Basic Research on the Cell
http://www.energetic-medicine.net/bioenergetic-articles/articles/70/1/Basic-Research-on-the-Cell/Page1.html
Perry Chapdelaine
Perry Chapdelaine was born February 6, 1925 in St. Paul, MN. He received his B.A. at Iowa State Teachers College (now University of North Iowa) in 1946, and his M.A. at George Peabody College for Teachers (now part of Vanderbilt University) in 1947, both majors in mathematics. He taught mathematics at college level in several universities, worked as systems analyst in computer systems design for the U.S. Air Force, and later obtained a nearly half million dollar grant as Senior Project Officer from the National Science Foundation for development of Computer Assisted Instruction, such techniques now commonly found in computers everywhere.
Perry's interest in helping folks began when he developed so-called incurable, crippling rheumatoid arthritis, and was told he would soon be crippled, as his arthritis was of the "galloping" kind. The story on how Perry got well is told in the article: "Rheumatoid Arthritis: Two Case Histories". Through Jack M. Blount, M.D., a co-founder of this foundation, Perry was healed. Along with doctors and other layfolks, Perry helped found The Roger Wyburn-Mason and Jack M. Blount Foundation for the Eradication of Rheumatoid Disease, now called either The Rheumatoid Disease Foundation or The Arthritis Trust of America. By Perry Chapdelaine
Published on 05/22/2008
Review of “Life at the below-Cell level: The Hidden History of a Fundamental Revolution in Biology” – book review.
Perry A. Chapdelaine
Perry A. Chapdelaine
Cell Biology
Basic Research on the Cell – review of “Life at the below-Cell level: The Hidden History of a
Fundamental Revolution in Biology” – book
review.
Perry A. Chapdelaine
Gilbert Ling, PhD, without doubt one of the most brilliant scientists in the last
century, describes, in his latest book, Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level: The
Hidden History of a Fundamental Revolution in Biology, exactly that: the hidden
history of how the current paradigm for the structure and functioning of the cell-
-that basic unit of all living creatures--has persisted for a half-century, despite
overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And that evidence, in great part, stems
from the critical experiments conducted by Dr. Ling and his coworkers, and the
theoretical models developed by Dr. Ling. Dr. Ling does not castigate those of
lesser acumen who made crucial mistakes that have continued on for the last
several decades. Rather, he explains where the errors occurred, the technologies
that had to be developed before the conflicting issues could be resolved, and the
many experiments that--independent of his theories--gave the death knell to the
membrane theory with its myriad pumps, and confirmed his own theories. He
does not mince words, however, when it comes to his well-thought out
conclusions. For instance: "The popular belief that life can only occur in whole
cells is wrong and...protoplasm, existing in the living state, is the more
fundamental unit of life" (pg. 267) is certain to attract attention from those who
believe otherwise. (Also see Cell Wall Deficient Forms: Stealth Pathogens, 3rd
Ed., Lida H. Mattman, Ph.D., CRC Press LLC, ISBN: 0-8493-8767-1).
Barrier Between Basic Research and Applied Clinical Practices
John W. Campbell, Jr. (who received the rare honor of having a crater on the
moon named after him), as editor of a leading science fiction magazine and a
fantasy magazine, an accomplished story-teller in two distinct styles, a key
developer of modern-day science fiction, and a patient teacher to many wellknown
writers, was foremost a persuasive essayist on every subject, forcing the
rethinking of accepted ideas and the challenging of pet themes. There is a
breakdown, he once argued, between the research of medicine and the practice
of medicine. The two fields simply don't communicate with one another. No
matter how important or grand are the discoveries of basic research, there is no
one to communicate these findings and treatment implications to those
responsible for healing humans.
An example of this communication breakdown between basic research and
clinical practice can be seen in the case of diabetes. In 1977 Rosalyn S. Yalow
shared one-half of the Nobel Prize with Roger C.L. Guillemin and Andrew V.
Schally. Diabetes was considered due to failure of the pancreas cells to produce
sufficient insulin to enable the muscle and liver cells to store sugar in them. The
Nobel Laureates showed that the pancreas produces either normal or excessive
amounts of insulin in diabetics. Only a few physicians, such as William R.
