"kenneth collins" <kenneth.p.collins at worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:77JRd.55520$Th1.9429 at bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| [...]
| it's in the chemistry of the s[ma]ll
| "sugar" molecules. The weak 'hydrogen bonds'
| in them allow the variabilities of their sequential
| formations to "relay" 3-D E [3-D energydynam-
| ics] in an extremely-functional way throughout
| the cytoplasm.
| [...]
Because of this, it's probably not a "good idea"
to use "sugar pills" as "placebos".
[No, I'm not "naive". I referred to "sacchrides"
as "sugars" because I didn't want to look-up
how to spell "sacchride".]
The thought, in this addendum to my earlier post,
is that, if what I discussed in my earlier post is
Correct, then using "suggars" as placebos =can=
instantiate a "sugar-pill"-taking-correlated "activ-
ation" within molecular dynamics.
If this occurs, it'd be as a "triggering" of a molecular
cascade that's actually guided by extremely-much-
more "sophistocated" capabilities that're innate
within the Biology.
Get it?
Molecular-'level' 3-D E "cue" upon the "action"
of the "sugar pill" because of the "expectations"
that're associated with being involved in "treat-
ment" regimes.
There's a tiny-little "event", and it's the larger,
more-generalized, molecular-'level' tuning that's
innate within the Biology that "grasps" this tiny-
little "sugar"-induced molecular "event", impos-
ing upon it more-generalized molecular dynamics,
because those more-generalized molecular dyn-
amics "know", after all, that the "pill" 'is part of
a treatment regime'.
Get it?
It's better to use something that has no molecular
dynamics within it for a "placebo" -- because it's
=necessary= to avoid =all= molecular-'level'
"triggers" -- because =any= such molecular-
'level' "trigger" can "dovetail" with, and thus
=instantiate=, more-generalized =innate= mol-
ecular cascades.
Don't "groan" :-]
Immune systems are innate within the Biology,
and they =do= interface with molecular dynamics,
and molecular dynamics =do= instantiate "know-
ing" through which the Biology does all manner
of True-Wonder stuff, including self-repair.
And, as I discussed in my prior post [linked-to
above] the "sugar" stuff is =potent= within 3-D E.
So, if one wants to test a substance, why use
an active substance as a "placebo"?
k. p. collins
