out of body experiences (I think some have), but how do feel about someone saying "your experience MAY be real?" It's really not that uncommon for abuse survivors to describe in detail their out of body experience..

You know, when i read this article (only what was posted in the OP), my immediate thoughts were.. didn't I hear this same research 20 years ago, or was that 30 years ago? Almost the same study with the same patients, saying the same things? Didn't the researchers listen to, or believe the patients last time? Or the time before that, or the time before that?? I'll bet this has been going on for decades. And what do we get? This MAY be real?? Ohh come on..


----------



## Pyrite (Mar 25, 2014)

True, word of mouth and the interpretation of biased groups and individuals should be our only source for understanding the phenomenons associated with spirituality.

One of two things will happen with the involvement of science in spirituality; aspects of it will be disproved, or some will be proved to one extent or another, and then be rejected by some members of the spiritual community because it's no longer their special thing.

If people weren't afraid of either of those possibilities then their wouldn't be any opposition to science applying it's method's to spirituality.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

Pyrite said:


> True, word of mouth and the interpretation of biased groups and individuals should be our only source for understanding the phenomenons associated with spirituality.


Bit of sarcasm perhaps? Not sure.. don't really understand what you mean.



Pyrite said:


> One of two things will happen with the involvement of science of spirituality; aspects of it will be disproved, or some will be proved to one extent or another, and then be rejected by some members of the spiritual community because it's no longer their special thing.
> 
> If people weren't afraid of either of those possibilities then their wouldn't be any opposition to science applying it's method's to spirituality.


I see many parallels with the research into spirituality as I do with research into the dissociative disorders. It's been going on for a long long time and they don't seem to have gotten very far. Is it b/c they can't 'see' what they're trying to study? Is it b/c the soul or the human mind isn't anything that's tangible and therefore can't be 'proven' to exist? After all, they can't weight it, see it, feel it, smell it, or seemingly measure it in any way.. So does that mean the only 'proof' they'll ever be able to come up with, will be numerical data spat out after collecting people's first hand experiences? If that's so.. I recommend 'they' start listening.. ohhh and more importantly.. believing what they hear.


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2014)

I'm a firm believer that if there is something to spirituality, which I know there is, then it can potentially be scientifically studied.


----------



## Pyrite (Mar 25, 2014)

Zed said:


> Bit of sarcasm perhaps? Not sure.. don't really understand what you mean.
> 
> I see many parallels with the research into spirituality as I do with research into the dissociative disorders. It's been going on for a long long time and they don't seem to have gotten very far. Is it b/c they can't 'see' what they're trying to study? Is it b/c the soul or the human mind isn't anything that's tangible and therefore can't be 'proven' to exist? After all, they can't weight it, see it, feel it, smell it, or seemingly measure it in any way.. So does that mean the only 'proof' they'll ever be able to come up with, will be numerical data spat out after collecting people's first hand experiences? If that's so.. I recommend 'they' start listening.. ohhh and more importantly.. believing what they hear.


You can study anything scientifically, it isn't all about numbers.

Everything you just described applies to psychology, and we study that scientifically without the protest. In fact as far I'm concerned spirituality IS psychology; it's applied in the exact same ways and has the same over all goals and impacts on people.

Strip away the out of body experiences, energy levels and all of that, and spirituality is simply a system used to explain and understand psychological phenomenons and give ways that people can alter there thought and perceptions.

What you're telling me is that you know spiritual phenomenons are real, but your opposed to other people making an effort to agree with you? Your scolding and mocking people for not just accepting your word at face value, when that is an entirely reasonable thing to do.


----------



## *Dreamer* (Feb 18, 2014)

I think the title of the article is somewhat misleading and a bit sensational. And this type of work is important.

Firstly, this aids in understanding "medical ethics" -- how we deterimine death (keeping someone on or off a respirator -- are they conscious or not), the horror (and I've experienced it of paralysis under anesthesia which is far more common than believed. No one actually believed that this would happen to me until I told a surgeon I heard an entire conversation, the music he was playing in the room, and that a nurse came in the room and told him his next surgery was delayed.