Philpott, MD, Jennifer Daniels, MD, and others, have followed through from this
extremely important finding, accepting that diabetes is, in fact, inactivation or
blocking of the normally formed insulin by some substance in the body. Usually,
this substance can be identified as a product of an allergic reaction from some
commonly consumed foods. When the foods are removed from the diet, the
swollen beta cells in the pancreas that have inhibited release of insulin return to
normal, and so the diabetes disappears as thousands of patients have
discovered with the help of Dr. Philpott, and some other physicians. Meanwhile,
the larger proportion of clinical physicians subscribe to drug-oriented alleviation
of the symptoms, to the benefit of pharmaceutical companies, related industries,
and (indirectly) to themselves.
Nowhere is the communication breakdown between basic research and clinical
practice more evident than in the continuing futile attempts to conquer cancer.
More than 50 years of "the war against cancer" has resulted in thousands of
munificent research grants. These, in turn, have produced millions of detailed
reports signifying, for the most part, absolutely nothing so far as eliminating
cancer.
Clinical successes for diabetes or cancer are not the only medical defaults that
are limited by poor communication between basic researchers and clinicians.
Almost every medical specialty suffers from similar myopia, as initially expressed
by John W Campbell, Jr. To mention briefly two more, consider blood circulation
problems--for which the overwhelming evidence is that EDTA chelation therapy
will simply and effectively clear up 80% of peripheral circulation problems; or
rheumatoid arthritis--for which symptomatic relief breeds a multi-million dollar
empire, using trial and error drugs.
Fundamental Revolution in Biology” – book
review.
Perry A. Chapdelaine
Gilbert Ling, PhD, without doubt one of the most brilliant scientists in the last
century, describes, in his latest book, Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level: The
Hidden History of a Fundamental Revolution in Biology, exactly that: the hidden
history of how the current paradigm for the structure and functioning of the cell-
-that basic unit of all living creatures--has persisted for a half-century, despite
overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And that evidence, in great part, stems
from the critical experiments conducted by Dr. Ling and his coworkers, and the
theoretical models developed by Dr. Ling. Dr. Ling does not castigate those of
lesser acumen who made crucial mistakes that have continued on for the last
several decades. Rather, he explains where the errors occurred, the technologies
that had to be developed before the conflicting issues could be resolved, and the
many experiments that--independent of his theories--gave the death knell to the
membrane theory with its myriad pumps, and confirmed his own theories. He
does not mince words, however, when it comes to his well-thought out
conclusions. For instance: "The popular belief that life can only occur in whole
cells is wrong and...protoplasm, existing in the living state, is the more
fundamental unit of life" (pg. 267) is certain to attract attention from those who
believe otherwise. (Also see Cell Wall Deficient Forms: Stealth Pathogens, 3rd
Ed., Lida H. Mattman, Ph.D., CRC Press LLC, ISBN: 0-8493-8767-1).
Barrier Between Basic Research and Applied Clinical Practices
John W. Campbell, Jr. (who received the rare honor of having a crater on the
moon named after him), as editor of a leading science fiction magazine and a
fantasy magazine, an accomplished story-teller in two distinct styles, a key
developer of modern-day science fiction, and a patient teacher to many wellknown
writers, was foremost a persuasive essayist on every subject, forcing the
rethinking of accepted ideas and the challenging of pet themes. There is a
breakdown, he once argued, between the research of medicine and the practice
of medicine. The two fields simply don't communicate with one another. No
matter how important or grand are the discoveries of basic research, there is no
one to communicate these findings and treatment implications to those
responsible for healing humans.
An example of this communication breakdown between basic research and
clinical practice can be seen in the case of diabetes. In 1977 Rosalyn S. Yalow
shared one-half of the Nobel Prize with Roger C.L. Guillemin and Andrew V.
Schally. Diabetes was considered due to failure of the pancreas cells to produce
sufficient insulin to enable the muscle and liver cells to store sugar in them. The
Nobel Laureates showed that the pancreas produces either normal or excessive
amounts of insulin in diabetics. Only a few physicians, such as William R.
