From: Jeff on

<awthrawthr(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160879177.667594.129890(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
<...>

>> > The worms shut off genes when the were fed bacteria. without the
>> > bacteria, no genes were shut off.
>>
>> It is not the bacteria that shut off genes, however. It is the response
>> of
>> the eukaryotic cells to the bacteria. The bacteria, themselves, do not
>> shut
>> off the genes.
>
> Not the entire bacteria, rather the fatty acids which are a part of the
> bacteria.

Actually, it is double stranded RNA (dsRNA).

You can read about it in the Noble Prize press release:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2006/press.html

> It might be akin to saying an orange, lemon or lime doesn't
> protect us from scurvy, but the Vitamin C that is in the fruit that
> does it. Remember that when the bacteria was introduced, viral gene was
> turned off.

Viruses are not bacteria. There are different types of organisms.

> The research points to a possibility of a confirmation of Revici's
> theory that (a) bacteria have in them a natural anti-viral component,
> and (b) is consistent with his theory of Hierarchic Organization (a
> competing explanation of evolution.) From what was revealed in the
> Nobel Award, the 2006 Prize isn't a smoking gun for Revici's
> work...it's just another indicator because the discovery fits into
> Revici's theories without any contradiction.

Actually, the discovery has nothing to do with Revici's theories.

Jeff

>> >> > The next Nobel can be added to the leukotriene discovery by Bengt
>> >> > Samuelsen's 1982 Nobel...something Revici identified prior to 1950.
>> >> >
>> >> > And let us not forget John Clement's discovery of a lipoprotein
>> >> > "surfactant" that earned him the Lasker Award. It was the first
>> >> > recognized application of surface tension in human biology. Revici
>> >> > had
>> >> > used surface tension prior to 1938 in the diagnosis and treatment
>> >> > for a
>> >> > variety of diseases, conducting more than 100,000 tests on human
>> >> > subjects by 1961, and received a patent for his urotensiometer.
>> >>
>> >> Can you please provide references that they Revici used surface
>> >> tension
>> >> before 1938?
>> >
>> > I may have made an error in the year. In Revici's book, he states that
>> > he conducted over 100,000 tests with the Urotensiometer in the previous
>> > 12 years, which would put it at between 1943 and1948, rather than 1938,
>> > since it took him five years to write the book, and was published in
>> > early 1961.
>> >
>> >>And discovered leukotrienes before 1960?
>> >
>> > In 1950, Revici presented a paper: "Revici, E.: The influence of
>> > irradiation upon unsaturated fatty acids. Presented at the 6th
>> > International Congress of Radiology, London, July, 1950."
>> >
>> > In that paper he describes what he called ""trienically conjugated
>> > fatty acids." These are "one and the same" to the leukotrienes,
>> > according to Dr. A. R. Salman, M.D. and others. Dr. Salman has that
>> > Revici's description was clearer and in more detail than was
>> > Samuellson's.
>> >
>> > Furthermore, Revici developed treatments for the condition, much like
>> > Clemens developed a surfactant for the surface tension discovery he
>> > made.
>> >
>> > Revici was surprised by the Nobel Prize being given for Samuelsson's
>> > discovery, because to him it was small discovery.
>>
>> Thanks. A quick search of the internet shows you are correct on both the
>> leukotrienes and the urotensiometer, which is used to detect kidney
>> stones.
>
> Revici used surface tension, along with other indicators, to help
> monitor the metabolic imbalance of cancer patients. In my
> understanding, according to Revici's theory of Hierarchic Organization,
> surface tension has a role in evolution for organisms more complex than
> the fungal/yeast/mold level. In other words, beginning at the
> interstitial level and beyond.
>
> In a mostly unrelated topic...Note that a 16 to 1 ratio of sodium
> concentration to potassium concentration in the interstitial level is
> the same as the sodium/potassium concentration ratio in the Pacific
> Ocean. This is but one of several ratios that point to the development
> of the interstitial level in the ocean.
>
> Another set of uncanny ratios of potassium concentrations in both the
> cytoplasm and the earth's crust point to the theory that the cytoplasm
> developed on the earth's surface. This would have occurred prior to the
> interstitial evolvement, thereby indicating that earlier evolution took
> place on land rather than in the ocean. It's all very complicated, and
> I don't trust my lousy typing skills to retype Revici's writings on
> this.
>