It is further examination into consciousness. I don't read this as proving something spiritual per se, but that we now have proof (actual verifiable memories and experiences) from individuals who have gone "beyond what was believed to be brain dead" -- by a few minutes at least. And this is scientific. They had a theory, a means to test it, and they follwed it up with a very large sample of individuals. This is anecdotal, and was a controlled study. That is science.

And no, we don't know everything about out-of-body experiences (which are usually created during brian surgery when electrodes end up in a certain area); the patient must remain awake and communicates these things to the doctor. We then can learn that part A of the brain is related to dissociative experiences, etc.

I find it fascinating, and neither proof nor disproof of "life after death" -- but something that has expanded our awareess of LENGTH of time one has consciousness of one form or another after being "declared deceased" and then revivied.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

What I was talking about is so far derailed.. Not really interested in talking to people that run all over the place with stuff just for the sake of an argument.. I was just talking about the article and some parallels with the research into dissociative disorders, ie how long it's taken to get virtually nowhere.

Hey Dreamer. I know probably about 15 people who've had significant trauma outside of hospitals and have had OBE's. Me included. As you said, it happens on the operating table as well and I guess it happens in other ways too. I'm not really happy to read an article that basically says "your experiences may be true." I've never been DX'd with any form of psychosis, so I can't even begin to wonder why people would question the validity of my experience in the first place.


----------



## Pyrite (Mar 25, 2014)

Zed said:


> What I was talking about is so far derailed.. Not really interested in talking to people that run all over the place with stuff just for the sake of an argument.. I was just talking about the article and some parallels with the research into dissociative disorders, ie how long it's taken to get virtually nowhere.
> 
> Hey Dreamer. I know probably about 15 people who've had significant trauma outside of hospitals and have had OBE's. Me included. As you said, it happens on the operating table as well and I guess it happens in other ways too. I'm not really happy to read an article that basically says "your experiences may be true." I've never been DX'd with any form of psychosis, so I can't even begin to wonder why people would question the validity of my experience in the first place.


How people interpret experiences is not necessarily what they truly are.


----------



## *Dreamer* (Feb 18, 2014)

Pyrite said:


> How people interpret experiences is not necessarily what they truly are.


Well, if a person is psychotic, that statement could be true -- that is, they look at a friend and see a demon, they LITERALLY believe that individual is a demon and could try to hurt them.

But there are an infinite number of experiences we can share -- such as DP/DR. All of us here seem to have similar experiences. We can give them a name. We can give deja-vu a name and know what we are all talking about.

I'm guessing you are saying that these last moments of lucidity in those who are "clinically dead" could be interpreted as a move towards the afterlife, but that is not what this article is talking about really. The experiences are all common. Researchers will look into the areas of the brain where these things occur.

I don't know if someone can prove there is an afterlife, but this study proves that what was previously thought about how long the brain can function has gone from what? seconds to several minutes. That is something learned -- and can be added to science.

I'm not sure what the problem is in science/neurology trying to understand the brain. The more the understanding, the better treatments will happen for neurological and psychiatric disorders. This could help in communicating with stroke patients who seem unresponsive. Or knowing that someone in a coma may be very much aware of what is said to him/her. And there are ways in which someone in a coma could possibly communicate pain, fear, etc.

I always recommend the books of Oliver Sacks, M.D. -- I love "Hallucinations" -- may people can hallucinate and NOT be psychotic, and said hallucinations are "real." They happen to many people. Some people constantly hear music. Blind people "see people" who aren't there. Look up Charles Bonnet Syndrome. Also read "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat." Or read V.S. Ramachndran's "A Brief Tour of Human Consciousnes."

I'm concerned that people reject scientific research ... any kind. When I was young many of the machines used today did not exist to examine the brain. Also, someone with cancer did not live as long. Heart surgery would result in a 50% mortality rate.

Think of it in terms of technological advances. Most young people here grew up with technology I didn't have. I was a toddler in the 1960s. Microwave ovens were just put on the market. We had no computers, or cell phones. So many things ... you have to live a lifetime to see the changes that occur. They are astonishing. I'm still stunned that I have a smartphone. No one would have believed that when I grew up. Etc., etc., etc.