Philpott, MD, Jennifer Daniels, MD, and others, have followed through from this
extremely important finding, accepting that diabetes is, in fact, inactivation or
blocking of the normally formed insulin by some substance in the body. Usually,
this substance can be identified as a product of an allergic reaction from some
commonly consumed foods. When the foods are removed from the diet, the
swollen beta cells in the pancreas that have inhibited release of insulin return to
normal, and so the diabetes disappears as thousands of patients have
discovered with the help of Dr. Philpott, and some other physicians. Meanwhile,
the larger proportion of clinical physicians subscribe to drug-oriented alleviation
of the symptoms, to the benefit of pharmaceutical companies, related industries,
and (indirectly) to themselves.
Nowhere is the communication breakdown between basic research and clinical
practice more evident than in the continuing futile attempts to conquer cancer.
More than 50 years of "the war against cancer" has resulted in thousands of
munificent research grants. These, in turn, have produced millions of detailed
reports signifying, for the most part, absolutely nothing so far as eliminating
cancer.
Clinical successes for diabetes or cancer are not the only medical defaults that
are limited by poor communication between basic researchers and clinicians.
Almost every medical specialty suffers from similar myopia, as initially expressed
by John W Campbell, Jr. To mention briefly two more, consider blood circulation
problems--for which the overwhelming evidence is that EDTA chelation therapy
will simply and effectively clear up 80% of peripheral circulation problems; or
rheumatoid arthritis--for which symptomatic relief breeds a multi-million dollar
empire, using trial and error drugs.
page 2
Most well-taught biologists know that cell-wall deficient (pleomorphic, or, better
still, "divergent forms") microorganisms are a result of the microorganisms'
responses to enviromental changes. This simple fact has yet to trickle down to
the vast majority of practicing physicians.
Wilhelm Zopf (1892), Ernst Bernhard Almquist/Robert Koch (1881), Willibald
Winkler, MD (1899), and later dozens of other brilliant biologists defined this
dual relationship. Gerald J. Domingue, et. al. in "Naked Bacteria in Human
Blood" (Microbia, Annee 1976, Tome 2, No. 2) published the definitive article
demonstrating that the use of many antibiotics results in our immune system's
inability to recognize the presence of a foreign invader. The microorganism is
hidden from our immune system's view! Later, it reconstitutes itself, thus
seeming to produce the illness again.
Unknowledgeable medical doctors will often conclude that "You've caught that
same disease again! Here's another shot of antibiotics," which, of course, sets
off the same cell-wall deficient condition in the invading microorganism, which
hides it from view, etc.
The paradigm used is that for each disease there is one and only one
corresponding microorganism, whereas, since at least 1892, biologists have
recognized that change of internal bodily environment produces change in form
and function of most invading microorganisms!
It is reasonable to assume that an accurate picture of how the cell functions
would also lead to knowledge of how cancer can be fought and won. Several
inaccurate models of the living cell are repeated in virtually every scientific
paper, leading in many cases, of course, to inadequate conclusions regarding the
meaning of the funded research. Clearly, if it can be shown that the model upon
which the normal day-to-day operation of a cell is based on non-existent energy,
then the cancer research, and in fact, all biological research, is defective.
This brings us to a fundamental discovery about life at its basic structural and
functional level, basic research that has stood the test of a half century of
laboratory research, and has been all but ignored in clinical research and
practice.
Dr. Gilbert N. Ling's Life at the Cell & Below-Cell Level reflects extremely
important laboratory discoveries on the nature of the human cell, and its
relationship to disease and methodical selection of appropriate drugs for those
diseases.
still, "divergent forms") microorganisms are a result of the microorganisms'
responses to enviromental changes. This simple fact has yet to trickle down to
the vast majority of practicing physicians.
