Galaxia2002
Dagobah Resident
I translate this interview to Maximo Sandin, because in part resonates with the Laura's article "The Golden Age, psychopathy and the sixth extinction" He thinks that bacteria are activated as result of a perturbation and not because they are pathogenyc per se, which open a new way to see our interactions with this beings. .
He said that our inmune system is not made mainly for fight external agressions but to kill our own non useful cells, a kind of cleaning mechanism. I also get to know some amazing facts in biology while I read.
The translations is by google with some fixes because I am not good to translate spanish into english. I hope translate another article where he talks about the bad science of Pasteur
http://www.dsalud.com/index.php?pagina=articulo&c=1184
He said that our inmune system is not made mainly for fight external agressions but to kill our own non useful cells, a kind of cleaning mechanism. I also get to know some amazing facts in biology while I read.
The translations is by google with some fixes because I am not good to translate spanish into english. I hope translate another article where he talks about the bad science of Pasteur
http://www.dsalud.com/index.php?pagina=articulo&c=1184
Spanish biologist Max Sandín see nature as a set of integrated and complex systems in balance, and not in constant competition, considering the absurd thesis that bacteria and viruses are responsible for most diseases. Rather, it means that they are indispensable agents in the vital processes and their possible pathogenic-minority activity regarding their total number, is more related to the transfer of genes in response to external aggression. It also arises the question whether the artificial introduction into the body of attenuated microbes, or pieces of them-through vaccines do not distort the natural mechanisms of balance with the environment.
Maximum Sandín-member of the Biology Department at the Autonomous University of Madrid and a professor of Human Evolution and Human Ecology, is one of the few voices critical of the dominant Darwinian view, not only in current biology but in much of the social fabric including medicine. What sets this Spanish bioanthropological most of his colleagues is that he rejects the view of mainstream biology according to which nature is characterized by competition. He prefers to talk about the need for balance, instead of betting on the survival of the fittest which is do it for the intelligent cooperation with nature and against the simplistic view of the invisible enemy, virus, bacteria, fungi ... - -He speaks about microbes as authentic "building blocks of life" while they are capable of leading to self-destruction if we continue with the absurd idea of fighting them at all costs because the latest knowledge about viral mechanisms for transfer of genetic information and discoveries of viral sequences in animal and plant genomes clearly show that viruses have played-and-play a crucial role in the evolution as a source of genetic variation with bacteria and their complex packages of information (we invite whoever wants to deepen their approaches to visit their website : www.uam.es / maximo.sandin).
"Now that we have made discoveries that throw to the ground (even more) the assumptions which underpin the whole theoretical basis of biology and, therefore, all the concepts and interpretations derived from it (a whole view of nature) - Sandin says in letter to Nereida, a text devoted to their students- the jerifaltes of Biology curling when some innocent spirit would think that if the basis is wrong it is reasonable to try to develop one based on new data. Do not feel this is an attitude more characteristic of a sect that real scientists? (...) What should worry us is the Darwinian assembly because it is the directing and controlling teaching and, especially, research, and imposing its vision 'science' of life and society, which has led the world to the current situation. "
DARWINISM: SCIENCE OR RELIGION?
"You wrote:" The evolution is not evolution. " Why you argue that all biological paradigm built around the natural selection, ie the theory of evolution Darwin - epicenter of the world today- not only natural but a social- has no scientific basis?