----------



## Pyrite (Mar 25, 2014)

*Dreamer* said:


> Well, if a person is psychotic, that statement could be true -- that is, they look at a friend and see a demon, they LITERALLY believe that individual is a demon and could try to hurt them.
> 
> But there are an infinite number of experiences we can share -- such as DP/DR. All of us here seem to have similar experiences. We can give them a name. We can give deja-vu a name and know what we are all talking about.
> 
> ...


A lot of the opposition is centered around genetics and neurology. In those fields your essentially taking the entirety of what makes someone human and distilling it into data on a sheet. If not handled delicately it can be highly invasive and dehumanizing.

I get worried that as both of those fields advance people will be treated more like inherently malfunctioning machines then people, and a lot of the tech is ripe for some serious abuse and misuse. There will be an unpleasant period where society is going to have to establish the line between what can be and what should be done with these fields.

Someone posted an article about mind reading tech, it's great that it can be used to give communication to those who can't, but it also has a lot of disturbing invasive possibilities to it as well.

We've been talking about gene therapy in my immunology course to treat genetically linked immunodeficiency. Which reminded of an old news report about designer babies, basically using genetic techniques to create the ideal child. I don't think people should be allowed to pick out their children's trait like a dog breed at the pet store because it would cheapen human life, but if there is enough money and propaganda involved it will be entirely legal.

I obviously don't oppose science at all; science gives us tools, it's people who choose how to use them. I know people well enough to know that they always choose both.

The main conflict of anyone involved with science in anyway is "are your willing to be involved in the creation of something that will be abused?"


----------



## *Dreamer* (Feb 18, 2014)

> I obviously don't oppose science at all; science gives us tools, it's people who choose how to use them. I know people well enough to know that they always choose both.
> 
> The main conflict of anyone involved with science in anyway is "are your willing to be involved in the creation of something that will be abused?"


Pyrite, I surprise myself as I am seeing the glass half full and you are seeing it half empty.
Misuse of any knowledge is common in all fields. What about the invention of the atomic bomb? What about the internet which is both wonderful and dangerous to kids? I could list virtually every invention and advancement in the history of mankind that is both wonderful and terrible.

I happen to be a great fan of science. I always have been. I also tend to see humans as complex animals -- very complex, yet animals nonetheless -- with instincts that go back millions of years.

Say if you think of Freud ... the man was brilliant ... but he was also a horrible person. Many of his theories still hold up, many took psychiatry back 100 years. He was abusive and manipulative of women.

Life is full of good and bad. And I see this in people -- we all have it in our nature to be both.

I guess I am also less spiritual. That came from being raised by an atheist. It came from being exposed to two doctors as parents. It came from going to a school where we were taught to try to examine all points of view. IDK why I think this way.

Things that trouble me are those who completely reject science -- such as evolution, or vaccines, or have no understanding of Ebola and are scaring the Hell out of people. I also despise the stigma of mental illness. We live in a world where we are only beginning to understand the brain. And yes, there are dangers and there are great benefits. I don't like the thought of designer babies, but that was certainly not the original intent of looking into genetics, fertility issues, etc. and on and on.

This is nothing new ... this is the history of mankind.

We still hate. We still love. We still work to survive. We procreate. And in the end we die.

I'm not arguing, I simply have this POV, and at age 55 I have debated it in myself and others for years. I am also wary of everything, from politics, to organized religion, to ... name it.


----------



## Pyrite (Mar 25, 2014)

*Dreamer* said:


> Pyrite, I surprise myself as I am seeing the glass half full and you are seeing it half empty.
> Misuse of any knowledge is common in all fields. What about the invention of the atomic bomb? What about the internet which is both wonderful and dangerous to kids? I could list virtually every invention and advancement in the history of mankind that is both wonderful and terrible.
> 
> I happen to be a great fan of science. I always have been. I also tend to see humans as complex animals -- very complex, yet animals nonetheless -- with instincts that go back millions of years.
> ...


I see things from the half full and half empty perspective all the time and leads to a frustrating middle ground where I'm excited about a lot of things and hesitant at the same time.

I've taken up a policy of getting excited, but never discounting the worst outcome.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

Pyrite said:


> How people interpret experiences is not necessarily what they truly are.