Wilhelm Zopf (1892), Ernst Bernhard Almquist/Robert Koch (1881), Willibald
Winkler, MD (1899), and later dozens of other brilliant biologists defined this
dual relationship. Gerald J. Domingue, et. al. in "Naked Bacteria in Human
Blood" (Microbia, Annee 1976, Tome 2, No. 2) published the definitive article
demonstrating that the use of many antibiotics results in our immune system's
inability to recognize the presence of a foreign invader. The microorganism is
hidden from our immune system's view! Later, it reconstitutes itself, thus
seeming to produce the illness again.
Unknowledgeable medical doctors will often conclude that "You've caught that
same disease again! Here's another shot of antibiotics," which, of course, sets
off the same cell-wall deficient condition in the invading microorganism, which
hides it from view, etc.
The paradigm used is that for each disease there is one and only one
corresponding microorganism, whereas, since at least 1892, biologists have
recognized that change of internal bodily environment produces change in form
and function of most invading microorganisms!
It is reasonable to assume that an accurate picture of how the cell functions
would also lead to knowledge of how cancer can be fought and won. Several
inaccurate models of the living cell are repeated in virtually every scientific
paper, leading in many cases, of course, to inadequate conclusions regarding the
meaning of the funded research. Clearly, if it can be shown that the model upon
which the normal day-to-day operation of a cell is based on non-existent energy,
then the cancer research, and in fact, all biological research, is defective.
This brings us to a fundamental discovery about life at its basic structural and
functional level, basic research that has stood the test of a half century of
laboratory research, and has been all but ignored in clinical research and
practice.
Dr. Gilbert N. Ling's Life at the Cell & Below-Cell Level reflects extremely
important laboratory discoveries on the nature of the human cell, and its
relationship to disease and methodical selection of appropriate drugs for those
diseases.
A Long-Standing False Biological Model
A Long-Standing False Biological Model
One such model, the sodium-potassium membrane pump (in unifacial cells or
cells with a single uniform cell membrane like muscle or nerve) is wholly false,
according to Dr. Ling's outstanding research.
The currently taught model of a unifacial cell--such as a nerve or muscle cell--
would have us believe that these cells have a microscopically thin covering
(plasma membrane) filled with lipids and proteins, with marvelous small
structures such as "gates" and "pumps" that allow certain charged ions or other
particles (e.g., potassium ion, [K.sup.+] or sodium ion, [Na.sup.+]) in and out
of the cell, with a cell interior composed of free water. Furthermore, it is the
"fixed charge" of either [Na.sup.+] or [K.sup.+] (outside or inside the cell) on
the cell membrane, that, when the gates open or close, cause an "action
potential." These pumps, it is said, operate at the expense of energy stored in
high-energy-phosphate bonds of ATP and other organic phosphates. This theory
requires continual energy expenditure to maintain an uneven balance between
[K.sup.+] inside the cell membrane, and [Na.sup.+] outside the cell membrane.
The cellular Membrane-Pump theory--developed to explain the low level of
[Na.sup.+] in cells such as muscle cells, nerve cells, and erythrocytes--was a
general theory attempting to deal with all solutes in living cells. According to
Ling, "The Na pump theory has never attempted to offer more than an ad hoc,
patchwork theory dealing with one solute, [Na.sup.+]."
Here is what Ling says regarding the cellular Membrane-Pump theory:
"The membrane theory's apparent strength in simplicity is also its fatal
weakness. When Nasonov, Aizenberg and Kamnev demonstrated that the cell
membrane is in fact permeable to sucrose and galactose, the paradigm of cells
as membrane-enclosed dilute solution faced grave difficulties.