"When I became interested in the theory of evolution I was working on issues of public health, and human ecology. And soon I realized that there were many socially accepted truths that are not claimed, it was superficial explanations without any scientific basis. At first I thought that Darwinism was simply an obsolete scientific theory superseded by later known data but when I published a book, Lamarck and the messengers -a collection of the data related to the developments that called into question Darwinism and raised the scheme a new evolutionary model I received a reply quite irascible, very emotional. Then I wondered why a science such as biology had such reverence for Charles Darwin and the absolute conviction that he had explained everything. So I went to the source, I read Darwin's books and I was stunned. They are true freaks! That it was when I contacted Andrés Galera, historian of science of the Higher Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), who gave me information on a significant number of authors who in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had been scientifically studied the evolution and had obtained very interesting results that contradicted the Darwinian vision. That led me to wonder why they had risen to Darwin to the altar. It was when I came to the conclusion that Darwinism is nothing but a "scientific appendix" of the Free Market theory. It emerged in the Anglo-Saxon countries where the Calvinist conception of the world holds that man is selfish by nature and that individual selfishness leads the general well being -Adam Smith in its purest form- , and that the fittest, the highest and most blessed by nature are those with "biological right to be chieftain and leaders" in the words of Francis Galton, a cousin of Darwin and the founder of eugenics. So today, and I am sorry if I seem radical, concluded that Darwinism was from the beginning a kind of montage done by influential people like Huxley and Hooch, distinguished scientists and people of great political power in Britain, because suit his own beliefs. The truth is that silenced the voices of dissenting scientists and established that evolutionary Darwinism is a very convenient way of looking at life for classes that dominate the world. Because that that life is competition and that the fittest are called to master suits to the rulers.
"But Darwinism, by raising so many exceptions and invocations at random, which has done is rather to support creationism, the idea that there is a creator God from which emanates all.
"The rise of creationism is due to creationists are not stupid, have brought out the weaknesses of Darwinism that are indeed many. After all, Darwinists have no rational explanations for what they say and so they are limited to support the dogma, because that is what it is-that natural selection explains everything. With it they have managed to win more followers, nowadays Creationism become increasingly popular, especially in the United States. But while this reaction serves to reaffirm Darwinists they hold a scientific stance against Creationism that has mere religious grounds. The truth is that Darwinism arose at a particular time in England that determinate everything. At that time was running an English bourgeois revolution against the backdrop of the industrial revolution. Requesting access to the middle classes to power in a Britain dominated by the nobility and large landowners and the church hierarchy, for pure interest, defending the traditional socio-economic status. So the new British bourgeoisie rebelled against the Church and the possibility of natural selection as materialistic explanation of nature enabled them to eliminate the need for God. In short, Darwin's theory was used as a counter-dogma to weaken the Church and was so widely supported. And Darwinism became in another dogma!
Scientists now know that modern science has no explanation for everything, and yet claims that Darwinism itself, can explain everything. It has thus become a kind of new religion with which you want to explain the reality of life, of nature, human beings ... And it is the religion character of Darwinism that makes it so hard to fight it.
But you have to do it. We must stop inventing theories and begin from the actual data we have. And they tell us that life began on Earth by aggregation of bacteria and the contribution of sequences from viruses! And not a bacterium that acquire an "advantage" but many at once. It is a process derived from the characteristics of bacteria and viruses.
Darwinism lacks sufficient data to justify the theory of evolution. Never has made it. It simply invents the past processes. No need to rely on real data. As they say evolution is random ...! And yet it is used to justify the current life in society prime competition for men to live in merciless struggle against each other because they are considered "natural" that the strongest is imposed, it is accepted and have genetic determinism as reductionist vision of man, society and nature.
We must break this paradigm, we must seriously rethink things and return to a more global view of nature, life and ourselves. And it must be based on actual scientific knowledge and established, not interested in theories without any basis.
VIRUSES AND BACTERIA, Friend or Foe?
In short, that for you the Darwinian conception of nature as a battlefield full of competitors who need to be removed is false. Concept that in the field of health led to consider such as bacteria and viruses as enemies of the human organisms and causing almost all disease ...
"Indeed. And it is a distorted product of not wanting anything to do with the knowledge that science is giving us full speed every day in the last decades. We currently have such concrete data indicating that the eukaryotic cell, our cell, is an aggregate of bacteria and is a complex system whose formation has involved virus since there are features of eukaryotic chromosomes that are not characteristic of bacteria. I mean, linear chromosomes, telomeres, which are of viral origin, the separation of the transcript of the translation. And I use the term complex system because it is clear that the phenomena of life are very complex and from the same source were produced by addition of complete packages of information, genes and proteins (many of them also of viral origin).