That's often the attitude that so many people come up against when they seek help for abuse and/or the dissociative disorders and it's demeaning and damaging at the same time. It's even expressed in the OP article. Just using the work 'may' (1st line: 'Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences 'may' be real).. It's like saying "we NEARLY believe what we're being told, but not quite." Ok, fair enough.. Numbers add weight to research, but this research has been going on for decades, if not a hundred or more years idk. I'll guess and say thousands of people have recounted their stories about OBE's and near death experiences with many similarities. So, at what stage are people going to be believed? When they've got years of 'expertise' under their belts? How many people does it take, recounting similar stories before the research is in?

Just so know Pyrite. I like science too.. some science but not all.

I believe we rely too much on science when it comes to farming, and as a consequence we're destroying our land, b/c science in this field is more about generating money than good quality sustainable food sources. Nature is all but ignored. Why? B/c there's not much money in allowing nature to do it's work and grow the food for us.. Am I allowed to express that view without being told that I'm scolding and mocking people? I'll argue my point until the cows come home.. if people don't agree, well fine. Next...

I also believe there are a lot of people in this world with DP/DRD (and dissociative disorders in general) are being 'cared for' by professionals who have little expertise and 'treating' their patients in ways which are harmful to their bodies and minds with little or no recovery. But does it stop? Nope.. it just goes on b/c the science isn't in.


----------



## Guest (Oct 31, 2014)

I'd just like to add.. I'm not opposed to studying the human mind and brain and body. I am opposed to people and our planet being harmed though.


----------



## Pyrite (Mar 25, 2014)

Zed said:


> That's often the attitude that so many people come up against when they seek help for abuse and/or the dissociative disorders and it's demeaning and damaging at the same time. It's even expressed in the OP article. Just using the work 'may' (1st line: 'Life after death? Largest-ever study provides evidence that 'out of body' and 'near-death' experiences 'may' be real).. It's like saying "we NEARLY believe what we're being told, but not quite." Ok, fair enough.. Numbers add weight to research, but this research has been going on for decades, if not a hundred or more years idk. I'll guess and say thousands of people have recounted their stories about OBE's and near death experiences with many similarities. So, at what stage are people going to be believed? When they've got years of 'expertise' under their belts? How many people does it take, recounting similar stories before the research is in?
> 
> Just so know Pyrite. I like science too.. some science but not all.
> 
> ...


People's word isn't solid evidence, never has been. Large numbers of people say things that aren't true, but get repeated over and over because other people have said them.

And just because something can be described and interpreted as an out of body experience dose not mean it has to be that in a literal way.

It's easier on people when they have an explanation that sounds good, instead of just admitting "I don't know or understand"

If we didn't rely on science for things like farming, we would be dooming millions to starve; no one wants that blood on their hands no matter the benefit.


----------



## *Dreamer* (Feb 18, 2014)

Zed said:


> ..
> 
> I also believe there are a lot of people in this world with DP/DRD (and dissociative disorders in general) are being 'cared for' by professionals who have little expertise and 'treating' their patients in ways which are harmful to their bodies and minds with little or no recovery. But does it stop? Nope.. it just goes on b/c the science isn't in.


The problem with this argument though, IMHO, is that "the science is *never* in." I've said 1,000 times there is no cure or vaccine for AIDS, cancer, and Ebola -- there aren't even any guaranteed medications for that. AIDs has been around since the early 1900s I believe. The epidemic didn't jump to humans and become a horrible worldwide problem until the 1970s. I lived through that time of fear. Research has changed the lives of so many people -- it isn't a guaranteed death sentence, however the virus mutates. Science must figure how to keep up with that. A virus fights for its own survival by adapting.

No one is ignoring DP/DR -- we know that world wide (and I especially like Dr. Mauricio Sierra's group) are indeed researching DP -- and somehow folks here think this is an easy task. .There are so many pressing problems in a world of billions of people. When someone comes up with a new idea, they aren't always anticipating what might come in the future. No one anticipated the population of the Earth would grow to this amount. The Earth can't handle all of us ... lack of water is becoming a problem.

Again with computers. I did not grow up with the internet. No one even believed it could exist for the average person. I finally got on it when I was 42 and I am 55. No one anticipated all of the consequences, such as shortened attention spans, useless information, plagiarism, virus' and hacking into sensitive agencies and stealing information. Folks didn't realize that planes and autos would depend on computer systems so heavily -- and they can fail so easily. I also typed my university papers on a typewriter. OMG I wish I had a word-processing program to correct my spelling, help add footnotes -- I wouldn't have been up night after night typing what I had handwritten to start.

