by Georgi Stankov Posted on May 9, 2016
Georgi Stankov, May 9, 2016
Ascension and awakening of humanity has been a Sisyphus work. Two decades ago I developed the General Theory of Biological Regulation that accomplished the Impossible: the integration of the incommensurable array of scattered scientific facts in bio-science (biology, biochemistry,, physiology, genetics, etc.) and medicine into one unified congruent theory based on the Universal Law. It is fair to say that this theory is extremely complex and demanding in its approach because it affords the intimate knowledge of all the scientific facts obtained from modern research in the last several decades. In addition it is based on the profound knowledge of the entire modern physics as rewritten by myself in the light of the Universal law in volume I and volume II. Unfortunately there is not a single scientist worldwide that brings this theoretical and intellectual qualification. That is why I decided two decades ago not to promote actively this theory among scientists in this 3D reality as their objective mental limitations preclude any possibility of comprehending it. Any effort in this direction would be a total waste of energy and time and would have led to infinite frustration regarding the mental retardation of the present-day scientists.
But at the same time my soul has always whispered in my inner ear that the time will come when this situation will change radically as this theory is a gift for humanity coming directly from the Source and I am only the human messenger of it. It is from this higher fulcrum from which the mental and spiritual evolution of humanity will be achieved in the higher 4D worlds after the final ID shift.
The most revolutionary breakthrough of the General Theory of Biological Regulation is the recognition that all cells in the organism (human or animal) are acting as energetic electromagnetic systems, as spherical capacitors, that can be modulated by all chemical substances in the body in a universal manner that obeys the Universal Law. This knowledge is the foundation of this theory. It enables the coherent, congruent, and logical explanation of all the facts and phenomena that have been collected through random empirical research in the last 70 -100 years by modern bio-science and medicine in the absence of an overarching theory that integrates the scattered empirical data.
One basic concept of this new bio-theory of the Universal law is the so-called “supracellular regulation” which I first introduced in science. This term encompasses all substances that the nervous system, immune system and hormone system produce in the body. Through these biochemical moieties the entire regulation of the cells and the body is accomplished in a comprehensive interrelated manner.
While this is generally acknowledged in conventional bio-science, the scientists were absolutely unable to explain how these three systems, which they approach in an entirely deterministic manner completely separated from each other, interact as to accomplish a perfect regulation of the organism, so that it exists in an optimal harmonious condition of constructive interference involving all the factors that pertain to this regulation. One can say that this artificial separation of the three regulatory systems of the body by the scientists and theoreticians for the sake of didactic presentation, or simply due to lack of faculty for abstract thinking, has effectively prevented them from grasping the principles of biological regulation.
The crimes these scientists have then committed in medicine by the treatment of patients with wrong and deleterious chemical drugs that infringe upon the Universal Law of biological regulation, while increasing mortality and morbidity in the patient population, are tantamount to the greatest ongoing genocide in the history of mankind. This has been a leitmotif in many articles I have written and published on this website. It is also in the core of Volume III dedicated to the new General Theory of Biological Regulation.
Today Charlotte made me aware of a recent publication that proves through empirical research what I have postulated theoretically and confirmed through numerous scientific findings more than two decades ago. The mills of science and the Higher Realms grind slowly but thoroughly.
They Will Have to Rewrite the Textbooks
Josh Barney, March 21, 2016
It’s a stunning discovery that overturns decades of textbook teaching: researchers at the School of Medicine have determined that the brain is directly connected to the immune system by vessels previously thought not to exist. “I really did not believe there were structures in the body that we were not aware of. I thought the body was mapped,” said Jonathan Kipnis, a professor in the Department of Neuroscience and director of the University’s Center for Brain Immunology and Glia. How these vessels could have escaped detection when the lymphatic system has been so thoroughly mapped throughout the body is surprising on its own.
But the true significance of the discovery lies in its ramifications for the study and treatment of neurological diseases ranging from autism to Alzheimer’s disease to multiple sclerosis. Kipnis said researchers no longer need to ask questions such as, “How do we study the immune response of the brain?” or “Why do multiple sclerosis patients have immune system attacks?” “Now we can approach this mechanistically — because the brain is like every other tissue connected to the peripheral immune system through meningeal lymphatic vessels,” Kipnis said. “We believe that for every neurological disease that has an immune component to it, these vessels may play a major role.” Kevin Lee, who chairs the Department of Neuroscience, recalled his reaction the first time researchers in Kipnis’ lab shared their basic result with him.