From: awthrawthr on

Jeff wrote:
> <awthrawthr(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160879177.667594.129890(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> <...>
>
> >> > The worms shut off genes when the were fed bacteria. without the
> >> > bacteria, no genes were shut off.
> >>
> >> It is not the bacteria that shut off genes, however. It is the response
> >> of
> >> the eukaryotic cells to the bacteria. The bacteria, themselves, do not
> >> shut
> >> off the genes.
> >
> > Not the entire bacteria, rather the fatty acids which are a part of the
> > bacteria.
>
> Actually, it is double stranded RNA (dsRNA).
>
> You can read about it in the Noble Prize press release:
>
> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2006/press.html

Are you intentionally missing the point? The researchers were able to
accomplish their discovery by introducing a bacteria, which enabled the
viral gene to be shut off. That discovery is consistent with Revici's
theory that bacteria have in them the capacity to act as anti-virals.

> > It might be akin to saying an orange, lemon or lime doesn't
> > protect us from scurvy, but the Vitamin C that is in the fruit that
> > does it. Remember that when the bacteria was introduced, viral gene was
> > turned off.
>
> Viruses are not bacteria. There are different types of organisms.

Yes, indeed. I have never said they were the same types of organisms
because they are definitely not the same. Hell, I wrote about it in my
book 10 years ago when explaining how the Darwinian theory is different
from Revici's theory. According to Revici's Hierarchic Organization
Theory, bacteria are comprised of the addition of fatty acids and
nuceoproteins to the virus.

> > The research points to a possibility of a confirmation of Revici's
> > theory that (a) bacteria have in them a natural anti-viral component,
> > and (b) is consistent with his theory of Hierarchic Organization (a
> > competing explanation of evolution.) From what was revealed in the
> > Nobel Award, the 2006 Prize isn't a smoking gun for Revici's
> > work...it's just another indicator because the discovery fits into
> > Revici's theories without any contradiction.
>
> Actually, the discovery has nothing to do with Revici's theories.

Actually it does, but you've misread what I've written to the point
that you found a ridiculous need to 'inform' me that bacteria aren't
viruses. So it's no wonder you're so off track here. You're apparently
looking hard for a way to find an error, but it's not happening through
the facts, so you're confusing things in your mind.

Stop reading into this what isn't there. It's really easy...Revici said
bacteria turn off viruses. The Nobel winners introduced a bacteria with
the result that a viral gene was turned off.
The theory and the discovery are consistent...that's all I'm saying.

>
> Jeff
>
> >> >> > The next Nobel can be added to the leukotriene discovery by Bengt
> >> >> > Samuelsen's 1982 Nobel...something Revici identified prior to 1950.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > And let us not forget John Clement's discovery of a lipoprotein
> >> >> > "surfactant" that earned him the Lasker Award. It was the first
> >> >> > recognized application of surface tension in human biology. Revici
> >> >> > had
> >> >> > used surface tension prior to 1938 in the diagnosis and treatment
> >> >> > for a
> >> >> > variety of diseases, conducting more than 100,000 tests on human
> >> >> > subjects by 1961, and received a patent for his urotensiometer.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can you please provide references that they Revici used surface
> >> >> tension
> >> >> before 1938?
> >> >
> >> > I may have made an error in the year. In Revici's book, he states that
> >> > he conducted over 100,000 tests with the Urotensiometer in the previous
> >> > 12 years, which would put it at between 1943 and1948, rather than 1938,
> >> > since it took him five years to write the book, and was published in
> >> > early 1961.
> >> >
> >> >>And discovered leukotrienes before 1960?
> >> >
> >> > In 1950, Revici presented a paper: "Revici, E.: The influence of
> >> > irradiation upon unsaturated fatty acids. Presented at the 6th
> >> > International Congress of Radiology, London, July, 1950."
> >> >
> >> > In that paper he describes what he called ""trienically conjugated
> >> > fatty acids." These are "one and the same" to the leukotrienes,
> >> > according to Dr. A. R. Salman, M.D. and others. Dr. Salman has that
> >> > Revici's description was clearer and in more detail than was
> >> > Samuellson's.
> >> >
> >> > Furthermore, Revici developed treatments for the condition, much like
> >> > Clemens developed a surfactant for the surface tension discovery he
> >> > made.
> >> >
> >> > Revici was surprised by the Nobel Prize being given for Samuelsson's
> >> > discovery, because to him it was small discovery.
> >>
> >> Thanks. A quick search of the internet shows you are correct on both the
> >> leukotrienes and the urotensiometer, which is used to detect kidney
> >> stones.
> >
> > Revici used surface tension, along with other indicators, to help
> > monitor the metabolic imbalance of cancer patients. In my
> > understanding, according to Revici's theory of Hierarchic Organization,
> > surface tension has a role in evolution for organisms more complex than
> > the fungal/yeast/mold level. In other words, beginning at the
> > interstitial level and beyond.
> >
> > In a mostly unrelated topic...Note that a 16 to 1 ratio of sodium
> > concentration to potassium concentration in the interstitial level is
> > the same as the sodium/potassium concentration ratio in the Pacific
> > Ocean. This is but one of several ratios that point to the development
> > of the interstitial level in the ocean.
> >
> > Another set of uncanny ratios of potassium concentrations in both the
> > cytoplasm and the earth's crust point to the theory that the cytoplasm
> > developed on the earth's surface. This would have occurred prior to the
> > interstitial evolvement, thereby indicating that earlier evolution took
> > place on land rather than in the ocean. It's all very complicated, and
> > I don't trust my lousy typing skills to retype Revici's writings on
> > this.
> >