Who pays for these things? We are forgetting economics. In terms of mental health care, research is going into the most serious illnesses that keep people in the hospital, keep them from working or having a normal life, have them end up on the street or homeless or in jail or dead. Schizophrenia, bipolar, schizoaffective, serious clinical depression. It isn't that DP/DR aren't horrific and disabling, they are not a primary focus of research. This is the same with orphan medical disorders.

OCD was once believed to be rare. It isn't. Hoarder/Clutterer was once believed to be rare. It isn't. Homosexuality used to be thought of as a mental illness. It isn't. It takes time for advancements and understanding. And we are humans who make mistakes in the process.

Also, the hue and cry over GMO ... plants and food have been modified for centuries. Interbreeding of plants and animals. There are so many countries that HAVE NO FOOD. People are dying. How can we help them? Research makes different attempts. We now know that say a more vegetarian diet is more healthy, but many don't have access to healthy foods. Farmers have to make a living, they can't easily change from raising cattle to raising soy beans.

As I said, everything in this world can be used for good or bad. And mistakes are made, the wrong assumptions are made.

Be grateful that major mental illness isn't seen as being possessed by demons where you need a hole drilled in your skull to release the demon. Or lobotomies.

I guess you have to be older, look at a long history, live a long life to see change and understand why it happens at a more rapid pace or never seems to change. It isn't any conspiracy, though there are ignorant people and bad people who take advantage of things. None of this is new. Absolutely none of it.


----------



## Guest (Nov 1, 2014)

Don't forget I'm 51. I can relate to a lot of things you talk about, and I've been very passionate about a lot of issues for a long time as well.

You mentioned water, and the quantity of water being a problem. Yes, I suppose that's true for a lot of people (and always has been), but the next big problem (already here) is the quality of water. I don't know if you've noticed.. but there's a lot of poisoning of waterways going on, and there has been for a long time, rendering water undrinkable and in fact, toxic. What are your thoughts on that? Lets not mention what's going on with Fukushima for the next couple of thousand years or so.. Shhh.

GMO foods. GMO crops are reliant on chemicals to produce. Herbicides and pesticides in particular. You don't buy the chemicals, you don't have a good crop. You don't buy just seeds, you buy a whole 'package' or else you're wasting your time.. Quality of food being produced? Questionable. Have you noticed how many countries have refused GMO crops? Lot's. Ever wonder why? Here's a link worth reading on GMO. Written by a scientist who worked on it..

https://www.minds.com/blog/view/328974027555082240/gmo-whistleblower-dr-thierry-vrain-unveils-insane-insider-information-on-engineered-food

Golly gosh!! Imagine that.. big companies funding their OWN research! Who would have thought that could happen? hahahaha.. Same thing happens all too often with the medical research world too Dreamer&#8230; Big pharma funding their own research. Results could be a little biased don't you think? Perhaps even pure bullshit..

Recommended viewing for all people who don't like 'conspiracy theorists'!






Enjoy!


----------



## tazi (Jan 8, 2009)

The video is as sure all conspiracy theorists are wrong, just like the conspiracy theorists theselves are so sure they are right


----------



## Pyrite (Mar 25, 2014)

Zed said:


> Don't forget I'm 51. I can relate to a lot of things you talk about, and I've been very passionate about a lot of issues for a long time as well.
> 
> You mentioned water, and the quantity of water being a problem. Yes, I suppose that's true for a lot of people (and always has been), but the next big problem (already here) is the quality of water. I don't know if you've noticed.. but there's a lot of poisoning of waterways going on, and there has been for a long time, rendering water undrinkable and in fact, toxic. What are your thoughts on that? Lets not mention what's going on with Fukushima for the next couple of thousand years or so.. Shhh.
> 
> ...


We've been using herbicides and pesticides since before people knew genes were a thing! If we stopped using them food production would go to shit because tons of it would be lost to weeds and crop pests.