"In the crisis thus created, the sodium pump was installed. However, one
(sodium) pump is not enough. To keep the cell afloat, an ever-lengthening list of
pumps has been introduced. Yet the sodium pump at the cell membrane alone
would require at least 15 to 30 times the total energy available to the cell--
under rigorously controlled conditions and with the assumption that the cell
needs no energy at all beyond pumping sodium (pg. 235).... The disproof of the
sodium pump hypothesis on the basis of energy considerations relied on the
employment of two tools: the radioactive tracer technology and the Gerard-
Graham-Ling capillary microelectrode." (pg. 237)
No one, says Ling, has yet given even a rough estimate of just how many pumps
are required to keep afloat the cellular Membrane-Pump theory of "unifacial"
cellular functions. There simply is no Maxwellian demon that can sustain it. The
famous scientist of history, Maxwell, described a small demon that could sit
inside a tube of flowing fluid, and separate out hot from cold molecules without
adding additional energy. Ling's studies clearly show that an energy-free
Maxwell demon must prevail for the Membrane-Pump model to work for cellular
membranes. (On the other hand, "bifacial" cells such as epithelial, frog skin,
intestinal mucosa, kidney tubules, etc. have two different types of membranes.
Active transport of [Na.sup.+] and other solutes across bifacial cells is not
disputed.) Ling's exceptional and patient basic laboratory work clearly
demonstrates insufficient energy for there to exist an actual sodium/potassium
pump in a given cell, not to mention the total energy required for hundreds of
other special pumps often postulated for that same cell.
And here is what Ling says about the resting and action potentials:
"As for the action potential, the basis for a nerve or muscle impulse, laboratory
experiments show that the insides of nerve and muscle cells are not dilute
solutions containing free ions and water, as once believed. A membrane
potential does not seem to exist in the real world, living or non-living (pg. 265).
The membrane potential--as currently defined by most scientists--using the
demonstrably incorrect model of the Membrane-Pump hypothesis simply doesn't
exist."
Dr. Ling produces additional laboratory evidence to support his claim in this and
in his earlier book, A Revolution in the Physiology of the Living Cell (Krieger
Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, USA; ISBN 0-89464-398-3; 378 pages,
hardcover, 1992, $64.50).
One such model, the sodium-potassium membrane pump (in unifacial cells or
cells with a single uniform cell membrane like muscle or nerve) is wholly false,
according to Dr. Ling's outstanding research.
The currently taught model of a unifacial cell--such as a nerve or muscle cell--
would have us believe that these cells have a microscopically thin covering
(plasma membrane) filled with lipids and proteins, with marvelous small
structures such as "gates" and "pumps" that allow certain charged ions or other
particles (e.g., potassium ion, [K.sup.+] or sodium ion, [Na.sup.+]) in and out
of the cell, with a cell interior composed of free water. Furthermore, it is the
"fixed charge" of either [Na.sup.+] or [K.sup.+] (outside or inside the cell) on
the cell membrane, that, when the gates open or close, cause an "action
potential." These pumps, it is said, operate at the expense of energy stored in
high-energy-phosphate bonds of ATP and other organic phosphates. This theory
requires continual energy expenditure to maintain an uneven balance between
[K.sup.+] inside the cell membrane, and [Na.sup.+] outside the cell membrane.
The cellular Membrane-Pump theory--developed to explain the low level of
[Na.sup.+] in cells such as muscle cells, nerve cells, and erythrocytes--was a
general theory attempting to deal with all solutes in living cells. According to
Ling, "The Na pump theory has never attempted to offer more than an ad hoc,
patchwork theory dealing with one solute, [Na.sup.+]."
Here is what Ling says regarding the cellular Membrane-Pump theory:
"The membrane theory's apparent strength in simplicity is also its fatal
weakness. When Nasonov, Aizenberg and Kamnev demonstrated that the cell
membrane is in fact permeable to sucrose and galactose, the paradigm of cells
as membrane-enclosed dilute solution faced grave difficulties.
"In the crisis thus created, the sodium pump was installed. However, one
(sodium) pump is not enough. To keep the cell afloat, an ever-lengthening list of
pumps has been introduced. Yet the sodium pump at the cell membrane alone
would require at least 15 to 30 times the total energy available to the cell--
under rigorously controlled conditions and with the assumption that the cell
needs no energy at all beyond pumping sodium (pg. 235).... The disproof of the
sodium pump hypothesis on the basis of energy considerations relied on the
employment of two tools: the radioactive tracer technology and the Gerard-
Graham-Ling capillary microelectrode." (pg. 237)
No one, says Ling, has yet given even a rough estimate of just how many pumps
are required to keep afloat the cellular Membrane-Pump theory of "unifacial"
cellular functions. There simply is no Maxwellian demon that can sustain it. The
famous scientist of history, Maxwell, described a small demon that could sit
inside a tube of flowing fluid, and separate out hot from cold molecules without
adding additional energy. Ling's studies clearly show that an energy-free
Maxwell demon must prevail for the Membrane-Pump model to work for cellular
membranes. (On the other hand, "bifacial" cells such as epithelial, frog skin,
intestinal mucosa, kidney tubules, etc. have two different types of membranes.
