Minutus

Hi Irene,

Several weeks ago you commented on the thinking behind the genotype diet and I hope it is ok that I am copying your response below.

Since I heard about genotype diets, I have looked into. But, I have come to a wall.

As you say, the research is in its infancy. But still, I would hope to see evidence of how the researcher reaches his conclusions. He mentions this or that gene, but genes are very complex. I am asking myself, Is he doing his research alone? Where is he taking his information from, What are his qualifications to make such evaluations, does he have clinical studies? How does he do his studies? If I posed those questions to Hahnemann in 1840, I think he would have given me a fairly reasonable reply. How he tests (provings), what is his data base etc., at least today is fairly obvious. It is much more difficult today to follow genetic research, but at least a broad introduction should be available. Have you found such information?

Best,
Ellen Madono
Probably but the blood group research is in its infancy and the "devil is in the details" as usual.
It helps to combine the blood group research, the genotype research, Perricone's research etc, and common sense.
It's necessary to type in more detail than most do - to integrate with genotype diet, and to realize this is a BROAD category, and we each belong to a narrower one.
I do then find all that research useful to me - very - needs to be applied well.
So I use my major blood type, Rh type, secretor type, and genotype...
so that's four types which narrows it down a lot.
I then elminate anything that does not agree with me, and add in things that do.
(We all have hidden genes that affect us as well as the visible ones. I know some of mine from genetic knowledge of my parents' blood groups etc - and I also take note of what my grandparents ate and what health they had (excellent on meat/cheese/milk and fruit farming).
So where blood type diet says no dairy for me - I thrive on it, and adjust my diet approach accordingly.
DO not use any diet as "gospel". ALL of them are based on generalizations - you need to adjust for individuality.
Blood type diet never claimed to be an exact science - it is based on averages and majoriities. Nobody is average:-)
Use them all as a GUIDE. Or look into WHY a specific thing is said to be ill advised for a blood type - the reason may or may not apply to YOU. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" - use the blood type system and genetoype systems with care - find the baby- toss the bathwater - there is good value in there if you work at it.
You can find the PRINCIPLES of any system and apply them to your individual plan, wtih benefit.

Yes of course.

I did read his genetype book, but it is not written for researchers, more for the practical results to be used. I honestly do not remember if he explained how he arrived at the genotype divisions he discovered, or what led him to even look for them.
Such divisions make perfect sense to me because of my work on ICT types. So I know from my work that there are divisions that involve phenotype features - but of course far more dividions than he has outlined. I might not have questioned it for those reasons, I just do not remember what the book said. [He has explained his bllod type findings, and I rememer those as minly statitical research on what type tends towards wic disease, plus som echemistry of how the chemical blood type antigens actually react with certain foods.
It was good scinece but not individuallized. Genotype is automatically more individualized to some extent by the constitutional type to which his genotype belongs. He just has too few constitutional types - so he has groups of them as far as I can tell.
Does he? I do not remember specific genes being mentioned, but I have a bad short term memory and clearly did not comit it to longterm memory.
Actually that is not so. Each gene codes fro a specific single protein.
The results of that coding may be any number of features, but the gene itslef is not complicated. What I do remember of D'Adamo's gene work is that it is epigenetic in nature. He points out how some foods can either methy.ate or acetylate an epigene switch (hiding it so it is inactive, or exposing it so it is active). Some genes are ones we want active, others are ones we want inactive. But those pigenes aqre separate from the genes for body proportions which are not epigentic but basic structure DNA.

Different constitutional types have different epigene susceptibility - per MY research - so he has presumably observed the same thing.
No, I know he has a whole team of people involved.
I do not think any specific qualification causes one to have the brains to spot consistencies and inconsistencies in nature. Not many people have the chemical knowldge he has evinced in his work to date, nor the understandong of epigenetics and its realtionship to methylation and acetylation. So whatever training he had, seems to have relevance or be well applied. Again I confess I did not look up his credentials, minly becasue his work is somewhat comparable to my own observations make a different way - so it makes sense.

Do ask him then. He used to have a website and options to ask anything. Maybe he still does?
I'm really not qualified to answer for him. I like his work becasue it fits witin my own knowledge of how things work, so I do not need to know how he arrived there. I already arrived there separately.
I have not looked.
It is like someone telling me that two plus two is four. I do not know how they know, but since that is already knowledge I have, I do not care too much how THEY got there. Maybe I should. (There are too many things on my plate, I have to choose where to apply my limited energy these days.)

If you look into it, do tell us what he says?
Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Thank-you Irene. I will see what I can do to ask.

This is incorrect:

Yes, this makes me wonder about genotyping. Does not sound easy to do.

It is a summary version. I was not planning to explain molecular genetics at the time.
Not really.
(Jeffrey Smith is not molecular geneticist.)
The mechanism is complex and it depends how you define "gene".
The DNA is one very long string of bases, consisting of only 4 bases, in a specific order for each species.
Any three bases codes for a specific amino acid and it takes multiple amino acids to make proteins. SO several groups of three bases are read in one set, to make a protein. The same grop is considered a gene and codes for one protein.

