I am closing comments on this article.

All that can be usefully said for and against the discoveries of Piotr Gariaev has been said - and I don't believe in continuing to "beat a dead horse".

Readers can make up their own mind about the string of comments that have pitted a rabid debunker, who would like to stay anonymous, against Neil Boyd, who has supplied many cogent arguments.

Let's let matters rest at this point... even electrons have a certain value so we shouldn't waste any more on a fruitless dispute.

Sepp

In the first place, Mr. "debunker", you do not understand any of this!

You are arguing about things you are completely ignorant about, in every possible regard.

You have no education in any scientific field!

You have already made this quite obvious by refusing to provide any credentials, and by repeatedly refusing to answer any technical questions at all!

That is because you have no technical understandings at all, about anything, as far as I can see.

What are you professor of? A grocery store cashier stand? Of the university of grocery number 37?

I think maybe you get prompts from someone with some modicum of biological education, who is also too lazy to read any of the evidence I have presented, or doesn't want to.

You have repeatedly ignored the actual facts while continuing to make false accusations so as to attract attention away from those actual facts.

True to centuries-old debunkers form, you ignore the facts so that you can say, over and over, "I have seen no evidence of this DNA phantom.", when the evidence has been presented over and over again, from diverse places around the planet, on this blog.

What you REALLY don't understand are the PRINCIPLES of these physics, or any physics, for that matter!

I have asked you 3 times, "What is quantum information?". You never respond, because you are incapable of responding!

Take a degree in quantum physics and get back to me on that question. Or maybe you could bother to read some text books on the topic of quantum physics and find out about quantum information that way.

Here, I'll give you a little head start. Here is a short reading list, even though I know you will never bother to read any of it, based on your behaviors up to this time:

"Quantum Physics" by Bohm, Dover Publications

"The Undivided Universe" by Bohm and Hiley, Routledge Press

"Causality and Chance in Modern Physics" Bohm, University of Pennsylvania Press

"The Physical Principles of Quantum Physics" by Werner Heisenberg, Nobel Laureate, published by Dover Publications

"The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose, Alfred Knopf, Publisher

"Matter and Memory and Creative Evolution" by
Henri Bergson (1859-1941) who received the Nobel Prize in 1927.

"Evolution and the Brain: Creation of the Self", Routledge Press, 1989 by Sir John C. Eccles (1903-) an Australian neurophysiologist, who was a Nobel laureate in 1963,

"The Phenomena of Life—A Radio-electric Interpretation". by Dr. George Crile, M.D. US surgeon and founder of the renowned Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.

"New Concepts in Diagnosis and Treatment", Philopolis Press, by Albert Abrams, pathologist, Stanford University Medical School,

"Cross Currents: The Perils of Electropollution, the Promise of Electromedicine" Tarcher/Putnam, 1990, and "The Body Electric" Morrow, New York 1985. by Robert O. Becker,

"Applying Quantum Interference to EDST Medicine Testing", Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 1996 by K.G. Chen

"21st Century Medicine" Thorsons, 1986, by J. Kenyon

"Bioresonance and Multiresonance Therapy", Haug, Brussels, 1990, by H. Bruggemann

A Pischinger, "Matrix and Matrix Regulation, Basis for a Holistic Theory in Medicine", Brussels, Haug International 1986

J. Liberman, "Light: Medicine of the Future", Bear and Co., Santa Fe, 1991.

M. Talbot, "The Holographic Universe", Harper Collins, 1996.

Richard Gerber, M.D., "Vibrational Medicine, The Handbook of Subtle-Energy Therapies", Bear and Co., Rochester, VT 2001

I could easily go on, but teaching completely uneducated people becomes burdensome for me after a time, especially if they refuse to learn any of the facts.

Earlier I gave a reference to a seminal paper by Dr Huping Hu. Obviously you never bothered to even glance at it. It would be worth doing if you really want to understand some of the results of quantum information. Here's that reference again: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0208068

Also read anything by William Tiller, PhD,such as "Conscious Acts of Creation", "The Experience of a New Physics", and "Science and Human Transformation: Subtle Energies, Intentionality and Consciousness".

Here is a proposal for an information-based cure for alcoholism I presented to NIH for consideration, many years ago: "Reduction of Physiological Effects of Alcohol Abuse By Substitution of a Harmless Alcohol Surrogate Created by Application of a Spin Field" See:http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/spinfield-effects.htm

Maybe somewhere in all this reading you will begin to realize what quantum information is, and i will not have to bother to educate you in such rudiments of quantum physics.

Now for more repetitions of some other technical questions I previously raised with you, but you have adamantly refused to answer (obviously out of a combination of ignorance and laziness):
What is laser wave correlation spectroscopy? How does it work? Where can you purchase such instrumentation? How does one use such instrumentation?

See, all these questions are VERY VERY RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE OF THE DNA PHANTOM EFFECT!

So what you are protesting is the advance of science and at the same time, the use of scientific measurement instruments used in physics laboratories all across the world.

I'm afraid your protestations regarding verified read-outs of scientific instruments are falling on millions of deaf ears, mine included.

You ought to buy a horse and ride it to work, and throw away your computer, and so on, if you really want to be honestly committed to your present folly regarding progress in physics, and physics instrumentation.

You know nothing about physics. You know nothing about genetics. You have no credentials. You have proved your ignorance, in great depth and detail. No wonder you refuse to give out your real name! I'd be too ashamed, if it were me.

I expect this will be the last we hear from you, if I have my way here. I will go on to respond to the other foolish and irrelevant items on your
itemized list, but that will be the end of it, unless someone has some real questions and has some sort of curiosity about the multitudes of recent advances in Life Physics. I'll be happy to talk about all those things. But I dislike talking with ignorant debunkers who can't even answer a simple question about quantum physics.

And your knowledge of genetics is equally appallingly lacking.

Mr. Debunker said, "...Petr Garjaev is often on TV (and not in peer-reviewed journals)." The statement in parenthesis has already been irrevocably falsified. That he might have been on TV at any time in the past is completely irrelevant to the issue of the validity of his research results, which have been verified and substantiated repeatedly already in the form of the citations I have provided, and in the form of my own experimental results, and those of other researchers from around the world.

Your lies become more egregious and appalling each time you speak. Gariaev was a Professor for many years at Lebedev University, before the collapse of communism. That was where he did the first DNA phantom experiment. It has been reproduced many times since then, in many parts of the world.

Mr Debunker said: "...he had no articles on this subject in peer-reviewed journal.". That is because you have refused to read the actual citations regarding where he has been published in peer reviewed journals. And so have I.

Have you? I sincerely doubt it.

You still haven't brought forth any evidence regarding your "credentials" while posing as a university professor. At which university, and in what department? Surely you wouldn't mind providing this information in a publicly verifiable manner. Keep in mind that there are laws regarding posing as a university professor. That is yet another kind of fraud.

You lie again saying that there are no references and no publications and that his experiments have never been reproduced. You ignore everything I say, and you ignore my questions. you are a classical debunker and a slanderous liar to boot.
Do you not realize Mr. Debunker that all that you have said here is on public record? You can't continue to avoid the facts and make issues out of nothing and make up lies about everything to do with the qualifications and results of Dr. Gariaev.

You merely sidestep the facts, and the questions, and the real issues, apparently thinking that people can only remember what they last read. That may be true for you, but most people have a much longer memory than that, particularly if all they have to do is scroll down the page a bit and read what was said before.

I've said long ago that Gariaev's results have been reproduced to the satisfaction of many scientists, such as myself, and even improved on by some of the researchers I know personally.

I'm going to make a formal request to the owner of this blog that your nonsense should be prevented from obscuring the actual facts regarding Gariaev's wonderful innovations and the benefits to humanity that they mean, any longer.

You are what is called an "obstructionist". There is little use for your kind in the sciences, where actual reproducible facts matter a great deal, and prejudices, biases, and preconceptions have no place. And lies such as yours are even less acceptable.

Mr. Debunker said, "...Petr Garjaev is often on TV (and not in peer-reviewed journals)." The statement in parenthesis has already been irrevocably falsified. That he might have been on TV at any time in the past is completely irrelevant to the issue of the validity of his research results, which have been verified and substantiated repeatedly already in the form of the citations I have provided, and in the form of my own experimental results, and those of other researchers from around the world.

Your lies become more egregious and appalling each time you speak. Gariaev was a Professor for many years at Lebedev University, before the collapse of communism. That was where he did the first DNA phantom experiment. It has been reproduced many times since then, in many parts of the world.

Mr Debunker said: "...he had no articles on this subject in peer-reviewed journal.". That is because you have refused to read the actual citations regarding where he has been published in peer reviewed journals. And so have I.

Have you? I sincerely doubt it.

You still haven't brought forth any evidence regarding your "credentials" while posing as a university professor. At which university, and in what department? Surely you wouldn't mind providing this information in a publicly verifiable manner. Keep in mind that there are laws regarding posing as a university professor. That is yet another kind of fraud.