Look, in the human body there are ten times more bacteria than cells! Only in the digestive tract there are ten million different types of bacteria! It is a fundamental phenomenon that triggers the synthesis of vitamins, the assimilation of substances that cannot be digested ... and many others. In short, are essential. In the skin we have bacterial ecosystems that are different depending on if the area is dry, wet or sebaceous. In a drop of sea there are one million bacteria, in one gram of earth four million. Well, there are between 5 and 25 times more viruses than bacteria! We live in very immersed in a sea of bacteria and viruses that, again, are essential for the functioning of life. Few people know that viruses exist in the sea in astronomical numbers control the base of the food pyramid, are a reservoir of genetic information involved in biogeochemical processes among which it is the contribution to the nucleation of clouds, the genome living consists of a sum of bacterial genes and viral genes. Fewer still know that when he sequenced the human genome that was sequenced was actually only the coding portion of the protein and that is only 1.5% of the genome in which sequences have identified hundreds of thousands of bacterial and mobile elements and endogenous retroviruses whole and fragmentary. The rest, the other 98.5% are mobile elements, endogenous viruses, exons, repetitive sequences ... all of viral origin. All this leads to a singular conclusion: are viruses and bacteria the architects of life!
"Then the general belief that bacteria and viruses are almost always invisible enemies that affect our health does not hold ...
"It's a belief surpassed by the actual data. When through microscopes different diseased tissues were analyzed it was discovered that they were viruses and bacteria and immediately they were associated with the problem. That is, they were deemed responsible for these diseases, which is true only under certain conditions of imbalance. What has led them to stay with the label of bacteria and virus pathogens. " No doubt because of the vision that Darwinism instilled in society that sees nature as a set of living in constant struggle against each other, and the enemies to fight. Yet most current scientific knowledge show that bacteria and viruses coexist harmoniously everywhere, including our own bodies. And that only exceptionally become pathogens: when some external cause disrupts normal functioning. This is the case of the introduction into the body of toxic substances, cell disruption due to electromagnetic radiation, the deficit of certain nutrients ... active endogenous viruses are expressed in different tissues and organs.
Look, considering that it is estimated that on Earth 5 x 1030bacterias-ten billion times the estimated number of stars in the universe and the number of viruses is between 5 and 25 times higher if the bacteria and viruses were pathogens we would not last even a second. It's absurd. Doctors and biologists should have already understood that it is impossible that in general are pathogens. Only the bacteria, when something disrupts, exchange what are called pathogenicity islands, transposons that become pathogenic. But that's where it comes from external aggression, what they do then the bacteria is simply to defend themselves. The immune system is not a defense system but of balance. Remove what should not be there, including tumor cells.
-A recently announced influenza pandemic by WHO ...
-... Is a montage. The influenza virus A-may sound a bit harsh but in view of the data I am convinced, it is a laboratory virus sequences made from the 1918 influenza derived from a soldier killed in Alaska-as-published Science and viruses from pigs and poultry. And such recombination in nature does not occur naturally. There are very serious scientists say their expansion is due to a leak of a laboratory error or deliberate action! If this is the case they have not gone as pathogenic as expected.
THE MAN, CAUSE OF THE PATHOGENICITY OF VIRUS
"So when a medical condition found a trail viral perhaps they should think about the effect that the cause ...
"Yes, if we consider that according to experimental data are showing 10% of the genome is complete endogenous virus whose sequences are expressed, are part of the genetic information in various organs. When an environmental assault on a particular organ it becomes unstable and its answer may come accompanied by the release of viral particles. One study on breast cancer which have been observed retroviral particles emitted by the tumor that are of endogenous nature. It says that viruses are responsible for 20% of cancers but may actually be happening is that the viral particles emitting organs affected by the imbalance caused in the exogenous DNA. It is possible that oncogenes are actually viral sequences whose function is to act on the differentiation and proliferation of a particular cell tissue (no data on a flurry of endogenous virus in embryonic tissues), which are activated as a result of a response to environmental aggression. Viral sequences controlling embryonic development and when a tissue is altered the result may be the production of viral particles.
A different question is the virus called "emerging" which is presented as dangerous microorganisms lurking waiting for a chance to find organisms which expand when in fact malignant virus might be some sort of aggression or between the environmental imbalance that can be found Scientists conducted experiments with viruses that are out of context, isolated and manipulated.
