Results for: bruce lipton Search Results
Family Filter:
10:49
http://suprememastertv.com/ - SCIENCE & SPIRITUALITY Dr. Bruce Lipton -Changing Our Cells by Thought, Episode: 746, Air Date: 29 - Sept - 2008
3 Jan 2009
570
Share Video

11:57
http://suprememastertv.com/ - SCIENCE & SPIRITUALITY Dr. Bruce Lipton: A Cell-Based View of the World . Episode 858 , Air Date : 19 - Jan - 2009.
2 Mar 2009
2501
Share Video

12:55
http://suprememastertv.com/ - SCIENCE & SPIRITUALITY Dr. Bruce Lipton - "Nature, Nurture,& the Power of Love" P1/2. Episode: 984, Air Date: 25 - May - 2009.
9 Jun 2009
265
Share Video

2:47
What if we were able to use 100% of our brains? What would we be capable of? What are the essential mental components necessary for this? Accredited doctors, scientists and leading experts discuss how the 'impossible' is possible, and provide information attesting to the fact that our potential is truly unlimited.
3 Feb 2009
634
Share Video

1:12
If genes are not the cause find the solution to 'dis-ease' at; http://www.tapintoeft.com Bruce H Lipton, PhD is an internationally recognized cell biologist noted for his pioneering work in the field of New Biology.
21 Mar 2010
1325
Share Video

1:12
If Dr Lipton says genes are not the cause of disease then EFT tapping can help us shift our perceptions and beliefs. More info at: http://www.tapintoeft.com
26 Mar 2010
1078
Share Video

7:36
Dr. Bruce Lipton explains how the New Biology will take you from a world of crisis and ill health to another level of masterful control.
12 Apr 2008
224
Share Video

8:15
http://superfoodexperts.com/rawforlife - Watch Entire Movie Here Raw for Life is a 2 disc DVD set with 30 experts explaining the benefits of a raw lifestyle. It contains top chefs preparing their signature dishes. Its an encyclopedia of the raw lifestyle. Some experts in DVD include: Morgan Spurlock Woody Harrelson Tony Robbins Rev. Michael Beckwith David Wolfe (Avacado) Fred Bisci, Ph.D. Joel Fuhrman, M.D. Gabriel Cousens, M.D., M.D.H, D.D. Bruce Lipton, Ph.D. Victoria Boutenko Mike Adams Brendan Brazier Angela Stokes Dr. Brian Clement, Ph.D., N.M.D., C.N. Karen Calabrese Lillian Muller David Life and Sharon Gannon Gary Null, Ph.d Rod Rotundi Julian Whitaker, m.d. "Raw For Life " is an A-to-Z encyclopedia of Raw Food, perfect for beginners and Raw Food enthusiasts. This two-disc DVD inspires people with the Raw Food philosophy, the wisdom of eating a raw food diet, important medical facts and nutritional information. We have combined the expertise of Doctors and Nutritionists with testimonials from celebrities, athletes, and chefs who live the Raw Food Lifestyle. Our goal was to create a product that would empower people to take control of their health and happiness. In "Raw For Life", you will find everything you need to transition to a healthier state of being. This DVD is perfect for Vegetarians, Vegans, and Raw Food Vegans looking for new recipes and resources; someone coping with diabetes, heart disease, or excess weight, those seeking to reverse their aging process; athletes looking to improve their performance; actors, dancers, and other performers looking for a healthy way to maintain their weight and image; anyone looking to live longer, be stronger, perform at their best, and get their nutrition on the right track! Buy it as a gift, for your friends, family, or yourself. This is the perfect gift for a loved one year round. http://superfoodexperts.com/rawforlife - Watch Entire Movie Here
5 Mar 2009
1196
Share Video