From: Jeff on

<awthrawthr(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1160956984.687570.304950(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Jeff wrote:
>> <awthrawthr(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1160879177.667594.129890(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> <...>
>>
>> >> > The worms shut off genes when the were fed bacteria. without the
>> >> > bacteria, no genes were shut off.
>> >>
>> >> It is not the bacteria that shut off genes, however. It is the
>> >> response
>> >> of
>> >> the eukaryotic cells to the bacteria. The bacteria, themselves, do not
>> >> shut
>> >> off the genes.
>> >
>> > Not the entire bacteria, rather the fatty acids which are a part of the
>> > bacteria.
>>
>> Actually, it is double stranded RNA (dsRNA).
>>
>> You can read about it in the Noble Prize press release:
>>
>> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2006/press.html
>
> Are you intentionally missing the point? The researchers were able to
> accomplish their discovery by introducing a bacteria, which enabled the
> viral gene to be shut off. That discovery is consistent with Revici's
> theory that bacteria have in them the capacity to act as anti-virals.

You need to learn more about RNAi. It helps cells defend against virii.
However, it has nothing to do with having bacteria causing human cells to
defend against virii. The discovery had nothing to do with bacteria being
introduced to human cells. It was virii dsRNA that was introduced that
caused the cells to defend against virii.