Active transport of [Na.sup.+] and other solutes across bifacial cells is not
disputed.) Ling's exceptional and patient basic laboratory work clearly
demonstrates insufficient energy for there to exist an actual sodium/potassium
pump in a given cell, not to mention the total energy required for hundreds of
other special pumps often postulated for that same cell.
And here is what Ling says about the resting and action potentials:
"As for the action potential, the basis for a nerve or muscle impulse, laboratory
experiments show that the insides of nerve and muscle cells are not dilute
solutions containing free ions and water, as once believed. A membrane
potential does not seem to exist in the real world, living or non-living (pg. 265).
The membrane potential--as currently defined by most scientists--using the
demonstrably incorrect model of the Membrane-Pump hypothesis simply doesn't
exist."
Dr. Ling produces additional laboratory evidence to support his claim in this and
in his earlier book, A Revolution in the Physiology of the Living Cell (Krieger
Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida, USA; ISBN 0-89464-398-3; 378 pages,
hardcover, 1992, $64.50).
Benefits of Ling's Discoveries
Benefits of Ling's Discoveries
But there are many other basic scientific discoveries nicely laid out in Dr. Ling's
Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level that will lead the reader to two profound
conclusions:
1. The membrane-pump hypothesis is dead;
2. A new cellular paradigm is due, one Ling has titled the "Association-Induction"
hypothesis.
After reading this marvelously communicative book, one will wonder how the
stumbling block of the Membrane-Pump Hypothesis has lasted so long. Perhaps
the fact that the originator of the Membrane-Pump Hypothesis received the
Nobel Prize for an imaginative construction, non-experimentally derived,
contributed to its unwarranted and pervasive longevity.
Changing from the defective Membrane-Pump Hypothesis to Ling's Association-
Induction Hypothesis:
1. has already brought into existence the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
device;
2. laid the groundwork for a true science of drug selection, as opposed to
present-day trial and error;
3. demonstrates that biological axioms need laboratory proof based on evidence
and logic;
4. presents a unifying theory of life at the cell and below-cell level.
Scope of the Book
Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level contains 17 chapters including five devoted
to Ling's Association-Induction Hypothesis, an outline of the entire history of cell
and subcellular life science, 72 text figures, 6 tables, an appendix, a list of
abbreviations, over 550 references, an author index, and a subject index, a
"super glossary" containing over 900 scientific names, technical terms and basic
concepts, and an "Answers to Readers Queries" that explains how best to read
the book and make use of the "Super Glossary."
While some knowledge of biology, physics and chemistry are useful, the "Super
Glossary" provides detailed background information, thus insuring that the
reader can understand without outside help.
Most health professionals, having had some smattering of chemistry, physics
and math, pride themselves on their "scientific" background. Very well! Read this
book! All doctors and other health professionals should read this book!
It is also written for science-oriented, career-seeking students; dedicated biology
teachers; medical-pharmaceutical researchers; physics, mathematics or
chemistry teachers, and sophisticated, adventuresome readers who are
unsatisfied with what they have read about our most precious possession--life
itself!
Dr. Ling's Association-Induction Hypothesis (AI) was first presented in 1962. A
decade before, in 1952, he published Ling's Fixed Charge Hypothesis (LFCH),
and in 1965 his Polarized Multilayer theory (already incorporated within the AI
Hypothesis). These hypotheses, and their experimental confirmation worldwide
over the last half-century, cause us to reflect when we realize that the scientific
community, by-and-large, has ignored these hypotheses and the confirmatory
research. The current paradigm has been disproved, time and again, yet hangs
on like an albatross around the neck of science. Ling's AI Hypothesis, has been
consistently confirmed, yet is ignored. This book is long overdue, and every
student of biology, medicine and history (not to mention the "scientifically"
oriented health professional) owes it to themselves -- and to the future -- to
read how this situation was allowed to occur -- as Ling also captures the history
of cellular biology in extremely clear prose.