9:49
Since it is highly likely that the global financial system is finally going to fail in the very near future it is upto everybody to make wise decisions while navigating through these interesting times without money. Being conscious and awake will allow you to create your own sacred space whereever you are and whatever happens around you. Just try to remain focused and avoid getting draged into the unfolding global insanity. Fortunately the disintegration process is not going according to the plans of the global elite because at least parts of the population have realized over the last months that the taken measures are not to *help the people* but to *help the system at the expense of the people* which will become even more obvious as the system is now really going to pieces. The vast amount of denial of the regular population has allowed the system to continue running way further than the elite ever wanted it to run. Even though they wanted chaos to create a new order, they only wanted as much chaos as they could somehow control so they could still steer the process from behind the scenes. Steering from behind the scenes will soon be impossible, so they will have to come forward and show up openly on the world stage - by that I do not necessarily refer to "new faces" to show up but rather the dropping of the masks of those who are already in power and played Mr/Mrs Niceguy upto now. They might not really enjoy their ego-trip on steroids once they realize that the upcoming chaos is so vast that they can not do anything about it at all. The loss of control is about the most feared event for the elite as well as for the ego-based mind. For those who have not seen through all of the game yet the resemblance of those two aspects on different layers of reality is one of the most crucial of all. Once you understand the interconnectedness of the elite with the ego-based mind in every individual you can become aware of the aspects of your own *dark side* and their role in the manifestation of this reality. We have an interesting ride ahead of us...a ride into global freedom and global peace but before we get there we'll have some work to do...within ourselves and at the same time within our external world. Both changes go hand in hand but if we resist the required change, this process can be extremely painful. The most important thing to do, is to *let go* and since most people don't want to let go, the provided "help" will be to create the experience to loose everything they considered to be important sofar, because if you already lost everything, you might aswell let go. Once you let go and get in a state of allowance, you will realize that all those things were not really that important and from then on the rest of the process will mysteriously unfold before you as you move along. During my recent vacation from Youtube I put down several short articles in written form in which I share some more of my viewpoint on the current global situation. If you're interested in them you can find them on blogspot : http://germanindigo.blogspot.com or alternatively in my blog section on myspace : http://www.myspace.com/germanindigo In this video I decided to put out a special spotlight on Bruce Lipton because I have been following his work for some time and I really like the way he presents his basic insights. I consider his insights into self-healing and the subconscious mind essential especially for the time to come when the health system is breaking down. During this phase people need to know that there are other and better ways to fix their health problems. In order to get a first overview on Bruce Lipton's work I recommend to listen to his appearance on Coast-2-Coast on September 4th, 2008 or alternatively to view this free interview with him on Consciousmedianetwork : http://www.consciousmedianetwork.com/members/blipton.htm I generally recommend to take a look at some of the other free interviews on the consciousmedianetwork website as well as the radio shows on http://www.coasttocoastam.com and to support both for their exceptional contribution to elevate human consciousness. May peace and wisdom be with everybody during these disturbing times
14 Jun 2010
261
Share Video

2:57
Contrairement au dogme central de la science et de la médecine conventionnelles qui voudrait nous faire croire que nous ne sommes ni plus ni moins que des automates génétiques ou des machines chimiques, Bruce Lipton, généticien de renommée internationale, pense que l'être humain n'est pas prisonnier de ses gènes ou de ses cellules étant donné que ceux-ci sont eux-mêmes le produit de l'environnement dans lequel ils évoluent. L'être humain aurait donc, d'après cette nouvelle compréhension de la biologie cellulaire, beaucoup plus de pouvoir qu'il ne le pense sur sa propre biologie et, par conséquent, sur ses fonctions corporelles.
4 Sep 2010
127
Share Video

3:44
http://www.connaissancessansfrontieres.net/ La médicine conventionnelle reste prisonnière de la physique newtonienne et ne prend pas en ligne de compte la capacité du mental à guérir ou à rendre malade notre corps. Si l’effet placebo est un concept bien établi, par contre, l’effet nocebo, à savoir les méfaits sur le corps de la pensée négative, est quelque chose dont ne parlent ni les livres ni les mass-médias. Pourtant, l’effet nocebo est de même nature que l’effet placebo mais en sens inverse : il affecte le corps de manière négative. Par ailleurs, beaucoup de gens pensent qu’il suffit d’entretenir des pensées positives dans leur tête pour que leur vie connaisse une amélioration. Le pouvoir de la pensée positive, nous dit Bruce Lipton, ne peut être d’un grand secours à moins que notre subconscient qui régule 95% de notre biologie, ne soit en parfait accord avec notre conscient.
14 Sep 2010
151
Share Video