“I just said one sentence: ‘They’ll have to rewrite the textbooks.’ There has never been a lymphatic system for the central nervous system, and it was very clear from that first singular observation — and they’ve done many studies since then to bolster the finding — that it will fundamentally change the way people look at the central nervous system’s relationship with the immune system…. read more“
And here is what I wrote about the close interconnectedness between the nervous system (including the brain), the immune system and the hormonal system that are responsible for the regulation of the body more than twenty years ago in Volume III on the General Theory of Biological Regulation. Indeed, it is time to rewrite all texbooks on science, which shows how close our Ascension really is:
2.2 THE UNIVERSAL LAW IN HEALTH AND DISEASE
All physiological factors enhance energy exchange in eukaryotes, either as depolarizing or repolarizing agents. The three major regulatory systems, immune, hormonal, and nervous system, are defined as the level of supracellular regulation:
The common mechanism of biological regulation through hormones, humoral factors, and neurotransmitters is the modulation of the electric LRC (Long Range Correlation = Gradient/Potential) of cells. This is called “supracellular regulation”.
Thus any physiological factor that belongs to one supracellular system is able to affect cells which are predominantly regulated by the agents of another supracellular system and vice versa.
Indeed, there is growing evidence that humoral factors, e.g. cytokines and eicosanoids, stimulate nerve cells in the CNS, and participate in the regulation of body temperature in hypothalamus (26), while hormones, e.g. anaesthetic steroids, can interfere with the peripheral neurotransmitter systems and modulate energy transduction in postsynaptical junctions. Neurotransmitters can affect the immune system and so on.
The “communication” between these systems is still a mystery, as the generally accepted “second messenger” concept does not provide for a common effector level of regulation (N-set). This stance in bio-science is in apparent contradiction with the growing experimental evidence of “common pathways of energy transduction” (27) in cells, as reported in many publications in the recent years. The interpretation of this data is entirely deterministic. The application of the Law to the energy exchange in the cell eliminates this conceptual deficiency. The new axiomatics postulates that all systems are U-sets that cannot be separated in real terms, but only in the mind by employing mathematics. While all physiological factors regulate the cell by the same Law, the three supracellular systems exhibit certain peculiarities in their self-organisation that should be described in the light of the new axiomatics.
The nervous system suggests a highly hierarchical and immobile structure. However, this hierarchy does not apply to the energetic organisation of the brain. The synaptic interactions between brain neurones are highly dynamic and depend on stimulation. This process is known as “connectionism” and plays a central role in the conceptual development of artificial intelligence. The establishment of new synapses between neurones is based on cell-stimulation through depolarisation (growth) and repolarisation (maturation). Whenever neuronal pathways are inhibited, for instance through injury or experimental dissection, an atrophy of the affected part of the nervous system and of the corresponding organ is observed. This finding fits in perfectly with the General Theory – the self-organisation of cells and organisms is energetically driven.
The peripheral innervation is essentially based on the depolarisation of neurones (afferent innervation) and target organ cells (efferent innervation) by peripheral neurotransmitters. GABA and other inhibitory (repolarizing) neurotransmitters are found in much higher concentrations than in the neural periphery. This can be explained by the self-organisation principle of the nervous system. Afferent information generated by depolarizing cell-stimulating agents in the periphery can be more adequately processed (modulated) by further repolarisation rather than by additional depolarisation. In this way a higher discrimination in the afferent information flow can be achieved. In addition to established central neurotransmitters, the depolarisation in the CNS may be triggered by a variety of biological molecules, such as amino acids, nitric oxide, or external factors.