But there are many other basic scientific discoveries nicely laid out in Dr. Ling's
Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level that will lead the reader to two profound
conclusions:
1. The membrane-pump hypothesis is dead;
2. A new cellular paradigm is due, one Ling has titled the "Association-Induction"
hypothesis.
After reading this marvelously communicative book, one will wonder how the
stumbling block of the Membrane-Pump Hypothesis has lasted so long. Perhaps
the fact that the originator of the Membrane-Pump Hypothesis received the
Nobel Prize for an imaginative construction, non-experimentally derived,
contributed to its unwarranted and pervasive longevity.
Changing from the defective Membrane-Pump Hypothesis to Ling's Association-
Induction Hypothesis:
1. has already brought into existence the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)
device;
2. laid the groundwork for a true science of drug selection, as opposed to
present-day trial and error;
3. demonstrates that biological axioms need laboratory proof based on evidence
and logic;
4. presents a unifying theory of life at the cell and below-cell level.
Scope of the Book
Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level contains 17 chapters including five devoted
to Ling's Association-Induction Hypothesis, an outline of the entire history of cell
and subcellular life science, 72 text figures, 6 tables, an appendix, a list of
abbreviations, over 550 references, an author index, and a subject index, a
"super glossary" containing over 900 scientific names, technical terms and basic
concepts, and an "Answers to Readers Queries" that explains how best to read
the book and make use of the "Super Glossary."
While some knowledge of biology, physics and chemistry are useful, the "Super
Glossary" provides detailed background information, thus insuring that the
reader can understand without outside help.
Most health professionals, having had some smattering of chemistry, physics
and math, pride themselves on their "scientific" background. Very well! Read this
book! All doctors and other health professionals should read this book!
It is also written for science-oriented, career-seeking students; dedicated biology
teachers; medical-pharmaceutical researchers; physics, mathematics or
chemistry teachers, and sophisticated, adventuresome readers who are
unsatisfied with what they have read about our most precious possession--life
itself!
Dr. Ling's Association-Induction Hypothesis (AI) was first presented in 1962. A
decade before, in 1952, he published Ling's Fixed Charge Hypothesis (LFCH),
and in 1965 his Polarized Multilayer theory (already incorporated within the AI
Hypothesis). These hypotheses, and their experimental confirmation worldwide
over the last half-century, cause us to reflect when we realize that the scientific
community, by-and-large, has ignored these hypotheses and the confirmatory
research. The current paradigm has been disproved, time and again, yet hangs
on like an albatross around the neck of science. Ling's AI Hypothesis, has been
consistently confirmed, yet is ignored. This book is long overdue, and every
student of biology, medicine and history (not to mention the "scientifically"
oriented health professional) owes it to themselves -- and to the future -- to
read how this situation was allowed to occur -- as Ling also captures the history
of cellular biology in extremely clear prose.
What Others Have Said
What Others Have Said
Nobel Laureate C.N. Yang (Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, NJ, April
12, 1961), speaking of Ling's A Revolution in the Physiology of the Living Cell,
said, "At a time when we look forward to the merging of the physical arid
biological sciences, this is a most stimulating book, distinguished by a bold and
inquisitive attitude on the one hand, and careful experimental methods on the
other."
Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (MBL, 'Woods Hole, Jan 16, 1962) said,
"Dr. Ling is one of the most inventive biochemists I have ever met."
Describing Ling's latest book, Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level -- a further
development of A Revolution in the Physiology of the Living Cell -- others have
said: "The work is genuinely revolutionary. The thesis is full of penetrating
insights in the inner workings of the cell, offering a dramatic alternative to the
'conventional wisdom' of current views. Ling demonstrates that many textbook
axioms of cell function are incompatible with evidence and logic, and goes on to
produce a richly detailed construct that shows promise of being largely correct.