You lie again saying that there are no references and no publications and that his experiments have never been reproduced. You ignore everything I say, and you ignore my questions. you are a classical debunker and a slanderous liar to boot.
Do you not realize Mr. Debunker that all that you have said here is on public record? You can't continue to avoid the facts and make issues out of nothing and make up lies about everything to do with the qualifications and results of Dr. Gariaev.

You merely sidestep the facts, and the questions, and the real issues, apparently thinking that people can only remember what they last read. That may be true for you, but most people have a much longer memory than that, particularly if all they have to do is scroll down the page a bit and read what was said before.

I've said long ago that Gariaev's results have been reproduced to the satisfaction of many scientists, such as myself, and even improved on by some of the researchers I know personally.

I'm going to make a formal request to the owner of this blog that your nonsense should be prevented from obscuring the actual facts regarding Gariaev's wonderful innovations and the benefits to humanity that they mean, any longer.

You are what is called an "obstructionist". There is little use for your kind in the sciences, where actual reproducible facts matter a great deal, and prejudices, biases, and preconceptions have no place. And lies such as yours are even less acceptable.

> Dr Boyd wrote: "Meanwhile, although I am
> convinced by your behaviors to this point, that
> you will not read these references, here is
> another list of reference materials related to
> the DNA phantom effect:..."

The list that you have provided consists of two parts: first part has absolutely no relation to the "DNA phantom effect" (when the "phantom" of the DNA allegedly remains for several days after the tube with the DNA sample has been removed from the room). The second part of your list refers to works of Garjaev himself, and his coauthors, which obviously could not be taken into account when the anti-fraud commission was considering the case of Garjaev. To make it more simple: you did not provide a single article published in a peer-reviewed journal, which proves the "DNA phantom effect" (when the "phantom" of the DNA allegedly remains for several days after the tube with the DNA sample has been removed from the room).

> How many *life science* journals are there in
> the world, actually?

If we consider the journals which have ISI impact factors, then, out of total about 6000 journals indexed this year, I would expect about 2000 to be related to *life science*. More specifically, there are 300 journals in the category "Biochemistry and Molecular Biology", which had been indexed in 2008. The number of journals is increasing approximately by 10% each year. I hope you are satisfied with this answer. There are plenty of peer-reviewed journals, and if something which is claimed to be "scientific" is not published in peer-reviewed journals, that is very suspicious.

The previous post was mine. A wrong name appeared there instead of "Scientist".

> Dr. Boyd wrote: "You state that Gariaev has
> "...just returned from Sri Lanka". And where
> is the evidence for this?"

Here is the link to the web forum, where someone under name of Petr Garjaev is discussing with scientists http://quantrinas.myff.ru/viewforum.php?id=40. You can use google.translate facility to translate it into English to make sure that the person under nickname "ППГ" ("PPG", which stands for Petr Petrovich Garjaev) is claiming that he has just returned from Sri Lanka. That person under name Petr Garjaevh also posted there the link to this web site when the article about him was posted here by SEPP, which proves that that person is indeed Petr Garjaev.

> Dr. Boyd wrote: "Regarding your list of videos,
> in the first place, anyone can take a video of
> anything or anybody at any time or place, with
> any manner of different recording devices. Even
> if there are videos of Gariaev on the internet,
> this is irrelevant."

Look, I have just answered your argument. As first said, that Petr Garjaev is often on TV (and not in peer-reviewed journals). You said that according to your knowledge he has never been on TV. Then I provided the link http://rutube.ru/search.html?search=%C7%C1%D2%D1%C5%D7
This link leads to 51 videos (I said that there are at least 9 videos, but I can now see that there are 51 videos at this link, you can count yourself). Some of these videos start with the title of the TV channel and the date of the TV program, so it is very easy to check that they have been indeed on TV. And that is just one of internet repositories, so these are probably not all videos. So that's what it was before the anti-fraud commission started to work: A person who was calling himself by scientific titles which he did not own, a person discussing "wave genetics" in many TV programs (some of which have generated those 51 videos which I have found for you). On the other hand, he had no articles on this subject in peer-reviewed journal. Don't you find it suspicious? That's how it was before the anti-fraud commission started considering his case.

> Dr. Boyd wrote: "Regarding your list of videos,
> in the first place, anyone can take a video of
> anything or anybody at any time or place, with
> any manner of different recording devices. Even
> if there are videos of Gariaev on the internet,
> this is irrelevant."

Look, I have just answered your argument. As first said, that Petr Garjaev is often on TV (and not in peer-reviewed journals). You said that according to your knowledge he has never been on TV. Then I provided the link http://rutube.ru/search.html?search=%C7%C1%D2%D1%C5%D7
This link leads to 51 videos (I said that there are at least 9 videos, but I can now see that there are 51 videos at this link, you can count yourself). Some of these videos start with the title of the TV channel and the date of the TV program, so it is very easy to check that they have been indeed on TV. And that is just one of internet repositories, so these are probably not all videos. So that's what it was before the anti-fraud commission started to work: A person who was calling himself by scientific titles which he did not own, a person discussing "wave genetics" in many TV programs (some of which have generated those 51 videos which I have found for you). On the other hand, he had no articles on this subject in peer-reviewed journal. Don't you find it suspicious? That's how it was before the anti-fraud commission started considering his case.

I retract my offer for a possible research position. You are too unscrupulous to work with us.

Regarding your list of videos, in the first place, anyone can take a video of anything or anybody at any time or place, with any manner of different recording devices. Even if there are videos of Gariaev on the internet, this is irrelevant. This fact has nothing to do with the veracity of his results, nor with the enormous benefits that the world is being offered by these new technologies.

You want to make appearing on TV seem to be a crime. It is not. I've made dozens of television shows in this country, speaking both the scientific facts, and my sentiments about those facts, without reservation, except where classified information was involved. My series was so popular with the viewing audience that I was offered a very lucrative opportunity to do a syndicated series of such shows on nationwide television. I declined the offer, for various reasons.

Public claims made on TV are subject to many laws in this country. I'm sure there are similar laws in Russia. I also know for a fact that Gariaev has never had any charges brought against him, and never will. He is a highly civilized and ethical man. (Unlike some people I can think of.)

You state that Gariaev has "...just returned from Sri Lanka". And where is the evidence for this? And, so what?

On my part, I am wondering when, if ever, you will answer any the questions I have previously posed for you? Such as:

You are qualified how...???
(You have claimed to be a university professor, but I see no evidence proving this.)
In which of the sciences?
What and where are your credentials?

What does the word "coherent" mean, in terms of photons?
What is a hologram?
Can you make a hologram yourself?
What is wave correlation spectroscopy?
Where can you get such instrumentation?
What is quantum information?

How many *life science* journals are there in the world, actually?
Did you know that Crick tried to return his Nobel Prize? Do you know why this event is directly related to wave genetics results?

Where have these integrity and ethics bodies been while the public has been endlessly deceived and defrauded by such projects as LISA, LIGO, and the LHC, all based on previously existing fraudulent "science", such as relativity theory?

Meanwhile, although I am convinced by your behaviors to this point, that you will not read these references, here is another list of reference materials related to the DNA phantom effect:

1.Lolle S.J., Victor J.L., Young J.M., Pruitt R.E. Genome-wide non-mendelian inheritance of extra genomic information in Arabidopsis. Nature, 434, 505-509 (2005).
2.Lagerkvist U., «Two out of Three»: an alternative method for codon reading. Proc. Natl.Acad.Sci.USA, 75, 1759 1762 (1978).
3.Francis Crick. A personal View of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York. Translate into Russian: Institute of computer researches, Moscow-Ijevsk (2004), p. 98.
4.Biebricher C.K., Eigen M., Luce R. Product analysis of RNA Generated de novo by Qb Replicase. J.Mol.Biol., 148, 369-390 (1981).
5.Biebricher C.K., Luce R., Template-free generation of RNA species that replicate with bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase. The EMBO Journal, 15, Issue 13, 3458-3465 (1996).
6.Choudhury G.K., Kejarival P.C., Chattopadhyay A. The devices for generation of phantom leaf effect. J.Inst.Eng. (India) 60, Pt.EL3, 61-66; 67-73 (1979).
7.Gariaev P.P., Junin A.M. Phantom leaf effect. Myth or reality? Energy 10, 46-52 (1989). In Russian.
8.Gariaev P.P. Wave based genome. Monograph. Moscow. Ed. Obshestv. Pol’za. 279p. (1994). In Russian.
9.Gariaev P.P. Wave genetic code. Monograph. Moscow. Ed. Izdatcentr. 108p. (1997). In Russian.
10.Prangishvili I.V., Gariaev P.P., G.G.Tertishny, V.V.Maximenko, A.V.Mologin, E.A.Leonova, E.R.Muldashev. Spectroscopy of radiowave radiation of localized photons: path to quantum nonlocality of bioinformation processes. Sensors and systems, 9 (18), 2-13 (2000). Russian Academy of sciences. In Russian.
11.Gariaev P.P., Birshtein B.I., Iarochenko A.M, Marcer P.J., George G. Tertishny G.G., Leonova E.A., Kaempf U., The DNA-wave biocomputer. «CASYS» – International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems (ed. D.M.Dubois), Liege, Belgium, 10, 290-310, (2001).
12.Gariaev P.P., Chudin V.I., Komissarov G.G., Berezin A.A., Vasiliev A.A., Hologrphic Associative Memory of Biological Systems, Proceedings SPIE — The International Society for Optical Engineering. Optical Memory and Neural Networks, 1621, 280- 291. USA. (1991).
13.Allison S.A., Sorlie S.S., Pecora R., Brownian Dynamics Simulations of Wormlike Chains, Dynamic Light Scattering from a 2311 Base Pair DNA Fragment. Macromolecules, 23, 1110-1118, (1990).
14.Hagerman, P. J., and B. H. Zimm., Monte Carlo approach to the analysis of the rotational diffusion of wormlike chains. Biopolymers, 20, 1481–1502, (1981).
15.Zimm B H., Dynamics of polymer molecules in dilute solution: viscoelasticity, flow birefringence and dielectric loss, J. Chem. Phys., 24, 269-78, (1956). General Electric Research Laboratory, Schenectady, NY.
16.Rouse P E., A theory of the linear viscoelastic properties of dilute solutions of coiling polymers, J.Chem.Phys., 21, 1272-80, (1953). Tertyshnii G.G., Gariaev P.P., Aksenov V.A., Leonova E.A., Fomchenkov S.V., The formalism of endogenous polarization/holographic managing processes in organisms. Consciousness and a physical reality, 9, number 4, 44-50 (2004). In Russian.
17.Prangishvili I.V., Gariaev P.P., Tertishnii G.G., Maksimenko V.V., Mologin A.V., Leonova E.A., Muldashev E.R., Spectroscopy of radiowave radiations of the localized photons: an output on quanum nonlocal bioinformation processes. Sensors and Systems, 9 (18), 2-13 (2000). In Russian.
18.An application for a Patent to the Federal Institute of Industrial Property of Russia, 20.10.2005. Registration number # 2005132403, Incoming number # 036308.
19.Tertyshnii G.G., Gariaev P.P., Aksenov V.A., Leonova E.A., Fomchenkov S.V., The formalism of endogenous polarization/holographic managing processes in organisms. Consciousness and a physical reality, 9, number 4, 44-50 (2004). In Russian.
20.Prangishvili I.V., Gariaev P.P., Tertishnii G.G., Maksimenko V.V., Mologin A.V., Leonova E.A., Muldashev E.R., Spectroscopy of radio wave radiations of the localized photons: an output on quanum nonlocal bioinformation processes. Sensors and Systems, (18), 2-13 (2000). In Russian.
21.Gariaev P P, Kokaya AA, Mukhina I V, Leonova-Gariaeva E A,
An effect of modulated electromagnetic radiation on the progression of alloxan diabetes in rats. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, #2, p 155-158 (2007) . in Russian Language.
22.Артюх В.Д. – Artyukhin V.D., Гаряев П.П. - Gariaev P.P., Кокая А.А. – Kokaya A.A., Леонова-Гаряева Е.А. - Leonova-Gariaeva E A. , Мулдашев Э.Р. – Muldashev E.R., Мухина И.В. – Mikhina I.V., Смелов М.В. – Smelov M.V., Товмаш А.В. – Tovmash A.V., Чалкин С.Ф. – Chalkin S.F., Шатров Я.К. – Shatrov Y.K., Ягужинский Л.С. – Yagujinski L.S., 2007,
Effect of laser induced resistance/immunization in animals to the alloxan type diabetes. In Russian language. http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001b/00161365.htm

In the first place, anyone can take a video of anything or anybody at any time or place, with any manner of recording devices. Even if there are videos of Gariaev on the internet, this is irrelevant. This fact has nothing to do with the veracity of his results, nor with the enormous benefits that the world is being offered by these new technologies.

You want to make appearing on TV seem to be a crime. It is not. I've made dozens of television shows in this country, speaking both the scientific facts, and my sentiments about those facts, without reservation, except where classified information was involved. My series was so popular with the viewing audience that I was offered a very lucrative opportunity to do syndicated series of such shows on nationwide television. I declined the offer, for various reasons.

Public claims made on TV are subject to many laws in this country. I'm sure there are similar laws in Russia. I also know for a fact that Gariaev has never had any charges brought against him, and never will. He is a highly civilized and ethical man. (Unlike some people I can think of.)

You state that Gariaev has "...just returned from Sri Lanka". And where is the evidence for this? And, so what?

On my part, I am wondering when, if ever, you will answer any the questions I have previously posed for you? Such as:

You are qualified how...???
(You have claimed to be a university professor, but I see no evidence proving this.)
In which of the sciences?
What and where are your credentials?

What does the word "coherent" mean, in terms of photons?
What is a hologram?
Can you make a hologram yourself?
What is wave correlation spectroscopy?
Where can you get such instrumentation?
What is quantum information?

How many *life science* journals are there in the world, actually?
Did you know that Crick tried to return his Nobel Prize? Do you know why this event is directly related to wave genetics results?

Where have these integrity and ethics bodies been while the public has been endlessly deceived and defrauded by such projects as LISA, LIGO, and the LHC, all based on previously existing fraudulent "science", such as relativity theory?

Meanwhile, although I am convinced by your behaviors to this point, that you will not read these references, here is another list of reference materials related to the DNA phantom effect:

1.Lolle S.J., Victor J.L., Young J.M., Pruitt R.E. Genome-wide non-mendelian inheritance of extra genomic information in Arabidopsis. Nature, 434, 505-509 (2005).
2.Lagerkvist U., «Two out of Three»: an alternative method for codon reading. Proc. Natl.Acad.Sci.USA, 75, 1759 1762 (1978).
3.Francis Crick. A personal View of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York. Translate into Russian: Institute of computer researches, Moscow-Ijevsk (2004), p. 98.
4.Biebricher C.K., Eigen M., Luce R. Product analysis of RNA Generated de novo by Qb Replicase. J.Mol.Biol., 148, 369-390 (1981).
5.Biebricher C.K., Luce R., Template-free generation of RNA species that replicate with bacteriophage T7 RNA polymerase. The EMBO Journal, 15, Issue 13, 3458-3465 (1996).
6.Choudhury G.K., Kejarival P.C., Chattopadhyay A. The devices for generation of phantom leaf effect. J.Inst.Eng. (India) 60, Pt.EL3, 61-66; 67-73 (1979).
7.Gariaev P.P., Junin A.M. Phantom leaf effect. Myth or reality? Energy 10, 46-52 (1989). In Russian.
8.Gariaev P.P. Wave based genome. Monograph. Moscow. Ed. Obshestv. Pol’za. 279p. (1994). In Russian.
9.Gariaev P.P. Wave genetic code. Monograph. Moscow. Ed. Izdatcentr. 108p. (1997). In Russian.
10.Prangishvili I.V., Gariaev P.P., G.G.Tertishny, V.V.Maximenko, A.V.Mologin, E.A.Leonova, E.R.Muldashev. Spectroscopy of radiowave radiation of localized photons: path to quantum nonlocality of bioinformation processes. Sensors and systems, 9 (18), 2-13 (2000). Russian Academy of sciences. In Russian.
11.Gariaev P.P., Birshtein B.I., Iarochenko A.M, Marcer P.J., George G. Tertishny G.G., Leonova E.A., Kaempf U., The DNA-wave biocomputer. «CASYS» – International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems (ed. D.M.Dubois), Liege, Belgium, 10, 290-310, (2001).
12.Gariaev P.P., Chudin V.I., Komissarov G.G., Berezin A.A., Vasiliev A.A., Hologrphic Associative Memory of Biological Systems, Proceedings SPIE — The International Society for Optical Engineering. Optical Memory and Neural Networks, 1621, 280- 291. USA. (1991).
13.Allison S.A., Sorlie S.S., Pecora R., Brownian Dynamics Simulations of Wormlike Chains, Dynamic Light Scattering from a 2311 Base Pair DNA Fragment. Macromolecules, 23, 1110-1118, (1990).
14.Hagerman, P. J., and B. H. Zimm., Monte Carlo approach to the analysis of the rotational diffusion of wormlike chains. Biopolymers, 20, 1481–1502, (1981).
15.Zimm B H., Dynamics of polymer molecules in dilute solution: viscoelasticity, flow birefringence and dielectric loss, J. Chem. Phys., 24, 269-78, (1956). General Electric Research Laboratory, Schenectady, NY.
16.Rouse P E., A theory of the linear viscoelastic properties of dilute solutions of coiling polymers, J.Chem.Phys., 21, 1272-80, (1953). Tertyshnii G.G., Gariaev P.P., Aksenov V.A., Leonova E.A., Fomchenkov S.V., The formalism of endogenous polarization/holographic managing processes in organisms. Consciousness and a physical reality, 9, number 4, 44-50 (2004). In Russian.
17.Prangishvili I.V., Gariaev P.P., Tertishnii G.G., Maksimenko V.V., Mologin A.V., Leonova E.A., Muldashev E.R., Spectroscopy of radiowave radiations of the localized photons: an output on quanum nonlocal bioinformation processes. Sensors and Systems, 9 (18), 2-13 (2000). In Russian.
18.An application for a Patent to the Federal Institute of Industrial Property of Russia, 20.10.2005. Registration number # 2005132403, Incoming number # 036308.
19.Tertyshnii G.G., Gariaev P.P., Aksenov V.A., Leonova E.A., Fomchenkov S.V., The formalism of endogenous polarization/holographic managing processes in organisms. Consciousness and a physical reality, 9, number 4, 44-50 (2004). In Russian.
20.Prangishvili I.V., Gariaev P.P., Tertishnii G.G., Maksimenko V.V., Mologin A.V., Leonova E.A., Muldashev E.R., Spectroscopy of radio wave radiations of the localized photons: an output on quanum nonlocal bioinformation processes. Sensors and Systems, (18), 2-13 (2000). In Russian.
21.Gariaev P P, Kokaya AA, Mukhina I V, Leonova-Gariaeva E A,
An effect of modulated electromagnetic radiation on the progression of alloxan diabetes in rats. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, #2, p 155-158 (2007) . in Russian Language.
22.Артюх В.Д. – Artyukhin V.D., Гаряев П.П. - Gariaev P.P., Кокая А.А. – Kokaya A.A., Леонова-Гаряева Е.А. - Leonova-Gariaeva E A. , Мулдашев Э.Р. – Muldashev E.R., Мухина И.В. – Mikhina I.V., Смелов М.В. – Smelov M.V., Товмаш А.В. – Tovmash A.V., Чалкин С.Ф. – Chalkin S.F., Шатров Я.К. – Shatrov Y.K., Ягужинский Л.С. – Yagujinski L.S., 2007,
Effect of laser induced resistance/immunization in animals to the alloxan type diabetes. In Russian language. http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0016/001b/00161365.htm