Neurones exhibit the biggest energy exchange among all body cells. This is evident from the fact that, under oxygen deficiency, it is the brain which is damaged first. The greater the energy exchange of a system, the more rapid and pronounced the effects of its interaction with external factors. Anaesthesia or drug addiction is a typical aspect of the higher energetic turn-over in CNS. The same holds true for poisons, such as curare, that affect the peripheral nervous system. Curare is a generic name for a mixture of alkaloids used as poison arrows that cause a peripheral paralytic action at the junctions between nerves and muscles. Curare alkaloids usually carry two or more amino groups; tertiary groups increase the cell-inhibiting potential of these compounds. Curare primarily inhibits peripheral neuronal FUELs in the junctions, which are enhanced by the cell-stimulating peripheral neurotransmitter acetylcholin. This compound has a pronounced dipole moment, as can be perceived from its chemical formula when the dipole model is employed:
(CH)3 − N+CH2 − CH2O − (C = O)(−) − CH3
However, curare alkaloids inhibit not only nerves and muscle cells but also any kind of cells because they are potent cell-inhibiting drugs that interact with any membrane FUEL. They inhibit the soliton triplets by melting the midgaps of the π-electron anion with their positively charged amino groups.
The classical antagonism between sympathicus and para-sympathicus at the target organ, as is postulated for didactic purposes in pharmacological textbooks, appears to be a pure abstraction when the facts are scrutinized within the General Theory. This idea is based on the principle of causality. In reality, the notion of a biological antagonism is an intuitively correct perception of the axiom on the reciprocal behaviour of the LRCs (“Long Range Correlation”, a general term for the electromagnetic gradient /potential across all cell and other intracellular membranes) of two contiguous levels in a system. Depending on the target organ and the expression of specific FUELs in its cells, stimulation through depolarisation may be manifested as dilatation, relaxation, and increased secretion on the one hand, and as suppression, constriction, contraction, and decreased secretion on the other. Thus a particular regulatory effect of the supramolecular regulation depends on the initial energetic condition of the cells and the instantaneous composition of depolarizing and repolarizing agents at the site of action. Observe that all these physio-logical phenomena are circumscriptions of the reciprocity of space and time, or space and energy. We leave the detailed elaboration to the competent reader. At present, there is a profound confusion in this area – a typical example is Goodman & Gilman’s The Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (latest edition). The new approach will allow a more clear-cut classification of the various effects triggered by innervation.
The immune system is a rather mobile system of cell-stimulation that is distributed all over the body. Like any other system of space-time, it is a U-set, that is, it contains all biological levels as an element. The energy interactions between immune cells and with the rest of the body cells are transmitted by humoral factors, also called immune factors. These factors are transported by blood circulation, but they also appear in a membrane-bound form. The mode of cell activation is an additive stimulation (potentiation) through depolarisation or repolarisation based on the principle of constructive interference at the chemical level in plasma and interstitium.
The peculiar situation in the humoral system is that immunocompetent cells are distributed throughout the whole organism or harboured in distinct lymphatic organs. This circumstance necessitates delocalized interactions. On the other hand, immune cells must be recruited in a quick and effective way at the site of infection. A quick response, known as “acute reaction”, is achieved by superimposing the humoral activity of numerous immune cells that leads to a rapid potentiation of their effects. Immune cells secret humoral factors of the depolarizing and repolarizing type that exhibit overlapping pleotrophic effects. During the acute reaction, their concentration is increased a thousand-fold (page 104-105 ). This phenomenon is usually described as a “humoral cascade”, which is a synonym for constructive interference at this particular level. The immune response at the chemical level is quite similar to the rapid depolarisation of an electric action potential at the cellular level. Another term from wave theory that adequately describes this phenomenon is resonance (see vol. I & II).
The high mobility of immune cells is another specific aspect of this system. The motion of cells is usually referred to as “migration” or “chemotaxis”. In the new axiomatics, motion is the only manifestation of space-time: it is equivalent to the primary term. So far, the mechanism of chemotaxis has not been unravelled. The greatest mystery of organic life – its “intentional motion” – can be explained for the first time in the light of the Law. The motion of immune cells to the site of infection is energetically driven. Many humoral factors that are secreted by immune cells are chemotactic agents, that is, they cause the cell to move (migrate) in the organism. Such factors are potent dielectrics that create an electrochemical potential in the body fluids, such as interstitium and plasma. This gradient drives the immune cells, which can be regarded as charge points (see Coulomb Law as an application of the Universal Law in vol. I & II), along its electromagnetic field (acceleration), which is a system of photon space-time. This energy interaction, defined as chemotaxis or migration, is very similar to electrolysis (see also Hall effect). The field of the supramolecular chemoattractants interacts with the electric LRCs of the immune cells and triggers their motion (migration). This particular energy exchange can be precisely described with the axiom of reducibility. The mechanism of motion at the cellular level is chiefly investigated in bacteria. As expected, it involves the proton-motive gradient across the bacterial membrane. In flagella bacteria such as E. coli or S. typhimurium the flagellas are driven by a proton gradient. This gradient causes the flagellas to rotate.