BUT:
There is overlap of genes....
You do not need to start reading the "frames" (each witih three bases in a row along the DNA) at the same position and the transfer RNA (which reads it and converets it to amino acids) can START to read form any of the 3 possible starting points in the frame, thus the genes overlap, and you can also read reverse along the partner strand of the DNA to add more permutations.
With 4 bases available, and codons of 3 bases at a time, It makes for a max of 64 amino acids (4 cubed).
How the amino acids are assembled into proteins depends on where the DNA reading occurs by the tRNA, which three bases each amino acid makes, where the start codon is (always a methylation codon in mammals) where the tRNA starts reading, and where the end codon is where the tRNA stops reading.
It is a very well understood process these days, there is nothing hidden or unknown about it.

During the tRNA copying, mistakes can occasionally be made - called mutations - resulting in either a stop codon too soon or an incorrect amino acid that codes for a wrong and potemntially detrimental protein.

Inserting genes man has harvested, Monsanto-style, is playing with fire as there is no way to know exactly what long term effects these foreign codons will have when they make foreign proteins, and when overlap reading codons makes some other unexpected protein in addition to the isecticide or other code inserted - not to mentioj the kinds of mutations that wil result completely unpredictably, from the mistakes tRNA makes at a fixed rate, resulting in mutations.

Typically the GMO creeps insert genes for insecticides or other chemicals, so that the body takes up these foreign genes to make foreign checmicals, in the food. Much like swallowing insecticides or whatever chemicals they code, and yes those are proteins made from amino acids during tRNA reading of a codon set of amino acid frames, in groups of three.

No self respecting cow or squirrel, will go near GMO food if they have a choice.
Yet the sheeple in this country keep getting led by the nose to say we "do not need to label GMO foods". AAGHG!
(It just got voted down again here in WA state.)
Not really. It is a matter of overlap. There are more genes than originally thought. Every protein is made from amino acids, and 64 amino acids can make any number of proteins depending how they are assembled.
But the gene count is not what was thought becasue you do not use the first so many bases for one protein and the next group of bases for another.
You start the reading and stop it at different lengths of the DNA and you can start and stop at any on eof the three bases in a codon in different positions on the DNA. One protein may need three codons of DAN, and another may need 7 codos, and th ey may start at the same place on the DNA.
Still another protein may start at the second base in the first codon instead of the first one, and be maybe 5 codons long. And so on - lots of overlap options. But each "reading" of the gene code, codes for ONE protein, consisting of one amino acid per codon read, assembled into a protein.
Not any more. It is very well understood and works as above.
Maybe he/she spoke for himself:-)

WE certainly do not know everything about metabolism at the cellular level yet, and protein coding of DNA is a relatively small part of the cell machinery.
Of course.
All they want is a monopoly of patented food to exclude all other food, and hog the income worldwide. They do not care whether it is healthy or edible or understood or will destroy the planet's food from gene contamination.
Agreed.
Makes no sense.
The phospholipid rich cell membrane has essential and critical functions and determines what enters or leaves the cell, such as hopefully nutrients in and toxins out.
But it directs nothing.
Transfer RNA is the only thing that reads and converts the DNA to active protein and it does not come from cell walls (or cell membranes).
The only thing that turns a gene on or off is an epigene. Epigenes are on top of the DNA lke a fuzzy layer of stuff that used to be thought "junk DNA", and is now known to be the epigene layer. Epigenes decide what genes are methylated or acetylated (turned on or off). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the cell membrane/wall.
GMO inserts DNA - actual genes, not epigenes, not cell walls, but actual bases as part of DNA, that make new codons for the tRNA to read into new proteins.

It is way more dangerous than just messing with cell walls. It is passed on as DNA to those who eat that junk.
Cell walls are not passed on.

Namaste,
Irene
REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

I will let you read the Biology of Belief and argue it out with Bruce Lipton. He is saying that the cell wall responds to the environment and directs gene expression, based on the latest understanding of research. Yes, RNA performs the function of transcription.
This from Wikipedia:
It was also previously believed that one gene makes one protein; this concept was overthrown by the discovery of alternative splicing and trans-splicing .[15]
The definition of a gene is still changing. The first cases of RNA-based inheritance have been discovered in mammals.[28] Evidence is also accumulating that the control regions of a gene do not necessarily have to be close to the coding sequence on the linear molecule or even on the same chromosome. Spilianakis and colleagues discovered that the promoter region of the interferon-gamma gene on chromosome 10 and the regulatory regions of the T(H)2 cytokine locus on chromosome 11 come into close proximity in the nucleus possibly to be jointly regulated.[29] Even the coding sequence of a gene itself doesn't have to be all on the same chromosome: Marande and Burger showed that, in the mitochondria of the protist Diplonema papillatum, "genes are systematically fragmented into small pieces that are encoded on separate chromosomes, transcribed individually, and then concatenated into contiguous messenger RNA molecules".[30]