> Dr. Boyd wrote: "I know people in Moscow, where
> Gariaev lives. He has made no appearances on
> television there."

Look at the link below: At least 9 different videos have been found in at least one of internet depositories. These videos have been recorded from TV programs with Petr Garjaev. Can you recognize him?
http://rutube.ru/search.html?search=%C7%C1%D2%D1%C5%D7

Dr Boyd, I do not know how much money Petr Garjaev makes out of his "wave genetics" products. Petr Garjaev has just announced loudly in the internet that he has returned from an exotic trip from Sri Lanca. I guess, people whose family is suffering are not travelling to Sri Lanca. I am also sure that most people in Moscow can not afford a trip to Sri Lanca. This is just one simple example, to show you that you are probably wrong about money. Now let's return to science.

Remember the list with scientific questions which I have pasted below? This list was translated from an initial list in Russian, which was posted in one of the Russian discussions where Petr Garjaev is actively participating. I guess, the persons from whom I copied this list would be probably interested to hear if you find any counterarguments to their arguments. You said that you will find counterarguments later, but up to now you did not provide any answers. Do you want to provide them now?

I know people in Moscow, where Gariaev lives. He has made no appearances on television there. Television advertisements cost money. Gariaev has no money. Gariaev and his family are starving in Russia, ever since the last 4 of his research teams were smashed by Krugliakov and his "Group to Combat Pseudoscience in Russia".

Gariaev has provided ample evidence of his beneficial results, and these results have been duplicated in the US, Canada, Belgium, and in China.

As usual, you make unsupported accusations with no evidence to support your claims. These false accusations are slander and libel and defamation of character. In this country these are grounds for law suits and are also criminal behaviors.

Your lack of integrity is appalling. If you were in this county you would already be facing several law suits. Maybe I can track you down in Russia, and bring legal actions there. Debunking has its costs, especially if you do not know the laws regarding slander and libel.

> And where have these integrity and ethics bodies been

Dr. Boyd, I have just pointed out to the fact that you are not aware that the Science Integrity Offices and Ethics Commissions indeed exist in US, that they are multiple, and that they have much more power than the Russian commission which you accused of doing something strange and not typical. My point is, that the anti-fraud commission in the Russian academy is doing exactly the same things (or trying to do exactly the same things) as equivalent commissions in US or Europe do. Since you are, as you said, "an established US researcher", you better discuss science integrity in US, which you know better, and do not touch the subjects in Russia which you are not familiar with.

Returning to the motto of this website (I said this in the first post which have been deleted): this website is about the "News you probably wont hear on TV". However this particular case with Garjaev is exactly the opposite. HE IS ON TV. He is not appreciated in the professional scientific community. His research is not represented in respected peer-reviewed journals (the one exception when his article was accepted by mistake to a Russian peer-reviewed journal in fact has initiated his case in the anti-fraud commission, and this article will be probably withdrawn). On the other hand, Garjaev with his scientifically-unsupported ideas about wave genetics IS VERY OFTEN ON TV. He is on TV and he is celling his products based on advertisements on TV, newspapers, internet and public lectures in Moscow. He is doing money on people who have diabetes and other incurable diseases, promising them to make them healthy, and he has no documented cases when he succeeded. I hope I have made this case clearer for you. HE IS ON TV. He is one of the things which should be OPPOSED by this web site.

And where have these integrity and ethics bodies been while the public has been endlessly deceived and defrauded by such projects as LISA, LIGO, and the LHC, all based on previously existing fraudulent "science", such as relativity theory?

Have you realized yet that this is really all about efforts to continue, already existing scientific public frauds?

It is also about the maintenance and support of the various vested interests of various corporate monopolies, such as the "sickness industry", the petroleum monopoly, and so on...

Thanks for the links :) Good show! :) We might have a place for you on our research staff, in the next year or so, if things keep moving in their present globally beneficial directions.

The ORI is a typical "empire within an empire", as most branches of the US government have become these days.

"The Office of Research Integrity (ORI) promotes integrity in biomedical and behavioral research supported by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) at about 4,000 institutions worldwide. ORI monitors institutional investigations of research misconduct and facilitates the responsible conduct of research (RCR) through educational, preventive, and regulatory activities."

Here the key phrases are:
"...supported by the US Public Health Service"
and
"...integrity in biomedical and behavioral research"

This is a narrow range of integrity and only relates to medical and behavioral studies related to the operations of the US Public Health Service. Unfortunately, that is a very narrow range of responsibility, certainly not a universal one.

"Scientific Integrity
AAAS/NAS Bibliography

Trust and accountability are integral to the research enterprise and the sharing of scientific information. To demonstrate its commitment to protecting the integrity of science, AAAS is pleased to collaborate with the National Academy of Sciences to promote informed discussions as well as resources on the standards for ethical conduct in all fields of study."

All fields of study! That's more like it! I also saw where they had the nerve to go against the grain of the "established" science views:

"In the interests of public trust in the integrity of science, the journal Science has released a statement to correct public misrepresentations of two research articles related to climate change. More information on global warming and climate change is available through a searchable collection of the National Academies Press."

Yeah! That's how to do it! Before this the "global warming" fraud was galloping away with public opinion, due to falsifications and misrepresentations of hundreds of years of climate data. Those who fraudulently created the "global warming" movement were aimed at installing into global law, a "carbon tax" which was designed to fraudulently extract a tax burden from every man, woman, and child on the planet, by repetitions of vast numbers of lies and falsified analysis, where other possible perspectives and correct understandings regarding climate and climate change were eliminated or suppressed.

For more on this, see: "(Un)Settled Science - Hole in the AGWzone Layer!" by Hogan at
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/guest.htm

Also see: http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm

As to your other reference, it is not clear to me that the "Science Insider" magazine has any authority of any kind, and it is also not clear how responsible they are to the public interest. At least they seems to be expressing themselves in some of the preferred directions.

For more on fraud in the sciences, see the book "Against the Tide; A Critical Review by Scientists of How Physics and Astronomy Get Done"

Edited by Martin Lopez Corredoira & Carlos Castro Perelman.(Universal Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, U.S.A.) http://www.universal-publishers.com/book.php?method=ISBN&book=1599429934

Also see the book: "Exploding a Myth; ‘Conventional Wisdom’ or Scientific Truth?" [Dr. Jeremy Dunning-Davies] http://www.horwoodpublishing.net/bookpage.php?id=166

For how things should be done in the sciences, see http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/rights.html

For your convenience this declaration is printed in Russian at http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/rights_files/PP-10-20.PDF

This Declaration of Academic Freedom (scientific human rights), known also as the Academic Bill of Rights, is authored by Dmitri Rabounski, the Editor-in-Chief of Progress in Physics.

Any organization or body which contradicts these rights is not in the service of the public interests, nor are they in the service of academic accuracy.