It is both a fascinating read and a monumental contribution to science." (Prof.
Gerald H. Pollack, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington)
"Gilbert Ling's new book arrives in perhaps the last hour to provide the true
historical aspect of the search for understanding of the living cell....a compact
description of all the elements of the Association-Induction hypothesis with only
the most compelling experimental supports behind each component...embedded
in an extensive (and to our best knowledge, fully complete) historical
background in such a way that despite its scientific authenticity, the volume
appears as highly colorful and enjoyable to read." (Assist. Prof. Tamas Henics,
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Pecs, Pecs, Hungary;
Intercell, Vienna, Austria.)
"Dr. Ling's work is sophisticated and essential. This book will guide its readers to
the new era of genuine biology." (Dr. Hirohisa Tamagawa, Gifu University, Gifu,
Japan.)
We believe that Gilbert Ling, PhD through his lifetime of inspired research
projects demonstrates that present day physiology teaching on the cell's
functioning is in error and thus leads to faulty medical paradigms resulting in
slow or no progress in disease resolution. Ling's keen insight demonstrates how
the cell does function, thereby producing numerous formerly undiscerned
phenomena which, when searched for, are found and lead to new and wonderful
medical discoveries, such as the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedures.
This is an outstanding book, marking Dr. Ling's lifetime achievements in
discovering the true biochemical basis for life itself -- a remarkable achievement
more than deserving of a Nobel Prize!
Source
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is
_2002_August-Sept/ai_90794480/pg_1
Nobel Laureate C.N. Yang (Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, NJ, April
12, 1961), speaking of Ling's A Revolution in the Physiology of the Living Cell,
said, "At a time when we look forward to the merging of the physical arid
biological sciences, this is a most stimulating book, distinguished by a bold and
inquisitive attitude on the one hand, and careful experimental methods on the
other."
Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgyi (MBL, 'Woods Hole, Jan 16, 1962) said,
"Dr. Ling is one of the most inventive biochemists I have ever met."
Describing Ling's latest book, Life at the Cell and Below-Cell Level -- a further
development of A Revolution in the Physiology of the Living Cell -- others have
said: "The work is genuinely revolutionary. The thesis is full of penetrating
insights in the inner workings of the cell, offering a dramatic alternative to the
'conventional wisdom' of current views. Ling demonstrates that many textbook
axioms of cell function are incompatible with evidence and logic, and goes on to
produce a richly detailed construct that shows promise of being largely correct.
It is both a fascinating read and a monumental contribution to science." (Prof.
Gerald H. Pollack, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington)
"Gilbert Ling's new book arrives in perhaps the last hour to provide the true
historical aspect of the search for understanding of the living cell....a compact
description of all the elements of the Association-Induction hypothesis with only
the most compelling experimental supports behind each component...embedded
in an extensive (and to our best knowledge, fully complete) historical
background in such a way that despite its scientific authenticity, the volume
appears as highly colorful and enjoyable to read." (Assist. Prof. Tamas Henics,
Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of Pecs, Pecs, Hungary;
Intercell, Vienna, Austria.)
"Dr. Ling's work is sophisticated and essential. This book will guide its readers to
the new era of genuine biology." (Dr. Hirohisa Tamagawa, Gifu University, Gifu,
Japan.)
We believe that Gilbert Ling, PhD through his lifetime of inspired research
projects demonstrates that present day physiology teaching on the cell's
functioning is in error and thus leads to faulty medical paradigms resulting in
slow or no progress in disease resolution. Ling's keen insight demonstrates how
the cell does function, thereby producing numerous formerly undiscerned
phenomena which, when searched for, are found and lead to new and wonderful
medical discoveries, such as the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) procedures.
This is an outstanding book, marking Dr. Ling's lifetime achievements in
discovering the true biochemical basis for life itself -- a remarkable achievement
more than deserving of a Nobel Prize!
Source
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is
_2002_August-Sept/ai_90794480/pg_1