mind/soul (unloved babies, etc.)

F. Frank LeFever flefever at ix.netcom.com
Sat Oct 31 23:07:59 EST 1998

Well, just for starters, if you mean the poor unloved babies in the
film which I saw decades ago, as a student (and perhaps eventually
showed to my own students), I'm not so sure they did get everything
except love; a significant degree of malnutrition was involved, as

If you want to get a look at some exquisitely detailed current research
oon the effects of early experience/maternal-infant interaction on
brain fine-grain neurochemical neuroanatomy, see a series of papers by
Michael Meaney and colleagues (working out of McGill).

I am amazed at the vehemence of this fellow's attack on soomething he
clearly does not understand very well.  Exactly what threat does he

Even when someone trying to explain the role of DNA in development
concedes (as everyone in the scientific community readily admits) that
the environment is involved, this is perceived as a lie,
concealing--WHAT???  What on earth do these people imagine?

Let me put it more strongly: those in the scientific community working
in genetics and development don't just "concede" a role for
environment; rather, it is the painstaking moment-by-moment analysis of
exactly HOW the DNA of the germ plasm and the DNA of somatic cells
interact with other elements of the internal and external environments
that is their life's work!

If this hysterical DNA-phobe had any understanding at all of how this
interaction works to alter the signals too which cells and their
constituents respond, he would not demand to know why cells do not all
react the same way because they all have the same DNA.

Over and over again, in this newsgroup, I see ignorant people imagining
that their special insight is something unique, having not the faintest
suspicion that others (smarter and better read than they, perhaps older
as well) have had these same insights, long before, and either accepted
them as truisms widely known, or elaborated on them and developed them
further, or rejected them--depending on how the insight held up against

I append the whole pathetic exchange.

F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group

In <71e581$nu0$1 at its.hooked.net> Bloxy's at hotmail.com (Bloxy's) writes: 
>In article <3639c986.0 at ns2.wsg.net>, "Ray Scanlon" <rscanlon at wsg.net>
>>Jim Balter wrote in message <36395A34.4F58BF9F at sandpiper.net>...
>>>Neil Rickert wrote:
>>>> My disagreement is that you seem to have been making claims which
>>>> discount the signal energy and put the DNA in charge of
>They deny the very existance of electromagnetic influences,
>that could be at the very core of it all.
>The very energy, emanating from the mother is what?
>This sucky doc, who seem to have forgotten the experiments,
>going back almost 50 years ago, on babies, not being cared
>for by the mother, and simply kept in well maintained medical
>isolation chamber.
>Now, those babies never got healthy, intelligent, and many
>other things.
>And why?
>You see, dr. sux, they were kept in the best possible medical
>conditions in the hospital. All they were missing is love
>of another human being, caring for them.
>And what happened to these babies.
>You own these people here, dr. sux, aka ray scanlon,
>to report the results of those many studies, you old cunt.
>All your horseshit about DNA is just that, pure horseshit.
>Stating of obvious, at the very best.
>>>> However, you are also ignoring other sources of variation during
>>>> development process, which have effects other than through the
>>>> energy and DNA.  For example, how well nourished the child is will
>>>> also have effects on development, including neural wiring.
>>>In fact there are cases of identical twins where one has a brain and
>>>one doesn't.   Scanlon's claim that identical twins have identical
>>>neural topology is a matter of quasi-religious dogma contrary to
>>Good Lord, did I say that? My mind must be slipping, I will be 77
>>month! I have never heard of a scientific investigation of the brain
>>of identical twins as opposed to fraternal twins or the population in
>>general. I would very much like to hear if someone has done it and
how they
>>did it.
>>I do suspect that because of the way in which DNA constructs
>Utter horseshit.
>To assert that DNA CONSTRUCTS the body, you must be an utter
>idiot of a scientist.
>And there is nothing beyond the DNA, right?
>And there is no essense, standing at the very intent
>of every moment of everybody's life, right?
>Just a stupid, utterly programmed, completely idiotic
>building block, that is all there is to it, right?
>So, what follows from that, dr. sux?
>>the body that
>>the brains of identical twins would resemble each other in the same
way that
>>hair color, height, and body proportions resemble each other. But
that is
>>just idle speculation on my part. I repeat: idle, idle, idle
>You can mental master-bate here till all yer DNA turns blue.
>And yet, you won't prove ANYTHING of what you are trying to peddle
>here with all your purely mechanical system of programmed
>bio-robotic existance.
>>In particular, I am not pushing any religious dogma, quasi- or
>Pure horseshit.
>What you have is nothing but a pure religious dogma,
>and that is why you and the others of your kind were called
>"new superpriests of the age of corruption".
>You replaced the religious priest, but you peddle just the
>same grade of ideas.
>At least the old priest was a little bit more humble and
>allow for something greater, than a pure bio-robotic existance.
>And YOU don't allow ANYTHING, but a completely brainless
>How can brain develop into anything different, if it is all
>already prewired?
>Do you have ANY active neurons on line?
>Do you realize that what are you peddling here is the lowest
>grade of fatalism?
>Russians have been through this problem hundreds of years ago.
>>The nucleotides in DNA make codons in mRNA and the human body
>>teeth, esophagus, and brain. I don't preach it, I just marvel.
>Not the nucleotides MAKE, but USED [in order to make].
>>Of course, the environment is part of the equation, I never said or
>>otherwise. With a specific person, we may speculate on the relative
>>importance of DNA versus environment and that too is interesting.
>Then that invalidates your entire claim, dr. sux.
>If environment has ANY influence, than the DNA is not the
>predetermining factor.
>And if you can not even assert the degree to which "environment",
>which is a gross oversimplification on the first place,
>affects the development of life, than on what basis are you
>going to make a claim that DNA rewls the game?
>What do you know of ANY significance in development of
>> I do take
>>exception when people say that the brain is fundamentally different
from the
>>pancreas, that DNA does not construct both.
>>On the question of signal energy. Of course it is important,
>Sure, dr. sux. It is not even clear at the moment
>what is the overriding factor in this entire process.
>You have not outline the exact and specific steps in
>development of organs.
>On the fist place, the same DNA is present in ALL various
>bodily organs. Then how is it possible?
>If the same DNA has the same program, it should develop
>one particular organ, and thats it?
>On what basis certain cells in the body rush toward the wound
>to save the entire body?
>If DNA predetermines everything, then ALL cells should rush
>toward the wound?
>On what basis there is ANY discrimination or dedication of
>And on, and on and on.
>> The DNA sets up the rules
>Horseshit of the lowest grade.
>> for the general wiring and incoming signal
>>energy alters the fine structure of the brain.
>That signal energy directly affects the neural structure,
>controlling vessels, and the rest of it.
>Your DNA has no chance to even move unless the passages
>are open.
>> That's the way it works, is
>>this preaching?
>It is NOTHING, but preaching.
>> Hubel and Wiesel demonstrated this over forty years ago,
>>it's time we all accepted it.
>First, you have to report the results of multiple studies
>on babies, as outlined above.
>Then you have to report the results of patients being
>healed by the dogs and cats.
>And then you have to admit that you know NOTHING.
>[of which you speak]
>But the most rudimentary and mechanical aspects

More information about the Neur-sci mailing list