So, is the suppression of Gariaev's results by the "Group to Combat Pseudoscience in Russia" internal to the Russian Academy of Sciences, in alignment the Academic Bill of Rights, or not?

The answer is: Not.

Next we want to ask the question who stands to gain by such suppressive actions? Certainly it is not academia, nor the general populace, in this particular case.

> Dr. Boyd wrote "There are no commissions of
> "scientific integrity" or "scientific ethics" in
> the US, although there dearly should be!"

Really? :)
Check these links:
http://ori.dhhs.gov/

http://www.aaas.org/programs/centers/pe/integrity.shtml

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/02/-a-researcher-accused-of.html

There are no commissions of "scientific integrity" or "scientific ethics" in the US, although there dearly should be!

Were such commissions actually existing, and performing their functions with vast integrity and fairness and constant use of the scientific method, including Popper's Criteria, we would probably be much better off, assuming that such commissioners could not be purchased, due to their immense integrity and their highly ethical characters.

Were such commissions actually existing, and functioning unimpaired,then many decades of vast and expensive scientific frauds in this country would not have taken trillions of dollars out of the hands of the public who is paying hard earned tax dollars for such Mickey Mouse fantasy projects as LIGO, LISA, and the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), designed to detect such imaginary phantasms as "Higgs bosons", "black holes", "gravity waves", "neutron stars", "big bangs", and "expanding universes".

But these frauds are just based on other previous frauds, such as Einstein's version of relativity theory, the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum physics, and string theory, just to name a few.

"Relativity theory can never be proved by any physical experiment." - Einstein

Why would Einstein say that? Because he knew quite well that relativity theory is a mathematical fantasy having no more physical reality than Mickey Mouse.

The numbers of scientific frauds which have been going on around the world, for decades, particularly those related to relativity theory, are staggering. The monies involved are even more staggering. And what new technologies and conveniences have we gotten from 100 years of relativity theory?

None, zero, nyet, nothing, nada. By Popper's Criteria, relativity is a failed theory and should be abandoned.

But we the public have had to pay for the funding of relativity theory based projects such as LIGO, designed to detect fictional fantasies called "gravity waves". Well guess what? After 7 years and billions of dollars LIGO has not detected a single gravity wave.

Gee. Could that be because they don't exist, except inside of someone's head, in their imagination?

Now at the same time, years of multitudes of REAL innovations in the sciences have been shouted down and suppressed by those who have been committing frauds on the public for many years. Not only does innovative science produce vast numbers of actually useful technologies, it also removes the masks from those who are actually performing scientific fraud against the person of the general public.

The irony is that those who are actually the primary practitioners of fraud in the sciences are those who cry fraud the loudest when REAL innovations threaten to remove their masks and remove their easy way of stealing money from an ignorant and steeply indoctrinated public.

Gariaev's results are innovative and VASTLY, ENDLESSLY, useful !, eliminating vast numbers of diseases and physical disabilities without the need for drugs or surgical procedures.

Obviously, many long-standing scientific frauds will be exposed by such enormous breakthroughs in medicine, which Gariaev's results represent. What happens after that should be easy to guess.

Finally, your statement that the Russian Academy of Sciences has "no administrative power" is a capital deception, amounting to another kind of fraud.

I suggest you should change sides. I have come to respect your intelligence, even if you are doing debunking for a living. You are a much better person than that. You should do something actually worthwhile with your abilities.

Dr. Boyd, if you are, as you said, "an established researcher in US", then you should know what the office of science integrity means, and how the commissions of scientific ethics work in US, and which are the usual consequences of the scientific fraud found by such commissions. What the Russian is, is exactly like this. The word "pseudoscience" used here was probably just a wrong translation of the Russian word "lzhenauka", which is better translated as "scientific fraud". They are not taking responsibility to decide which scientific direction is good; they are just investigating the cases of scientific fraud in the same way as it is understood in the US offices of science integrity. The Russian commission has even less power than analogous commissions in the US. It in fact has no administrative powers at all.

"scientist" said: "...Petr Garjaev accusing Genetics in many bad things, so the move of the professor in the Russian Academy of Sciences to include him in the list of the fraudulent scientists..."

So the crux of the matter is that Gariaev is finding and proving that flaws exist with the existing genetics paradigms, and this circumstance is apparently not going to be tolerated by the dogmatic profiteering panderers who comprise the mainstream academic views regarding DNA.

In actual fact, Nobel Prize winner Crick has also found flaws in the existing paradigms, especially the notions of "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection". Did you know that Crick tried to return his Nobel prize
to the committee because of a single newly formed bacteria species? This particular bacillus developed, literally overnight,
an internal electric motor, complete with rotor, stator, and bearings, powered by internally generated electrochemical reactions. The power shaft of the electric motor apparatus
was attached to a rotary whip-like appendage, used by the bacteria to move around in its accustomed domain.

There is no "survival of the fittest" involved here. There is no "competition" involved here. There is no "natural selection", since this internal electric motor powered bacteria species arose literally overnight. There is not even any good reason for this "adaptation". Given the environment of the bacillus, it has no advantageous reason to develop an internal electric motor. Such a propulsion method has no real survival value, or advantage, in the environment of this bacteria. It appears to be a weak means of propulsion, relative to the many other alternative bacterial propulsion devices, which function better in the bacteria's environment, without the added complexity. Why this particular bacteria should develop an electrochemically powered internal electric motor, overnight, so as to power a rotary whip appendage, is unfathomable from the Darwinian perspective.

This single bacterial species made it abundantly clear to Crick that the entire Darwinian paradigm, and the reasoning which got him the Nobel prize, were completely wrong.

So he tried to return his Nobel prize. Quite admirable of him, I thought. The committee refused his offer, which was admirable of them,
as well. I do admire honesty and commitment.

Our debunking "scientist" here apparently has little of the former admirable quality.

I don't care if you "don't like my tone", Mr. so-called "professor". To merely say that you are a "professor" does not amount to producing credentials. By that form of persuasion, I could say that I am the President of Zamibia with equal validity.

I have directly answered your FALSE ACCUSATION that the DNA Phantom experiment had never been reproduced.

It is EASILY reproduced, with the proper equipment! Obviously, you never read the text of my response, nor any of the references I provided.

And, you did NOT pose any questions! You are obviously incapable of asking any intelligent and informed questions.

Not only are you merely a debunker, you are an uneducated one at that, and in addition, you apparently refuse to educate yourself on the topic of discussion.

Why don't you go away and find something actually useful to do with your time?

Dr. Boyd, You have provided 2 pages of text, but did not reply to my exact point which I repeat below. The topic of the discussion is that someone under name Petr Garjaev accusing Genetics in many bad things, so the move of the professor in the Russian Academy of Sciences to include him in the list of the fraudulent scientists is quite understandable.

By the way, Dr. Boyd, I don't like your tone. I am full-time university professor this is important for you. I am not interested any more to continue a discussion since you are not answering questions, but just pasting pages of text not related to the questions being discussed.
---
Here is repeated question from my previos post:

In all works of Petr Garjaev (for example this one: www.rialian.com/rnboyd/dna-wave.doc), he referred to the article of Allison et al. (Allison et al., 1990, Macromolecules, 23, 1110-1118) as the only independent work which allegedly confirmed his "DNA Phantom Effect" (that the DNA "phantom" remains in the room for a large time after the sample with the DNA has been removed). However, any person who knows English, and a bit of physics can read the original article (Allison et al., 1990, Macromolecules, 23, 1110-1118) and make sure that this article is purely theoretical has nothing to do with the "DNA phantom effect". Thus, referencing to this article in Garjaev's work to provide evidence for the "DNA phantom effect" is a nonsense. Up to now there have been no confirmations that this effect indeed exists as Petr Garjaev insists.

You do a great deal of assuming, Mr. "scientist", without critically examining any of the evidence, nor even bothering to look for any evidence! Poor show!

I am an independent researcher in the USA, with many ties throughout the scientific community. I have a list of credentials longer than your arm.

And you? I doubt that you have any credentials in any field, based on your already obvious lack of knowledge in several fields, ranging from quantum physics and quantum optics to biophysics.

And the fact that you consistently refuse to answer any of my questions only spotlights your ignorance in many fields. I asked: "What is quantum information?" - You gave no response.

I asked: "What are your qualifications?" -Silence
I have repeatedly asked your to give citations and references, in context. You have not done so.

Regarding the "DNA Phantom Effect", it was reproduced by experiments done at the HeartMath Institute in Arizona by wave correlation spectroscopy.

What is wave correlation spectroscopy?

Where can you get such instrumentation?

Of course, you wouldn't know, since you are nothing but a lazy debunker who refuses to bother to learn any of the facts about anything.

For your information, the apparatus is a product of the Malvern Corporation in the UK. Do you know how to use this equipment? I doubt it, since you haven't got a clue as to what it is or what it does or how it does it.