Some of the crap in that article don't even make sense! A) why would anyone give a plant amipcillen resistance genes, that is utterly pointless. B) Bacteria can't just steal genes from a plant, gene transfer can occur between bacteria because SOME have the mechanisms needed to perform that complex operation. Transgene is just a term to note a gene that was transfered into a new organism, beyond that it has no special properties that would allow it to spontaneously transfer to bacteria. Ampicellen resistance is common do to over use of antibiotics, or it could be specific to the strain they were testing.

Okay, super weeds. It is literally no different then the issue with antibiotic resistance. When you use a chemical to kill something, a few organism will always survive because they have a natural resistance to that chemical. Those survivors breed and make more resent weeds, and so on and so forth until you end up with a population that is immune to the chemical. The reason round-up resitient weeds are so common is because the crops were designed to work best with round-up, making it very widely used. This has nothing to do with GMO crops transferring their genes to weeds, that cannot happen! This man is insisting that two different species are breeding successfully, that is impossible and defies the concept of a species!

How can I believe someone who doesn't even understand the basics of biology?


----------



## thisisawersome (Apr 27, 2014)

Remember, there can be NOTHING, for NO TIME, thats why sleep feels so fast, what I believe DP is, is a lack of consiousness and bad circulation of energy and thoughts.

People who belive death is nothing, please consider your own logic and experience of life, for your own sake.


----------



## *Dreamer* (Feb 18, 2014)

Sorry, Zed, I have to agree with Pyrite. And I am very disturbed by conspiracy theorists. As indeed many (and many politicians and others) have no knowledge of science. Somehow it is a "bad thing" and I don't understand that.

I was thinking again about the advances in the treatment of the heart. My father was a thoracic surgeon -- removed cancerous lungs and did some heart surgery. Graduated from Harvard in the 1930s (he was much older than I when I was born.)

What was known in 1930 was NOTHING vs. what we know now about the heart. And much was learned by doctors' experiences in hospital ERs where they would see repeated symptoms -- DESCRIBED by patients. The symptoms:

1. Pain in left jaw

2. Pain radiating down left arm
3. Extreme fatigue

4. "Feeling like an elephant is sitting on your chest"
5. Nausea

Those are key symptoms of a heart attack in MEN.

It was thought that heart attacks occured mostly in men. Later, it was discovered that women have DIFFERENT symptoms.
1. Fatigue

2. Flu like symptoms

3. Nausea
but not necessarily the pain described by men. Then they just drop dead. Or they can be revived.

Often men and women can have "silent heart attacks" ... SCIENCE .... AND listening to individual patients changed the way doctors dealt with heart problems over the decades. Doctors noted patterns, researchers focused on "why?" Medications now help prevent heart attacks (or lower the risk) ... and many tech advances (stents, bypass surgery, etc.) help individuals who have had heart attacks or who have a genetic history of them. Genetics again has helped people see if illnesses run in familes. Not just anecdotal stories (which are important), but actual genetic profiles.

Also, for years cigarette companies said smoking was healthy for you. When I grew up, good Lord, my parents smoked ... everyone smoked. Then someone figured that smoking could cause lung cancer, throat cancer, heart disease etc.

I am a little tired about "Big Pharma" conspiracies -- but I'm not saying we shouldn't look at risk/benefit of every medication we take ... if there were no medications out there ... many of us wouldn't be around for a lot of different reasons. And this is why there are some 10,000 deaths in W. Africa from Ebola and other illness whereas all of those infected who have come back to the US have survived, save Mr. Duncan who did not get treatment early enough.

Would you like to die of AIDS, Ebola, Hanta Virus, Malaria, I could go on and on ... common in many other countries that have terrible or NO medical care and not enough (if any medicatioin) for patients? Also, mental health care in most countries is horrible. It is non-existant in many that are not "Western" ...

Medicine didn't create disease. Research hasn't created disease. Disease has been around since time began. Science has stepped in to help stop it.

"Know Science, No Stigma"

Also, I am a four year survivor of breast cancer. My aunt who got breast cancer at the same age years ago ... well it was a death sentence for her -- she died in 1975 -- very few choices of treatment -- and there was much stigma attached to breast cancer then -- just as there is surrounding mental illness today. Research has improved my odds. I am more upset about DP, anxiety and depression than my cancer survival odds.


----------