This kinetic mechanism is similar to that observed in actin-myosin interactions, which are driven by the action potentials of muscle cells. This energy interaction also involves the transformation of electric energy into mechanical work, and can be precisely described with the Law. Indeed, there is nothing remarkable about this energy exchange, that can be studied in any electric motor at the macroscopic level. The electrically driven flagellas rotate and push the bacterium forwards and backwards; myosin-actin filaments contract and induce a parallel translation. The proton (ionic) gradient of cells, bacteria, and other organisms interacts with the electrochemical gradient in the body fluid, which is essentially an electromagnetic interaction.
Such interactions are always associated with motion (charge displacement), as postulated by all conventional laws of electricity and magnetism, which are in turn precursors of Maxwell’s four equations of electromagnetism. The latter are differential and integral derivations of the universal equation when it is presented as a classical wave function (see vol. I & II). Recall that all electromagnetic fields are photon systems (U-sets) that propagate infinitely in spacetime and thus encompass the whole body (see also the electromagnetic principle of superposition in vol. I & II).
For instance, the electromagnetic field of the heart can be measured as an ECG by using limb leads. This fact demonstrates how an electrochemical gradient in the body fluids drives the migration of immune cells throughout the whole organism. This electrochemical gradient is established by the secretion of humoral factors in high concentration during the acute reaction. It points towards the site of infection because the largest number of secreting immune cells can be found in the vicinity of an inflammation.
The electrochemical gradient in the fluid induces an electromagnetic field that can alter its direction. When this field is imposed on the electric LRC of immune cells, it can modulate the latter by influencing the velocity and direction of charge motion across their cell membranes. This energy interaction is described in physics as quantum Hall effect and can be expressed with the universal equation (see vol. I & II). This modulation determines the action potential and the direction of cell motion.
Thus the migration of immune cells is an energetic process that involves all levels of organic matter. It can be precisely assessed at the level of electromagnetism. For instance, the proton-driving pumps in bacteria are highly conservative proteins, and resemble those found in the respiratory chain in mitochondria. Both groups of proteins are related to the group of cytochromes, which are made responsible for the oxydative burst in lymphocytes. For this reason, it has been suggested that mitochondria were primitive prokaryotes that were incorporated by eukaryotes during the evolution of organic matter from monocellular to multicellular organisms. Hence our claim that prokaryotes and eukaryotes operate in symbiosis, that is, their serially coupled electric LRCs operate under the conditions of constructive interference, as transmitted by the ionic cytosol (see chapter 1.5). This straightforward energetic interpretation of the “intentional motion” of cells in the organism effects another significant simplification in our view of biological regulation.
26. Adam D & Stankov G. Eur J Pediatr, 1994, 153: 392-402.
27. This term has become quite popular in the bio-sciences in the last few years. Unfortunately, it is intuitively used and is not properly defined.
This entry was posted in Ascension. Bookmark the permalink.
* * *
* * *.
* * *
* * *
Who are “The People”?
Blog/America’s Economic History
Posted Jun 3, 2016 by Martin Armstrong
The familiar phrase “We the People” no longer means what it used to. The majority of Americans do not understand how the law is made and assume Congress proposes all legislation and therefore makes law. That is not the case. The president can refuse to enforce any law or impose it arbitrarily under the claim of discretion, and the Judiciary is responsible for altering law every day. Judges create the majority of laws to impress their particular brand of bias in a very undemocratic manner by using their interpretation of the words written by Congress in any Act or the Constitution. So all you need is a judge to twist the words around to make new law, which is why fights erupt over appointing Supreme Court justices who can become legal unelected dictators.
Money laundering was intended for the war on drugs. Today, hiding your money from the government, which includes placing cash in a safe deposit facility, is money laundering thanks to judicial law. Judges twist the same statutes around so that the words mean whatever they want it to mean. It is your burden to appeal and prove that the judge is wrong. Good luck. Cops protect cops, and so do judges.