The DNA Phantom experiment was also reproduced by PP Gariaev PP, Tertyshny GG, Tovmash AV, New Medical Technologies Journal, № 9, p. 42-53 (2007) "Experimental studies in vitro on the holographic display and transfer of DNA in conjunction with its environmental information"

See: http://www.wavegenetics.jino-net.ru/zip/DNK-repliki-new.zip

Have you read the book the book "Vernetzte Intelligenz" by von Grazyna Fosar und Franz Bludorf, ISBN 3930243237, as summarized and
commented by Baerbel? The book is unfortunately only available in German so far. You can reach the authors here: [www.fosar-bludorf.com]

This book is directly related to the Allison results you refer to.

Also, I am personally acquainted with Dr. Vladimir Poponin. He was the project leader on the replication of the DNA Phantom experiment, as performed at HEartMath Institute. Dr. Poponin is a quantum physicist who is recognized world wide as a leading expert in quantum biology, including the nonlinear dynamics of DNA and the interactions of weak electromagnetic fields with biological systems. He is the Senior Research Scientist at the Institute of Biochemical Physics of the Russian Academy of Sciences and is currently working with the Institute of HeartMath in a collaborative research project between IHM and the RAS. He can be contacted at Institute of HeartMath, Research Division, 14700 West Park Ave. Boulder Creek, CA 95006. Phone 408-338-8700, Fax 408-338-1182.

For more references on this topic, see:

1. W.A. Tiller. What Are Subtle Energies? Journal of Scientific Exploration. Vol.7, p.293-304 (1993). 2. G. Rein and R. McCraty. Structural Changes in Water and DNA Associated with New Physiologically Measured States. Journal of Scientific Exploration. Vol.8, 3 p.438 (1994). 3. D.L. Childre. Self Empowerment. Boulder Creek: Planetary Publications, 1992. 4. S. Paddison. The Hidden Power of the Heart. Boulder Creek: Planetary Publications, 1992. 5. P.P. Gariaev, K.V. Grigor'ev, A.A. Vasil'ev, V.P. Poponin and V.A. Shcheglov. Investigation of the Fluctuation Dynamics of DNA Solutions by Laser Correlation Spectroscopy. Bulletin of the Lebedev Physics Institute, n. 11-12, p. 23-30 (1992). 6. P.P. Gariaev and V.P. Poponin. Vacuum DNA phantom effect in vitro and its possible rational explanation. Nanobiology 1995 (in press). 7. V.P. Poponin. Modeling of NLE dynamics in one dimensional anharmonic FPU-lattice. Physics Letters A. (in press). 8. V. Tatur. The secrets of new thinking. Progress Publisher, Moscow, 1990, 200 p. (Russian). 9. J. K. Chouldhury et al., J. Inst. Eng. (India). 1979, v. 60, Pt EL3, p. 61-73.

Also see:
The DNA-wave Biocomputer

Peter P. Gariaev*, Boris I. Birshtein*, Alexander M. Iarochenko*, Peter J. Marcer**,
George G. Tertishny*, Katherine A. Leonova*, Uwe Kaempf ***.

* Institute Control of Sciences Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Wave Genetics Inc. 87 Scollard Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M5R 1G4
**53 Old Vicarage Green, Keynsham, Bristol, BS31 2DH, UK,
*** Institut f. Klinische, Diagnostische und Differentielle Psychologie- Am Falkenbrunnen - D-01062 Dresden TU, Dresden, Germany,

Abstract
This paper reports experimental work carried out in Moscow at the Institute of Control Sciences, Wave Genetics Inc. and theoretical work from several sources. This work changes the notion about the genetic code essentially. It asserts: -
1) That the evolution of biosystems has created genetic "texts", similar to natural context dependent texts in human languages, shaping the text of these speech-like patterns.
2) That the chromosome apparatus acts simultaneously both as a source and receiver of these genetic texts, respectively decoding and encoding them, and
3) That the chromosome continuum of multicellular organisms is analogous to a static-dynamical multiplex time-space holographic grating, which comprises the space-time of an organism in a convoluted form.
That is to say, the DNA action, theory predicts and which experiment confirms,
i) is that of a "gene-sign" laser and its solitonic electro-acoustic fields, such that the gene-biocomputer "reads and understands" these texts in a manner similar to human thinking, but at its own genomic level of "reasoning". It asserts that natural human texts (irrespectively of the language used), and genetic "texts" have similar mathematical-linguistic and entropic-statistic characteristics, where these concern the fractality of the distribution of the character frequency density in the natural and genetic texts, and where in case of genetic "texts", the characters are identified with the nucleotides, and ii) that DNA molecules, conceived as a gene-sign continuum of any biosystem, are able to form holographic pre-images of biostructures and of the organism as a whole as a registry of dynamical "wave copies" or "matrixes”, succeeding each other. This continuum is the measuring, calibrating field for constructing its biosystem.

Keywords: DNA, wave-biocomputer, genetic code, human language, quantum holography.

Later on, I'll go on to your item 2.

> Dr Boyd wrote: "In a scientific debate, is
> your responsibility to provide the relevant
> citations and the complete context of the
> entire discussion, not just your side of the issue"

PS. I assume, that under nickname "Dr. Boyd" is Petr Garjaev himself, am I right? This is an English-speaking forum, and I do not need to learn Russian to find out what you said at one of the internet forums. Put it here if you want.

My previous post has provided an exact reference:

In all works of Petr Garjaev (for example this one: www.rialian.com/rnboyd/dna-wave.doc), he referred to the article of Allison et al. (Allison et al., 1990, Macromolecules, 23, 1110-1118) as the only independent work which allegedly confirmed his "DNA Phantom Effect" (that the DNA "phantom" remains in the room for a large time after the sample with the DNA has been removed). However, any person who knows English, and a bit of physics can read the original article (Allison et al., 1990, Macromolecules, 23, 1110-1118) and make sure that this article is purely theoretical has nothing to do with the "DNA phantom effect". Thus, referencing to this article in Garjaev's work to provide evidence for the "DNA phantom effect" is a nonsense. Up to now there have been no confirmations that this effect indeed exists as Petr Garjaev insists.

Well, what is involved are coherent biophotons!

See the various results from the International Institute of Biophysics on this topic, for example, this article on coherent biophotons ("coherent" as in laser radiation) by Fritz-Albert Popp: http://www.lifescientists.de/ib0204e_1.htm

What does the word "coherent" mean, in terms of photons? Do you know?

What is involved in many wave genetics experiments is information transport by the vehicle of photons. But we do not have to use photons, nor do the photons have to be of any specific frequency (although there are reasons to prefer the 250 nm wavelength).

There is ample experimental evidence for vast numbers of physical mechanisms which can be used to convey genetic information, so diverse as to be involved with any kind of physical event which produces any kind of physical reaction.

To try to prevent or prohibit all such diverse means of information transport would represent an attempt to prohibit all types physical behaviors. This is physically impossible.

Even at "absolute zero" temperature, for example, there are still quantum and subquantum activities occurring, which can't be stopped, since they are arising from up to an infinite distance away. [Read up on quantum jitter (zitterbewegung)and quantum non-locality.]

I have provided some previous references to such informational interactions, which you have completely ignored in your "response", in classical debunking fashion, just as the ecclesiastical authorities refused to look through Galileo's telescope.

Your item 1, from your list of false accusations,
"1) PPG argued that the DNA triplet code is allegedly ambiguous, but failed to prove this.",
leaves out the ENTIRE of Gariaev's side of a set discussions derived from many sessions on a Russian forum, where only Russian is spoken.

In such circumstances, is your obligation to provide exact duplicates of the complete text, translated into English, NOT to just extract your attempts at accusations, completely out of the relevant context.

In a scientific debate, is your responsibility to provide the relevant citations and the complete context of the entire discussion, not just your side of the issue. But at your debunking convenience, you ignore all such scientific protocols and politenesses. For a true scientist, observing such behaviors amounts to establishing that person, and their "arguments", as non-scientific, in their minds.

On your side of this particular argument, you have not provided any experimental evidence proving the uniqueness of line homonymic codons, so as to contradict Gariaev's expressions. How does the choice of amino acids and stops arise in situations where the ribosome is interacting with the codon-homonyms (non-synonymous), in actual fact?

This item 1 sets up a specious and false accusatory statement with no basis in fact, and is completely unreferenced regarding all the relevant prior discussions. Even more unsatisfactory, the argument you have posted is not including any relevant scientific literature or citations In addition this argument is taken completely out of context, as all these items in your list are.

I will respond to your Item 2 later, and so on, down your list of false accusations. If you were in this country, you would already be looking at slander and libel suits being brought against you.

> Dr. Boyd wrote: "Later on I'm going to
> completely dismantle your itemized list of
> specious arguments you've posted later in this
> string."

Well, let's see. Up to now, your reasoning and arguments are lacking...

>>Scientist wrote on February 27, 2010: "Biophotons is a trivial thing proposed many decades ago before Garjaev was even born. Biophotons have nothing to do with the funny Garjaev's claims that biophotons can encode genetic information."