Jeff

>> > It might be akin to saying an orange, lemon or lime doesn't
>> > protect us from scurvy, but the Vitamin C that is in the fruit that
>> > does it. Remember that when the bacteria was introduced, viral gene was
>> > turned off.
>>
>> Viruses are not bacteria. There are different types of organisms.
>
> Yes, indeed. I have never said they were the same types of organisms
> because they are definitely not the same. Hell, I wrote about it in my
> book 10 years ago when explaining how the Darwinian theory is different
> from Revici's theory. According to Revici's Hierarchic Organization
> Theory, bacteria are comprised of the addition of fatty acids and
> nuceoproteins to the virus.
>
>> > The research points to a possibility of a confirmation of Revici's
>> > theory that (a) bacteria have in them a natural anti-viral component,
>> > and (b) is consistent with his theory of Hierarchic Organization (a
>> > competing explanation of evolution.) From what was revealed in the
>> > Nobel Award, the 2006 Prize isn't a smoking gun for Revici's
>> > work...it's just another indicator because the discovery fits into
>> > Revici's theories without any contradiction.
>>
>> Actually, the discovery has nothing to do with Revici's theories.
>
> Actually it does, but you've misread what I've written to the point
> that you found a ridiculous need to 'inform' me that bacteria aren't
> viruses. So it's no wonder you're so off track here. You're apparently
> looking hard for a way to find an error, but it's not happening through
> the facts, so you're confusing things in your mind.
>
> Stop reading into this what isn't there. It's really easy...Revici said
> bacteria turn off viruses. The Nobel winners introduced a bacteria with
> the result that a viral gene was turned off.
> The theory and the discovery are consistent...that's all I'm saying.
>
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> >> >> > The next Nobel can be added to the leukotriene discovery by Bengt
>> >> >> > Samuelsen's 1982 Nobel...something Revici identified prior to
>> >> >> > 1950.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > And let us not forget John Clement's discovery of a lipoprotein
>> >> >> > "surfactant" that earned him the Lasker Award. It was the first
>> >> >> > recognized application of surface tension in human biology.
>> >> >> > Revici
>> >> >> > had
>> >> >> > used surface tension prior to 1938 in the diagnosis and treatment
>> >> >> > for a
>> >> >> > variety of diseases, conducting more than 100,000 tests on human
>> >> >> > subjects by 1961, and received a patent for his urotensiometer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Can you please provide references that they Revici used surface
>> >> >> tension
>> >> >> before 1938?
>> >> >
>> >> > I may have made an error in the year. In Revici's book, he states
>> >> > that
>> >> > he conducted over 100,000 tests with the Urotensiometer in the
>> >> > previous
>> >> > 12 years, which would put it at between 1943 and1948, rather than
>> >> > 1938,
>> >> > since it took him five years to write the book, and was published in
>> >> > early 1961.
>> >> >
>> >> >>And discovered leukotrienes before 1960?
>> >> >
>> >> > In 1950, Revici presented a paper: "Revici, E.: The influence of
>> >> > irradiation upon unsaturated fatty acids. Presented at the 6th
>> >> > International Congress of Radiology, London, July, 1950."
>> >> >
>> >> > In that paper he describes what he called ""trienically conjugated
>> >> > fatty acids." These are "one and the same" to the leukotrienes,
>> >> > according to Dr. A. R. Salman, M.D. and others. Dr. Salman has that
>> >> > Revici's description was clearer and in more detail than was
>> >> > Samuellson's.
>> >> >
>> >> > Furthermore, Revici developed treatments for the condition, much
>> >> > like
>> >> > Clemens developed a surfactant for the surface tension discovery he
>> >> > made.
>> >> >
>> >> > Revici was surprised by the Nobel Prize being given for Samuelsson's
>> >> > discovery, because to him it was small discovery.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks. A quick search of the internet shows you are correct on both
>> >> the
>> >> leukotrienes and the urotensiometer, which is used to detect kidney
>> >> stones.
>> >
>> > Revici used surface tension, along with other indicators, to help
>> > monitor the metabolic imbalance of cancer patients. In my
>> > understanding, according to Revici's theory of Hierarchic Organization,
>> > surface tension has a role in evolution for organisms more complex than
>> > the fungal/yeast/mold level. In other words, beginning at the
>> > interstitial level and beyond.
>> >
>> > In a mostly unrelated topic...Note that a 16 to 1 ratio of sodium
>> > concentration to potassium concentration in the interstitial level is
>> > the same as the sodium/potassium concentration ratio in the Pacific
>> > Ocean. This is but one of several ratios that point to the development
>> > of the intersti
From: JohnDoe on
awthrawthr(a)yahoo.com wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>>awthrawthr(a)yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Once again scientists are stunned to see compounds "melt" into a larger
>>>compound. Some day, they'll realize what is going on, but right now,
>>>they just don't know what to make of this unexpected result.
>>>
>>>http://www.world-science.net/othernews/061012_tiny-genome.htm
>>
>>I've read it and 'they' certainly do know what to make of this. What
>>they make of it is what's happening there is exactly what has been
>>proposed as the origin or organelles, where DNA from the organelle has
>>migrated into the host's DNA. You (and of course Revici) lose again.
>>There is no sign of a virus turning into a bacteria there. None.
>
>
> what the scientists found to be so stunning was how one level of
> biological organization accomodated or "melted" itself into another
> level.

No, that's not it. What they found amazing is that an organism can
survive with such a small genome.

> That is a demonstration of hierarchic organization, which does
> not apply solely to viruses and bacteria, but to every single level,
> including organelles.

You can say that as often as you want, it's still untrue.