On March 18, 2008, the Supreme Court heard the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), regarding the Second Amendment, which reads:
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The ACLU argued in that the term “We the People” should have its definition changed to mean “We the State Militia.” Changing that definition can effectively prevent individuals from having the right to own a gun. The Constitution would become complete trash if the term was found to have different meanings, but lawyers have become wordsmiths and use this ability to create laws.
Supreme Court Cases
The Supreme Court overlooked this question of who “the people” are for 200 years (1789–1989). Since then, the Supreme Court has twice commented on the meaning of this phrase, but these two cases are in somewhat conflict with each other.
In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the court said that “the people” refers to those “persons who are part of a national community,” or who have “substantial connections” to the United States. In delivering this interpretation, they were consistent with the problem that faced the question of jurisdiction at the founding of the nation.
If you were English and committed a crime in France, the French king could not punish you for you were the property or “subject” of the English king. He would send you back in chains to England with an explanation of what you did. Since the American Revolution was against the monarchy, why would they comply with international law and send someone back to England for a crime committed in America to be punished by a king they did not recognize? The American Constitution established territorial jurisdiction for the first time. So someone convicted of a crime would be punished in America for his crime in America. Now the problem became a question of rights under the Constitution. Did a foreign citizen have a right to a fair trial? The definition had to extend to any person tried in America regardless of their citizenship.
The touchstone in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez was correct, constitutionally speaking, for it extended to one’s connection to this country in compliance with territorial jurisdiction. The court declared that this definition of “the people” applied consistently throughout the Bill of Rights and did not limit rights to citizens.
In U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (494 U.S. 247, 288, 1990), Justice William J. Brennan Jr. argued: “The term ‘the people’ is better understood as a rhetorical counterpoint ‘to the government’ … that rights that were reserved to ‘the people’ were to protect all those subject to ‘the government.’ …” He continued: “The Bill of Rights did not purport to ‘create’ rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be pre-existing.”
In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, the Supreme Court wrote: “The people protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community… The Fourth Amendment’s drafting history shows that its purpose was to protect the people of the United States against arbitrary action by their own government.”
However, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the court approvingly quoted Verdugo-Urquidez’s definition and similarly suggested that the term “the people” had a consistent meaning throughout the Constitution. This must be correct or the Constitution becomes chaotic. Yet, Heller also said that the term “refers to all members of the political community,” which actually changes the definition.
Heller’s interpretation contains a confusing three-part analysis: (1) it approved of Verdugo-Urquidez’s interpretation; (2) it substituted “members of the political community” for “persons who are part of a national community”; and (3) it suggested that “the people” means the same thing throughout the Constitution.
Heller’s analysis has created a conflict that has largely gone unnoticed but is already changing law. Heller could now be viewed as changing the meaning of “the people” throughout the Bill of Rights by limiting “the people” to “members of the political community,” which might be interpreted to mean, inter alia, “eligible voters.” This interpretation could have a profound consequence for individuals who have been denied the right to vote and non-American citizens. In this manner, the entire principle of territorial jurisdiction can be overturned.
Heller’s interpretation is already being applied. The Fifth Circuit previously held, “Once aliens become subject to liability under United States law, they also have the right to benefit from [Fourth Amendment] protection.” (United States v. Cortes, 588 F.2d 106, 110 (5th Cir. 1979) (citing United States v. Cadena, 585 F.2d 1252, 1262 (5th Cir. 1978))
In a recent case, US v Armando Portillo-Munoz, it was ruled that a ranch hand who lived and worked in the United States for more than 18 months, paid rent, and helped to support a family, but who committed the misdemeanor of illegally crossing the border — is not part of “the people.” Circuit Judge Dennis in his dissenting opinion warned, “The majority’s interpretation of the “the people” has far-reaching consequences.”
“We the People” no longer means what people have always assumed: “We the People.”
Categories: America’s Economic History, Basic Concepts
Tags: District of Columbia v. Heller, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, US v Armando Portillo-Munoz, We the People
« “If Voting Changed Anything, They’d Make it Illegal”
Upside-Down Statistics — What is Down, May Be Up »
* * *
* * *