>Dr. Boyd wrote on March 4, 2010: "What is being discussed in Gariaev's researches is NOT biophotons"

OK, I am glad, Dr. Boyd, that you agree with me that biophotons have nothing to do with the topic of this article. What I don't understand, is why you are talking here about them. You wrote 2 pages of text on a subject, which is, according to your own statement, not related to the topic which is being discussed here.

Concerning laser light in medicine: lasers medicine is a trivial thing, which, again, has nothing to do with the "wave genetics". Laser medicine is based mainly on the heating of the skin. This leads to the increase of the temperature in the irradiated region. That is the main effect of the laser light in the laser medicine. Laser light in the laser medicine dissipates at proteins, membranes and water molecules inside the cell. Coherent laser irradiation used in the laser medicine never reaches the DNA, otherwise it would have mutagenic consequence.

Regarding "biophotons", clearly you do not know what biophotons are! Biophotons are emitted by every cell of the body at all times. Biophotons have been well known for several decades.

From Wikipedia:
A biophoton (from the Greek βιο meaning "life" and φωτο meaning "light"), synonymous with ultraweak photon emission, low-level biological chemiluminescence, ultraweak bioluminescence, dark luminescence and other similar terms, is a photon of light emitted from a biological system and detected by biological probes as part of the general weak electromagnetic radiation of living biological cells. Biophotons and their study should not be confused with bioluminescence, a term generally reserved for higher intensity luciferin/luciferase systems.

Biophotonics is the study, research and applications of photons in their interactions within and on biological systems. Topics of research pertain more generally to basic questions of biophysics and related subjects - for example, the regulation of biological functions, cell growth and differentiation, connections to so-called delayed luminescence, and spectral emissions in supermolecular processes in living tissues, etc.

The typical detected magnitude of "biophotons" in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum ranges from a few up to several hundred photons per second per square centimeter of surface area, much weaker than in the openly visible and well-researched phenomenon of normal bioluminescence, but stronger than in the thermal, or black body radiation that so-called perfect black bodies demonstrate. The detection of these photons has been made possible (and easier) by the development of more sensitive photomultiplier tubes and associated electronic equipment.

Biophotons were employed by the Stalin regime to diagnose cancer, and their discoverer, Alexander Gurwitsch was awarded the Stalin Prize.

What is being discussed in Gariaev's researches is NOT biophotons, but coherent laser radiation which is passing through a holographic media, which hologram has stored in it the DNA information structure of the given biological entity, or part of a biological entity. This radiation does not have to enter deep into the physiology, only sufficiently deep as to be registered by the skin cells, where the information transfer occurs.

The literature of Russia is replete with laser radiation therapies, going back through at least 50 years of Russian scientific biological research. Laser irradiations have been proved by experimental results in Russia to eliminate all types of diabetes, types I, II, and III, merely by aiming the proper laser wavelength at what are called "biologically photo-active points".

But what we are discussing here is holography.
Do you know what a hologram is? Can you make a hologram yourself? No?

The article at http://www.springerlink.com/content/g115139168855415/ is discussing information being carried by photons.

Good lord man! If you are going to do a proper debunking job you have got to bother to thoroughly read and completely understand what exactly it is that you are trying to argue against!

And while you are at it, you very much ought to read http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0208068 , as I suggested before.

And while you are at it, you should also read the Article on the Emergent Mind Journal at:
http://www.emergentmind.org/gariaevI3.htm

Later on I'm going to completely dismantle your itemized list of specious arguments you've posted later in this string. Let's see how good your knowledge of genetic really is! I'm already not impressed. For example, does the name "Crick" ring a bell for you?

Did you know that Crick tried to return his Nobel Prize? Do you know why?

The Why is directly related to wave genetics results. How is that? You should already know all this. If you do not, look into it.

Below is a short summary of just one of multiple discussions Gariaev vs. Scientists. ("PPG" stands for "Petr Petrovich Garjaev", his nickname in the internet):

1) PPG argued that the DNA triplet code is allegedly ambiguous, but failed to prove this.

2) PPG argued that modern science can not explain the translation of proteins on the ribosome, but failed to specify exactly where the 2009-Nobel laureates are wrong.

3) With respect to the "ambiguity" of the DNA code, PPG referred to the following article (Kudla et al., 2009, Science 324, 255 - 258) as the work where it is said, that after substitution of synonymous codons the spectra of obtained proteins are different depending on the synonymous codons. However, it turned out that this article reports changes in the amplitude of the signal but not changes in the shape of the spectra.

4) PPG referred to the following article (Allison et al., 1990, Macromolecules, 23, 1110-1118) as the only independent work allegedly confirmed his "DNA Phantom Effect" (that the DNA "phantom" remains in the room for a large time after the sample with the DNA has been removed). However, it turned out that this paper of Allison et al is purely theoretical and has no relationship to the DNA phantom effect at all.

5) PPG referred to the "jumping" redhead genes in Arabidopsis as a phenomenon, which can not be explained by genetics. However, it turned out that geneticists have proposed several plausible explanations of this effect. One of the explanations was the transfer of information through RNA (not just DNA). By the way, PPG is not aware of the existence of many types of micro-RNA...

6) PPG referred to the bees, which allegedly died because of genomic-modified plants. However it turned out that the geneticists have already isolated a microorganism – a potential agent of a bacterial disease of bees.

7) PPG is using for his experiments a usual red laser light (similar to the one that any student can buy in a shop and use as a laser pointer during the lectures). However, PPG was unable to explain how the laser radiation reaches the DNA deep inside the human body, deep under the membrane and protein coverage inside the cell. In response to a comment that visible red light that he is using is scattered mainly in the membranes, water and proteins, GPR could not find counter-arguments.

8) PPG argued that he was able to grow a new tooth in an elderly person with the help of his irradiation by "genetic waves". However, PPG was not unable to provide any evidence of this.

"Scientist" wrote: "The administrators of theis web site have deleted at least one my post. It was a very polite, very argumented post..."

Calling someone a charlatan is not "very polite" by any stretch of the imagination. That is why your first post was removed.

In any case, your reasoning and arguments are lacking. What you post is low level nagging against someone you obviously don't like. I believe we can say honestly that we understand your point of view. Now if you have something exact to say, if you have actual references for your assertions, bring them on. Otherwise your whining about this person's work will be seen as drivel.

Put up or shut up, as they say.

I don't know about the others, but all my posts here are under the name Scientist. The administrators of theis web site have deleted at least one my post. It was a very polite, very argumented post explaining why the works that are being discussed here are fraud in my opinion. Instead of hearing to these arguments and trying to find counter-arguments, someone decided that it is easier just to delete my post. I don not know how many posts of the other opponent's have been deleted here. So up to now it seems that the discussion is dominated (for technical reasons) by the supporters of pseudo-science.

Biophotons is a trivial thing proposed many decades ago before Garjaev was even born. Biophotons have nothing to do with the funny Garjaev's claims that biophotons can encode genetic information. All his claims are just his lack of information about the nowadays science. Also the CD's that he is selling obviously have nothing to do with biophotons and have nothing to do with science.

Yes. This article on emissions of photons by the DNA is clearly aligned with Gariaev's experimental results. Thanks for that :) We also have strong evidence that photons transport information. See this very important set of experimental results at:
http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0208068 I know Dr. Huping Hu personally, and we have been sharing our experimental results with each other for several years, and replicating each others experiments. I do not agree with Hu's conclusions regarding how these experimental results happen. I have more accurate arguments, which support his results, and many others like them.

However, the results themselves are staggering, especially the experiment where manipulating an object at one location causes another similar massive object to lose or gain weight at the same instant, even though hundreds or even thousands of miles separate the objects. For more such experiments, read all the papers, books and articles which have been produced by Dr. Tiller.

Hey check this

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g115139168855415/

I think that biology is still full of misteries, pure and hard biochemistry and pure and hard dogmas of molecular biology are unable to explain many, many phenomenas. Two days ago i was reading that photosystems inside chlorophille use quantum interaction in non random fashion, why not other biological systems could be using it or using light to interact? Why not try to make expriments of this guys, instead of be thinking that our state of art science is totally true? What could we loss our pride (pride of what?)? money? kwnowledge (whether yes or not works)? If i would have the money to try it, i´ll do it, taking risk of being considered a crazy new ager, my curiosity is more strong that all that people could say.

Here we have disinformation agent(s) accusing others of doing what they are doing. Classical tactics. Even the change of ID between "scientist", "rimvydas" and now "gunnar". You are really showing your colors here.

Gariaev's discoveries must be quite scary to you guys, to be investing so much time and effort to try and discredit him.

Well, no wonder, actually, they do kind of threaten a very profitable if not very healthy paradigm of genetic modification based on violent exchange of parts of the genome with entirely unpredictable results. The patentable results may not be very healthy but they certainly make a lot of money for Monsanto and their ilk.