The concept that genes are clearly delimited is also being eroded. There is evidence for fused proteins stemming from two adjacent genes that can produce two separate protein products. While it is not clear whether these fusion proteins are functional, the phenomenon is more frequent than previously thought.[31] Even more ground-breaking than the discovery of fused genes is the observation that some proteins can be composed of exons from far away regions and even different chromosomes.[3] [32] This new data has led to an updated, and probably tentative, definition of a gene as "a union of genomic sequences encoding a coherent set of potentially overlapping functional products".[15] This new definition categorizes genes by functional products, whether they be proteins or RNA, rather than specific DNA loci; all regulatory elements of DNA are therefore classified as gene-associated regions.[15 ]

Doesnt sound all nailed down to me.
---In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
It is a summary version. I was not planning to explain molecular genetics at the time.
Not really.
(Jeffrey Smith is not molecular geneticist.)
The mechanism is complex and it depends how you define "gene".
The DNA is one very long string of bases, consisting of only 4 bases, in a specific order for each species.
Any three bases codes for a specific amino acid and it takes multiple amino acids to make proteins. SO several groups of three bases are read in one set, to make a protein. The same grop is considered a gene and codes for one protein.

BUT:
There is overlap of genes....
You do not need to start reading the "frames" (each witih three bases in a row along the DNA) at the same position and the transfer RNA (which reads it and converets it to amino acids) can START to read form any of the 3 possible starting points in the frame, thus the genes overlap, and you can also read reverse along the partner strand of the DNA to add more permutations.
With 4 bases available, and codons of 3 bases at a time, It makes for a max of 64 amino acids (4 cubed).

How the amino acids are assembled into proteins depends on where the DNA reading occurs by the tRNA, which three bases each amino acid makes, where the start codon is (always a methylation codon in mammals) where the tRNA starts reading, and where the end codon is where the tRNA stops reading.

It is a very well understood process these days, there is nothing hidden or unknown about it.

During the tRNA copying, mistakes can occasionally be made - called mutations - resulting in either a stop codon too soon or an incorrect amino acid that codes for a wrong and potemntially detrimental protein.

Inserting genes man has harvested, Monsanto-style, is playing with fire as there is no way to know exactly what long term effects these foreign codons will have when they make foreign proteins, and when overlap reading codons makes some other unexpected protein in addition to the isecticide or other code inserted - not to mentioj the kinds of mutations that wil result completely unpredictably, from the mistakes tRNA makes at a fixed rate, resulting in mutations.

Typically the GMO creeps insert genes for insecticides or other chemicals, so that the body takes up these foreign genes to make foreign checmicals, in the food. Much like swallowing insecticides or whatever chemicals they code, and yes those are proteins made from amino acids during tRNA reading of a codon set of amino acid frames, in groups of three.

No self respecting cow or squirrel, will go near GMO food if they have a choice.
Yet the sheeple in this country keep getting led by the nose to say we "do not need to label GMO foods". AAGHG!
(It just got voted down again here in WA state.)
Not really. It is a matter of overlap. There are more genes than originally thought. Every protein is made from amino acids, and 64 amino acids can make any number of proteins depending how they are assembled.
But the gene count is not what was thought becasue you do not use the first so many bases for one protein and the next group of bases for another.
You start the reading and stop it at different lengths of the DNA and you can start and stop at any on eof the three bases in a codon in different positions on the DNA. One protein may need three codons of DAN, and another may need 7 codos, and th ey may start at the same place on the DNA.
Still another protein may start at the second base in the first codon instead of the first one, and be maybe 5 codons long. And so on - lots of overlap options. But each "reading" of the gene code, codes for ONE protein, consisting of one amino acid per codon read, assembled into a protein.
Not any more. It is very well understood and works as above.
Maybe he/she spoke for himself:-)

WE certainly do not know everything about metabolism at the cellular level yet, and protein coding of DNA is a relatively small part of the cell machinery.
Of course.
All they want is a monopoly of patented food to exclude all other food, and hog the income worldwide. They do not care whether it is healthy or edible or understood or will destroy the planet's food from gene contamination.
Agreed.
Makes no sense.
The phospholipid rich cell membrane has essential and critical functions and determines what enters or leaves the cell, such as hopefully nutrients in and toxins out.
But it directs nothing.
Transfer RNA is the only thing that reads and converts the DNA to active protein and it does not come from cell walls (or cell membranes).
The only thing that turns a gene on or off is an epigene. Epigenes are on top of the DNA lke a fuzzy layer of stuff that used to be thought "junk DNA", and is now known to be the epigene layer. Epigenes decide what genes are methylated or acetylated (turned on or off). It has nothing whatsoever to do with the cell membrane/wall.
GMO inserts DNA - actual genes, not epigenes, not cell walls, but actual bases as part of DNA, that make new codons for the tRNA to read into new proteins.

It is way more dangerous than just messing with cell walls. It is passed on as DNA to those who eat that junk.
Cell walls are not passed on.

Namaste,
Irene
REPLY TO: > only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Now you have totally changed the subject.
It used to be about how genes coded for proteins, which is as I described and not how (out of date) wikipedia describes.

THis email has a new subject, of what can affect genes to go into action.
A lot of things influence genes to go into action, famile, thoughts, environmental factors etc.
Different topic altogether.

Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."