>>>When they do figure it out, they'll get another Nobel Prize, just like
>>>two scientists were awarded one this year for discovering that bacteria
>>>have the ability to shut off genes.
>>
>>Uhm, that was definitely not what they got the Nobel Prize for. There
>>are programs for grownups where they can improve their reading ability.
>>I suggest you look into those.
>
>
> It doesn't matter what the prize was awarded for...what is important in
> this case in terms of Revici's theory is that in order for the
> scientists to get the genes of a virus to stop expressing, that had to
> use a bacteria! That necessity is in support of the Revici theory.

No they didn't have to use bacteria. Learn to read.

>>>The next Nobel can be added to the leukotriene discovery by Bengt
>>>Samuelsen's 1982 Nobel...something Revici identified prior to 1950.
>>
>>So tell us, why didn't Revici get the Nobel Prize?
>
> I answered this question before, and you ran and hid. Now you want to
> waste everyone's time pretending that the question wasn't answered.

You did? I missed that, sorry.

>>BTW, when I was at James Randi's office, I found, in the library under
>>the heading 'cancer quackery', the official report on the Senate
>>Committee hearings regarding alternative medicine in cancer treatment.
>>Revici was mentioned in that report. I read it and it didn't look good.
>>How is it possible that Revici, who after all cured scores of cancer
>>patients with his good arm tied behind his back and his fingers up his
>>nose, wasn't recognized as the all time greatest hero and genius of
>>medicine by that Committee? Can you explain why not?
>
>
> You went to a trickster's office for an explanation of cancer
> treatments??

He just happened to have a copy of the official government report where
I got that info from. You know, that report where you can read how all
those cases of incurable patients that Revici cured failed to impress
the Senate Committee (because they never were such cases).

> My older brother is a professional magician (part time).
> He's been doing magic for about 50 years. He can make coins come out of
> your ears. Do you think that there is a mint in your head because a
> trickster can do that??
>
>
>>>And let us not forget John Clement's discovery of a lipoprotein
>>>"surfactant" that earned him the Lasker Award. It was the first
>>>recognized application of surface tension in human biology. Revici had
>>>used surface tension prior to 1938 in the diagnosis and treatment for a
>>>variety of diseases, conducting more than 100,000 tests on human
>>>subjects by 1961, and received a patent for his urotensiometer.
>>
>>And now, for something completely different: I haven't seen that nice
>>gentleman from Grayfield microscopes back with the evidence he promised.
>>You do remember the microscope that 'confirmed' yet another one of
>>Revici's fantasies? Do you have any idea what happened there? You think
>>poor fellow still didn't get a correct testslide?
>
>
> Once again, this question was answered, whereupon you ran and hid.
>
> I was speaking about the discovery of John Clements...yet you bring up
> a subject that has nothing to do with surfactants, lipoproteins etc.
> Maybe you ought to go see if Randi really does have a rabbit in his hat.
>
From: awthrawthr on

Jeff wrote:
> <awthrawthr(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1160956984.687570.304950(a)i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Jeff wrote:
> >> <awthrawthr(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1160879177.667594.129890(a)i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> <...>
> >>
> >> >> > The worms shut off genes when the were fed bacteria. without the
> >> >> > bacteria, no genes were shut off.
> >> >>
> >> >> It is not the bacteria that shut off genes, however. It is the
> >> >> response
> >> >> of
> >> >> the eukaryotic cells to the bacteria. The bacteria, themselves, do not
> >> >> shut
> >> >> off the genes.
> >> >
> >> > Not the entire bacteria, rather the fatty acids which are a part of the
> >> > bacteria.
> >>
> >> Actually, it is double stranded RNA (dsRNA).
> >>
> >> You can read about it in the Noble Prize press release:
> >>
> >> http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2006/press.html
> >
> > Are you intentionally missing the point? The researchers were able to
> > accomplish their discovery by introducing a bacteria, which enabled the
> > viral gene to be shut off. That discovery is consistent with Revici's
> > theory that bacteria have in them the capacity to act as anti-virals.
>
> You need to learn more about RNAi. It helps cells defend against virii.
> However, it has nothing to do with having bacteria causing human cells to
> defend against virii. The discovery had nothing to do with bacteria being
> introduced to human cells. It was virii dsRNA that was introduced that
> caused the cells to defend against virii.