Its actually a shame they let you continue on with your disinfo tactics. I am not sure if you fall into the category of "useful idiot" or "paid agent" but all of your tactics are very nicely listed here:

http://dprogram.net/2010/02/08/disinformation-tactics-the-methods-used-to-keep-you-in-the-dark/

First, a correction to my last article: I meant to be referencing Popper's Criteria, not "Popp's Criteria".

Your are constantly making unsupported arguments, and making vague and accusative statements, as though they were authoritative facts. Nothing you have said stated has been supported with any actual and referenced factual evidence.

You avoid examining the actual evidence. You have never read any of Gariaev's papers, much less understood the life physics involved. In fact, you avoid all evidence altogether!

This allows you to say with apparent impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!". (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. Simply by refusing to look through Galileo's telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities of the time bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial, free and clear!)

You are a debunker, NOT a scientist!!! If I were to put you in a position where you were forced to rely on your understandings of ANY the actual facts in ANY of the sciences, you would rapidly be exposed as the REAL fraud.

If a concept is submitted to any journal for publication, if that concept is not deemed as "acceptable" to the mainstream point of view, it is certain that paper will not be published. One can submit any out of the ordinary discussion to any journal whatsoever, on any topic, and if that discussion is not aligned with the status quo, it will be rejected. Again, it is clear that you have never had any papers published, nor have you gone through the review process with any extraordinary or innovative revelations.

You say there are "hundreds of journals". You offer no evidence to support this statement. Actually, how many *life science* journals are there in the world? Not "hundreds", I assure you. You speak with a condescending air which wants to suggest that your personal opinions are backed by the full faith and credit of God. You employ employ vague, subjective, dismissive terms in a manner that suggests they have the full force of scientific authority, while conveniently omitting any references to actual facts. You try to build an argument using specious and unsupported statements. You are merely what is called a "debunker", and not a very good one at that.

Again, just because a paper is not published by a mainstream journal does not mean that the idea has no merit. In fact, Gariaev's work has been published in many places. I gave an example of one of Gariaev's publications in the Emergent Mind Journal. You chose to ignore that fact. Gariaev was a Professor at Lebedev University in Moscow, and published many papers while in that position. And you are qualified how...??? And in which of the sciences? And where is the evidence for that?

In addition, I have first-hand empirical experimental evidence that all of Gariaev's results are perfectly accurate, and well-founded. Clearly, you have no knowledge of Information Physics, nor of Life Physics.

On the other hand, I have recently co-authored a reference text in the Life Sciences, with Bordon and Klein, titled:
"The Coming Longevitality of the Earth Human COBE Biomind", which included thousands of certified references related to Life Physics, including many of Gariaev's results.

On the other hand, you have made it painfully clear that you are no expert in the life sciences. Put up some actually supported empirical facts, and some factually supported arguments, or go away.

Well, surely it could have happened that his work was rejected from publication because the reviewers did not like the ideas. However, as you may know there are hundreds of scientific journals in this field, and finally if you do science for 30 years it never happens that all journals reject your research. However, this has happened with Gariaev's "wave genetics". Just imagine, he was not able to publish a single article in a peer-reviewed journal for 30 years. Obviously, this is more than just the usual peer-review problems. There is something wrong with his articles then. And actually, I have read his articles. The main problem is that he is absolutely not aware of the current state of the science. Because of that, he starts from the problems of the late 1960s, claims them as the current-day problems, and is trying to solve such outdated problems as the triplet DNA code. But this problem simply does not exist today. It was solved many years ago. So, he is trying to invent a bicycle. You know, there are plenty of "crazy" inventors without good education, who do exactly this: inventing the bicycle. Yet they don't get invitations to the television and they don't sell CD claiming that they can cure incurable deceases. That’s the main difference of professional charlatans from “crazy” inventors.

As to experimental results being replicated by others, this is the responsibility of those others, not the responsibility of the original experimenter.

Your unreferenced quotation, excerpted from some undisclosed writing or another, and then attributed to some person, without evidence, is not the way to discuss a physics topic.

To call the unreferenced quotation "shit" is not the way to do science either. The only thing that is demonstrated by this sort of pernicious unjustified emotionally biased labeling is your almost perfect lack of understanding of the subject matter.

What is quantum information, for example?

You have already demonstrated that you do not know.

If you are really concerned to replicate some of Gariaev's results, I suggest you go here:
http://www.emergentmind.org/gariaevI3.htm
and construct the experiment exactly according to the parameter provided in this publication.

And another thing. Just because a given understanding is not found "officially acceptable" by mainstream "peer reviewed" Journals, does not mean that such results are without merit.

Such a circumstance can easily mean that the reviewers are perfectly ignorant regarding the subject matter (which means that they ARE NOT PEERS), or that they are prejudiced against the given concept, or etc.

Clearly, you have never had any personal encounters with the "peer review" process.

Your "criticisms" of Gariaev's results are technically vacuous and emotionally biased empty rhetoric.

Certainly, you are not a "peer" of Gariev's works. Read and UNDERSTAND in detail, the publication referenced above, and you will start to have a correct perspective on Gariaev's brilliant results.

AS mentioned in the article, Gariaev's experimental work PERFECTLY meets the rigors of Popp's criteria.

Gariajev's case is different. He claims his experimental work proofs his theory. Those experiments were never confirmed by nobody, but himself. In all scientific world this is considered as "pseudo-" (if not to say worse).

Oh? You mean like relativity theory and string theory? These two theories perfectly meet your criteria for "pseudoscience".

It seems to me that this "definition" is entirely UNSCIENTIFIC, since it does not bring any reliable criteria with respect to adherence to the scientific method, for example.

The very term "pseudoscience" is already an unqualified and prejudiced prejudgment, which already invites skepticism without examining any of the relevant facts, inviting one to dismiss whatever is labeled as "pseudoscience", out of hand, regardless of the actual reliability of the given results, and regardless of the amount of reproducible physical evidence.

As pointed out in the above article, the word "pseudoscience" is in itself, /pseudoscience/, since there are no reliable and unbiased criteria by which ANY study of ANY topic in any of the sciences can ESCAPE being called "pseudoscience", according to this definition.

The word "pseudoscience" should be entirely abandoned and removed from the lexicon of the sciences. It is entirely misleading and at present is designed for the sole purpose of maintaining the status quo, keeping things exactly the way they are, and rejecting any changes or innovations, regardless of how much reproducible physical evidence is presented in support of the given hypothesis.

To restore rigor in the sciences, Popp's criteria should be used WITHOUT FAIL!!! If any manner of scientific endeavor fails to meet Popp's Criteria, it should be rejected on that basis, and abandoned as a valid line of research.

AS mentioned in the article, Gariaev's experimental work PERFECTLY meets the rigors of Popp's criteria.

While at the same time, such widely believed-in theories as relativity theory and string theory, FAIL to meet Popp's Criteria, and so should be completely abandoned as failed hypothesis.

Neither relativity theory nor string theory are falsifiable. This means that it is physically impossible to produce concrete and reproducible physical evidence to verify either string theory or relativity theory.

To quote Einstein himself, regarding relativity theory, he said, "Relativity theory can never be proved by any physical experiment".

According to Popp's Criteria, relativity theory fails. There has never been, and there never will be, any verifiable physical evidence which is capable of proving that relativity theory is valid. The same is true of string theory.

It seems to me that anyone who uses the word "pseudoscience" has lost all contact with the scientific method. Thus, whatever they suggest from the instant that word appears, is not trustworthy, as the very term "pseudoscience" perfectly fails to meet Popp's Criteria for accuracy and reliability in the sciences.

In the altogether, if you want to keep your word "pseudoscience", why should ANY existing THEORY be IMMUNE to such an unfalsifiable accusation?

Additional applications which arise from Wave Genetics include a very reliable life extension technology, which could be easily applied to any living being, no surgical intervention required:

like this shit?

"Correction matrix" is a dynamic electromagnetic acoustic isomorphic equivalent of current physiological and metabolic state of a healthy person - blood donor. This state is superimposed with no contact and no invasion on the physiology and biochemistry of the individual - the recipient of the matrix. It is assumed that the blood and plasma along with known functions, are also pervasive system of collection and dissemination of real and quantum information about the state of the whole organism and its parts. This circumstance is particularly important for the implementation of the functions we use the wave matrices.

It's a shame that administrators of this web site have removed my previous comment. If you guys make censorship at your own web site, how can you speak about censorship in science???

Censorship sometimes indeed exists in science nowadays, but not in the case of Garjaev's pseudo-scientific works, which have not been accepted for publication in ANY international peer-reviewed journal.

And who defines what exactly is "Pseudoscience", and according to what exacting scientific criteria?

Pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.

[img]http://www.paulita.lt/Img/GariajevZuby.jpg[/img]

the more we seemed to know about the workings of DNA, the more we learn we know nothing.

Comment removed as anonymous and ad hominem

I dont see how they can PR surgury compared to this - it just wont sell - especially after a false pandemic. This might be related?:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2174763/qigong_master_boils_water_with_his_hands_pyrokinesis/