women's converging menstrual cycles
Alan E. Jackson
AJackson at ST.CEU.EDU
Tue Mar 5 23:31:16 EST 1996
To: bioforum at net.bio.net
From: wind at biobase.dk (Troels Wind)
Subject: Re: women's converging menstrual cycles
Date: 29 Feb 1996 16:56:37 GMT
There is no need to miscredit youre state of mind. The rest of my my reply
be harsh as well, but at least not personal...
I hope you will accept my apologie and allow me to point you to a few holes
in your theory on megnetrition.
Institute of Molecular and Structural Biology
University of Aarhus
how can one dividing cell obtain this orientation
for more than a splitsecond when you move around?
Think of a cell as a bird's egg, the hen is not always moving it. And
you are not always moving. The cell connot divide if moving to much.
And solar winds cause a fluxuation in the earth's magnosphere. and the
moon reflects what the sun puts out. And the moon is linked to the subject
If you read this Alan, exactly
how large an increase in temperature are you talking about? Cells in humans
do have different temperatures, usually ranging from approx. 35 to 37 degrees
celcius, but these limits are often broken.
Not large at all, miniscule. ( I did not use the term large for a reason.
So as not to be missleading.)
In the article it is also stated that:
He (Alan) thinks indians used to carry their papooses
(babies) on their backs to keep them moving and thus indirectly helping
the body grow.
Well, thats a possibility...but maybe it just seemed like a good alternative
to leaving them behind alone.
It was stated to make the connection between need for movement. If a person
does not want to make that connection, well... I cannot make them.
Alan, do you suggest that the genom interacts directly with the bacteria?
No. I point out that the bacteria play an important roll in the formation
of cell and nuclear walls, (envelopes). And that this is hindered by a
lack of movement in a magnetic field, which comes with ageing. Thus: with
decreased movement comes poorly formed nuclear envelopes, and less
protection of the DNA. And that is why cancer and the ageing go hand in
Regarding the origin of life, Alan suggst that magnetism is a prerequisite:
Thats an argument with no impact since we havent been to other planets, except
the few nearest by.
The impact is on all travel outside the earths magnetic field. This
understanding would allow us to do something about the fact that the
astronaut's cells bake down out in space.(And this info can be used to
help us here as well.)
my point: I dont believe in magnetic bacteria inside cells, and the material
supplied by Alan only makes me concider it to be even more unbelievable since
the 'proofs'are missng.
You seem to want to overlook the proofs/facts. Is this the reason;
The report that I found in the journal Science pretty much tells why
you have responded as you have.
"Britain's House of Lords has suggested that 1% of the United
Kingdom's recearch and development budget should be spent on the
evaluation of recearch results. The proposal was made last week in
in a report published by the House of Lords select committee on
science and technology, which claimed that the scientific community's
current approach to evaluation is "less scientific then the science
and technology it is designed to assess," and argued that evaluation
"must be approached as a discipline and not as a threat."
The assessment that I have made does show many to be wrong.
It also shows how we can not be wrong.
Ref: "Magnetic Navigation an Attractive Possibility".
SCIENCE, Vol.215, 19 March 1982.
The facts add up.
1. The astronauts suffer when outside the earth's magnetic field.
2. Electro-magnetic fields are more and more being link to cancer.
3. The birds egg has to be turned.
4. The bacteria makes magnetic particials.
5. magnetic particials have been found in many life forms, and man.
6. Crib death, implies the infant is not moving in the magnetic field.
7. The bacteria uses the earth's magnetic field, thus benefiting.
8. Magnetic fields are shown to speed bone growth.
As the article showed, I have worked as a repairman. This takes a degree
of perception, to be able to fix what is wrong. The higher the degree of
perception, the less "proof"/time required, to do the job. No brag, just
fact. And this is the reason one person can see the reason while another
So what? There is NO link to Alans own ideas.
Again, a scientist is quoted but there is no direct support in the quote for
I did not write the article, I think he was just trying to let people
know there was a bases for what I thought.
After all, Jennifer had to TEACH the subject , not
RESEARCH it. And please, there is really no need to lecture me on what
: From: cbenjes at net.bio.net (candice benjes)
: Subject: women's converging menstrual cycles
: Date: 25 Feb 1996 03:28:48 GMT
: i am trying to write a paper about how and why women's menstrual cycles
: converge when they live together for my women's biology course. i don't
: have any clue except that it has something maybe to do with pheremones. if
: anyone has ANY info could you please email me at joelberg at haverford.edu.
: thank you all in advance. any leads would be greatly appreciated.
In science, in anything, it helps to be as accurate as possible. I know
that this is subject to a persons ability. And that it is something that
we all need to continue to work to improve in ourselves. But it helps to
control the way we feel about something.
You should be aware by that time that personal
insults in science damage (always and invariably)
YOUR credebility, not the credebility of your opponents
(read Einstein's biography for this matter).
I would rather see a person react as you did, then for them to not act
because they feared damage to their credebility. We learn from our
mistakes, become better people as we correct for them, and we all have every
little credebility. Our faith should be in the truth of facts, not people.
Thanks for your time.
At your service,
Alan E. Jackson
(Learning Leads to Living)
More information about the Bioforum