"In that case we would have to reverse the approach and consider that somehow, we are through the environmental aggression to the natural balance of life, if not through direct and deliberate actions, which become pathogenic viruses and bacteria ...
"The reductionist view that we have been taught is what often leads us to be responsible for the problems they attribute to the microorganisms. There are many diseases that are considered to be of genetic origin are actually of environmental origin. Diabetes for example. It already points to the existence of "diabetes genes" but if it is increasing dramatically in developed countries it is because there is an environmental reason. Of course sequences may eventually be damaged but not are the cause but the consequence. Many other diseases such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and others are caused by the huge amount of chemicals we are exposed to organophosphates and other chemicals as genotoxics are very common. Logically to break the natural conditions genes are altered which cause disease but are not random mutations but earlier responses to environmental aggressions. What is pathological is the view of nature that they have taught us. With our vision we are competitive destabilizing vital components that should be kept in balance. Do not forget that viruses and bacteria have a positive component which is to contribute to the creation of life and the maintenance and equilibrium of ecosystems, although it is true they have a negative component: its ability to induce pathogenicity when they are destabilized . Of what it is because we understand that what we expose ourselves by introducing changes in the body of many toxic chemicals to water, food, hygiene products, drugs, electromagnetic radiation and, even emotional stress.
"Maybe then our desire to place ourselves above nature, we are becoming a real threat to its balance and in response received a response" therapeutic "in nature.
"Maybe it sounds like a metaphor but I think it is justified by the facts. In the course of life on Earth has been sudden changes in complex organizations, but I call transformations, have also been important selective extinctions that are not found a reason and I think probably, in all probability, have been involved in them viruses. The role of these bacteria is the creator and destroyer. And if we take into account their abundance in all ecosystems and organisms man's endeavor to fight against them is dangerous.
- Is it also a mistake to approach fighting bacteria with antibiotics?
"For the moment, given the situation that has been reached, there is no choice, but we must quickly find alternatives. Recently a very well-researched article published in Science was wondering just that: Are antibiotics really antibiotics? Recent studies show that antibiotics are not weapons but molecules that the bacteria using themselves for communication between them, among other things to control their population. Of course, when used in large quantities are lethal but it should be noted that our knowledge of bacteria has been obtained in laboratory culture, an environment where their behavior is very different from how they behave in reality. There is a huge amount of data in biology from the lab using methodologies that do not reproduce the reality in nature. There is much to rethink and redo a lot to this issue. Antibiotics are considered a great achievement because they have prevented many deaths from infection but should be reconsidered because the bacteria use to communicate information among them- all bacteria in the world can in principle communicate with each other, and so have become resistant. So it may come a time where we can die of simple infections.
BIOLOGICAL COMPETITION IS ALSO BUSINESS
"You part from the fact that in nature, and thus, in our own bodies-virus and bacteria live in balance and are therefore not dangerous, but today, in the early twenty-first century based on our interact with them, and based on uncontrolled environmental assaults, the Darwinian conception can get your truth be the truth.
"The historical origin of the epidemics occurred with the sedentary. When people began to live a sedentary surrounded by domestic animals in poor conditions with no sanitation, water in poor conditions without enough food and surrounded by rats when they started to cause zoonoses, diseases transmissible from vertebrate animals to humans or vice versa. Phenomenon was a result both the alteration of natural conditions.
Look, it is the current Darwinian conception that we have instilled that is causing the current state of affairs. And the economic interests behind it. The pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies are based on reductionist principles. See the case of genes, now they try to make us believe that by modifying it can be achieved automatically all sorts of answers. When the reality is that genetic information depends on the interaction between DNA, RNA, proteins and DNA which they call "junk" and that actually coordinates the activity of genes. The idea of changing a gene for another does not work, is doomed to failure because they cannot control the results for the entire organization. . But there are huge commercial interests involved in these activities.
- How can is considered something in the complex system of life-and more on the DNA as "junk"?
"It is the result of the way of thinking which resulted in what I allowed myself to be defined as the second great catastrophe in the history of biology: the book by Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene. The first disaster was, of course, The Origin of Species Darwin.