You might look up the Ars Technica article on this. They specifically
note that until the researchers introduced a bacteria into the mix, the
viral genes were not shut down.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061002-7876.html

Read the third paragraph! As you can see, "The worms normally feed on
bacteria, and feeding them bacteria that make the appropriate RNA is
enough to block a gene. This convenience has allowed researchers to
block the expression of EVERY SINGLE GENE in the worm genome..." [CAPS
ADDED]

After you read that news article, you're probably going to be
speechless...and then you're probably going to try to prove it
wrong...but if you're smart you'll realize that you now know something
that the Nobel Prize winners are unaware of, namely that this is
consistent with Revici's theory of Hierarchic Organization. If you
FULLY grasped that, you would be so far ahead of others that their
heads would spin at how many discoveries you could make as a result.

As I said before, the Prize is consistent with Revici's theory that
bacteria control viruses. You might not think the researchers's
discovery has nothing to do with bacteria defending against viruses in
humans, but that is exactly what the scientific community is trying to
determine, only they want to isolate the active compound IN THE
BACTERIA that was discovered in the worm study to patent drugs.

> >> > It might be akin to saying an orange, lemon or lime doesn't
> >> > protect us from scurvy, but the Vitamin C that is in the fruit that
> >> > does it. Remember that when the bacteria was introduced, viral gene was
> >> > turned off.
> >>
> >> Viruses are not bacteria. There are different types of organisms.
> >
> > Yes, indeed. I have never said they were the same types of organisms
> > because they are definitely not the same. Hell, I wrote about it in my
> > book 10 years ago when explaining how the Darwinian theory is different
> > from Revici's theory. According to Revici's Hierarchic Organization
> > Theory, bacteria are comprised of the addition of fatty acids and
> > nuceoproteins to the virus.
> >
> >> > The research points to a possibility of a confirmation of Revici's
> >> > theory that (a) bacteria have in them a natural anti-viral component,
> >> > and (b) is consistent with his theory of Hierarchic Organization (a
> >> > competing explanation of evolution.) From what was revealed in the
> >> > Nobel Award, the 2006 Prize isn't a smoking gun for Revici's
> >> > work...it's just another indicator because the discovery fits into
> >> > Revici's theories without any contradiction.
> >>
> >> Actually, the discovery has nothing to do with Revici's theories.
> >
> > Actually it does, but you've misread what I've written to the point
> > that you found a ridiculous need to 'inform' me that bacteria aren't
> > viruses. So it's no wonder you're so off track here. You're apparently
> > looking hard for a way to find an error, but it's not happening through
> > the facts, so you're confusing things in your mind.
> >
> > Stop reading into this what isn't there. It's really easy...Revici said
> > bacteria turn off viruses. The Nobel winners introduced a bacteria with
> > the result that a viral gene was turned off.
> > The theory and the discovery are consistent...that's all I'm saying.
> >
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >>
> >> >> >> > The next Nobel can be added to the leukotriene discovery by Bengt
> >> >> >> > Samuelsen's 1982 Nobel...something Revici identified prior to
> >> >> >> > 1950.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > And let us not forget John Clement's discovery of a lipoprotein
> >> >> >> > "surfactant" that earned him the Lasker Award. It was the first
> >> >> >> > recognized application of surface tension in human biology.
> >> >> >> > Revici
> >> >> >> > had
> >> >> >> > used surface tension prior to 1938 in the diagnosis and treatment
> >> >> >> > for a
> >> >> >> > variety of diseases, conducting more than 100,000 tests on human
> >> >> >> > subjects by 1961, and received a patent for his urotensiometer.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Can you please provide references that they Revici used surface
> >> >> >> tension
> >> >> >> before 1938?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I may have made an error in the year. In Revici's book, he states
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > he conducted over 100,000 tests with the Urotensiometer in the
> >> >> > previous
> >> >> > 12 years, which would put it at between 1943 and1948, rather than
> >> >> > 1938,
> >> >> > since it took him five years to write the book, and was published in
> >> >> > early 1961.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>And discovered leukotrienes before 1960?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In 1950, Revici presented a paper: "Revici, E.: The influence of
> >> >> > irradiation upon unsaturated fatty acids. Presented at the 6th
> >> >> > International
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: The Ty Pennington Story
Next: How to age garlic ?