Dawkins invented a theory that genes are selfish by nature and tend to compete with other genes to reproduce and spread. And found the bodies as mere survival machines reproduce themselves. Another intended result of the thinking of Calvinism, the free market and Darwinism. But the truth is that when today we speak of the genome actually talking about the 1.5% of it. The rest are considered "junk" something without interest. So when comparing our genome with that of mice or other animals we are really just compare a tiny part of them. Genes are like syllables, pieces that are then combined through a mechanism called alternative splicing is coordinated by the non-coding genome and is the one that responds to the environment. The truth is that the real genome is the protein-coding genes, some 22,000-plus more or less what they call "junk DNA", more protein, more information from the mitochondria over the influence of environment. That is, the result of a large number of phenomena which are in interaction. Obviously if something goes wrong you can get to finding a gene modified but it is not only the responsibility of error but in a complex chain of information that probably began with an environmental alteration.
"After listening I have the impression that most biologists assume public opinion less prepared to learn more of what they actually do ...
"It's a great truth. It's much more to know than we know. The more things appear more difficult to understand what happens. For example, studying the proteome say it is unreadable and that is organized in a way that at present there is no possibility of understanding. We are far from understand it and more handling it. That's the problem: we are handling things without understanding what is happening. And that is very dangerous.
"The critical review that you claim, how would affect the view that medicine is health and disease?
"The current potential of the technology applied to the diagnosis and surgery are as obvious as impressive but in regard to the cure of organic diseases, the picture is a disaster. They treat the symptoms instead of diseases and medications that cause side effects often worse than the disease being treated. And at the root of the problem is a double cause. On the one hand, the reductionist formula that consider and treat tissues and organs of the body as individual parts, derived from conventional biological vision. And secondly, the undeniable economic interests behind the pharmaceutical industry. But this is something you take some time reporting. As for the implications of my proposal in Medicine note that I am no expert but I think it would take us to contemplate the conditions not as phenomena to be considered normal to live with, or registered on the genes, but as the result of destabilization of the natural conditions of any kind of aggression to the body serious enough to cause it, despite its ability to respond, react pathologically. Also that the body is a whole, an interconnected system in its entirety. There is no liver as something individual. A body is nothing, it doesn’t work if no other major and minor elements operating in permanent interconnection to form a body, in turn interconnected with other organisms and the environment.
FUTURE RESEARCH
- What is the future of young biologists who from the university, especially now after the Treaty of Bologna aims are routed directly to the company with promises of work?
"It's part of the general madness in the world. Sometimes I feel a little uncomfortable because it seems that I am a preacher of the catastrophe but when you look at the data without preconceptions that science is discovering every day, make your hair stand on end to what we are doing. The current trend is to emphasize the university further the cause of all that is happening globally, an insane economic system. If the problem was in the compartmentalization of knowledge, specialization, there are people working in population genetics and other molecular genetics or developmental, whose data are completely contradictory, "this will increase even more with the new plans and research focused on economic performance. The university will end up producing only a kind of laboratory technicians for companies to develop products that give money. We are moving ever further from reality and the danger of a biological disaster will increase.
It saddens me to leave the school. It is true that every year I start running out scaring new students, trying to deprogrammed him and see the faces of surprise when I start to speak, when I read Darwin and hear by the first time what he really thought. In some cases react offended, as if I was attacked a kind of prophet. I find it painful to see young boys and girls who act and feel like indoctrinated fanatics attacked in their convictions. But nevertheless I'm sad to leave because at the end of course some guys I appreciate that they have been imbued with something of a critical spirit (which is the true scientific spirit.) But the truth is that people who want to keep that critical spirit in the end has no future at the university: what remains is to swallow what they told them and to do what they send. The trend is to create appropriate specialists to market needs.
Maximo Sandin bids farewell to the university at the end of this course. It hosts a pre-retirement, although in this journal we cannot understand how someone with such as clear ideas and lucid mind, a critical spirit and at the height of maturity leaves the teaching by despair. Of course many will rejoice. Sure. So it goes.