1:58
New Scientist: Darwin Was Wrong! http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/blog/?p=116 The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned out to be a figment of our imagination, says Graham Lawton http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5221S.pdf Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009 Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126921.600-why-darwin-was-wrong-about-the-tree-of-life.html Since evolutionists continually misrepresent the true state of the evidence for molecular sequences, here are several more comments and articles, by leading experts, on the incongruence of molecular sequences to Darwin's theory: Testing the Orchard Model and the NCSE’s Claims of “Nested Patterns” Supporting a “Tree of Life” Excerpt: Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling “different evolutionary stories” and “one group suggests one biogeographic pattern, and another group suggests another” is because the genes and organisms have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that not all living organisms are ancestrally related, thereby fulfilling a testable prediction of the orchard model. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/03/testing_the_orchard_model_and.html Botching Evolutionary Science - Casey Luskin - April 2009 Excerpt: The textbook touts the cytochrome C tree, but it ignores the cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny. As one article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated: “[T]he mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied,, an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting.” (See Michael S. Y. Lee, “Molecular Phylogenies Become Functional,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14: 177 (1999).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/the_biggest_problem_in_asking.html#more Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies - Colin Patterson Excerpt: "As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology." http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od171/sampler171.htm 'The theory makes a prediction (for amino acid and nucleotide sequence studies); we've tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.' Dr. Colin Patterson Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department at the British Museum http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/stephen-meyer-on-ids-scientific-bona-fides/comment-page-8/#comment-359598 Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 7 Excerpt: "There is not a trace of evidence on the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life > fish> amphibians > reptiles> mammals. In general, each of the many categories of organisms appear to be equally isolated." http://evolution-facts.org/Appendix/a21.htm Bones, molecules...or both? Excerpt: Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled?,,, When biologists talk of the 'evolution wars', they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging (between Darwinists) within systematics. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6793/full/406230a0.html The universal ancestor - Carl Woese Excerpt: No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves. http://www.pnas.org/content/95/12/6854.full Shilling for Darwin — The wildly irresponsible evolutionist - William Dembski - Oct. 2009 Excerpt: The incongruence of gene and species trees is a standing obstacle, or research problem, in molecular phylogenetics. http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/shilling-for-darwin-the-wildly-irresponsible-evolutionist/#comments Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking? Excerpt: We conclude that we simply cannot determine if a large portion of the genes have a common history.,,, CONCLUSION: Our phylogenetic analyses do not support tree-thinking. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15913459 Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - 2009 Excerpt: "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/21/charles-darwin-evolution-species-tree-life Uprooting The Tree Of Life - W. Ford Doolittle Excerpt: as DNA sequences of complete genomes have become increasingly available, my group and others have noted patterns that are disturbingly at odds with the prevailing beliefs. http://people.ibest.uidaho.edu/~bree/courses/2_Doolittle_2000.pdf DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps - Fazale Rana Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be. http://www.reasons.org/dna-comparisons-between-humans-and-chimps-response-venema-critique-rtb-human-origins-model-part-2 A recent, more accurate, human/chimp genome comparison study, by Richard Buggs in 2008, has found when he rigorously compared the recently completed sequences in the genomes of chimpanzees to the genomes of humans side by side, the similarity between chimps and man fell to slightly below 70%! Why is this study ignored since the ENCODE study has now implicated 100% high level functionality across the entire human genome? Finding compelling evidence that implicates 100% high level functionality across the entire genome clearly shows the similarity is not to be limited to the very biased 'only 1.5% of the genome' studies of evolutionists. Chimpanzee? 10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida ...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%. http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/Chimpanzee.pdf Moreover, the following 'statistical test' found only a 62% similarity between chimp-human genomes rather than the 95%-98.5% similarity touted by many papers of evolutionists: A simple statistical test for the alleged “99% genetic identity” between humans and chimps - September 2010 Excerpt: The results obtained are statistically valid. The same test was previously run on a sampling of 1,000 random 30-base patterns and the percentages obtained were almost identical with those obtained in the final test, with 10,000 random 30-base patterns. When human and chimp genomes are compared, the X chromosome is the one showing the highest degree of 30BPM similarity (72.37%), while the Y chromosome shows the lowest degree of 30BPM similarity (30.29%). On average the overall 30BPM similarity, when all chromosomes are taken into consideration, is approximately 62%. http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-statistical-test-for-the-alleged-99-genetic-identity-between-humans-and-chimps/ Post of interest refuting 98% similarity claim: http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-simple-statistical-test-for-the-alleged-99-genetic-identity-between-humans-and-chimps/#comment-364779 Moreover, when scientists did a actual Nucleotide by Nucleotide sequence comparison, to find the 'real world' difference between the genomes of chimps and Humans, they found the difference was even more profound than what Dr. Richard Buggs, or the statistical test, had estimated: Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship? Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.] http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2070 Even this more recent evolution friendly article found the differences in the protein coding genes of the Y chromosome between chimps and Humans to be 'striking': Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: “many of the stark changes between the chimp and human Y chromosomes are due to gene loss in the chimp and gene gain in the human” since “the chimp Y chromosome has only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human Y chromosome and only 47% as many protein-coding elements as humans.”,,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,," http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/04/recent_genetic_research_shows.html Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected - Jan. 2010 Excerpt: "The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes. http://www.physorg.com/news182605704.html Many times materialists will try to establish scientific validity for their evolution of man from apes by pointing to mere suggestive genetic similarities, of one type or another, all the while ignoring profound dissimilarities. For prime example of the flimsy 'similarity evidence', used by materialists to try to make their case for evolution, most materialists are adamant Darwinian evolution is proven true when we look at the supposed 98.8% genetic similarity between chimps and man. Though suggestive, the gene similarity, even if it were true which it is not, is not nearly good enough to be considered conclusive scientific proof. Primarily this 'lack of conclusiveness' is due to concerns with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and with the Law of Conservation of Information. But of more pressing concern, body plans are not even encoded solely by the DNA code in the first place. This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance and 'epigenetic' studies. Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4187488 entire video: http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/fishfossils.xml “Live memory” of the cell, the other hereditary memory of living systems - 2005 Excerpt: To understand this notion of “live memory”, its role and interactions with DNA must be resituated; indeed, operational information belongs as much to the cell body and to its cytoplasmic regulatory protein components and other endogenous or exogenous ligands as it does to the DNA database. We will see in Section 2, using examples from recent experiments in biology, the principal roles of “live memory” in relation to the four aspects of cellular identity, memory of form, hereditary transmission and also working memory. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2K-4FJXNG6-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F30%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1273117547&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=0bfa74d6bb0937402472343daa6bdef8 The Case Against Molecular Reductionism - Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4899469 The Gene Myth, Part II - August 2010 Excerpt: So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous influence over their functions.,,, So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used.,,, Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-ii.html This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show 'exceedingly rare' beneficial morphological changes from mutations to the DNA code. The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories - Stephen Meyer "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion." http://eyedesignbook.com/ch6/eyech6-append-d.html Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4050681 This following video and article are much more clear for explaining exactly why mutations to the DNA do not control Body Plan morphogenesis, since the mutations are the ‘bottom rung of the ladder’ as far as the 'higher levels of the layered information’ of the cell are concerned: Stephen Meyer on Craig Venter, Complexity Of The Cell & Layered Information http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4798685 Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010 - Excellent Article for explaining exactly why epigentics falsifies the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic reductionism: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/getting-over-the-code-delusion This following video gives a glimpse of this 'higher level' information in action: Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4249713 further notes: Chimps are not like humans - May 2004 Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said. http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0405/119.htm Chimp chromosome creates puzzles - 2004 Excerpt: However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in 'Nature' that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes". In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome.,,, "we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated." The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity. http://www.nature.com/news/1998/040524/full/news040524-8.html Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009 Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009 Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202 Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr http://www.y-origins.com/index.php?p=home_more4 “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.” Anthropologist Ian Tattersall (curator at the American Museum of Natural History) Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/2009/10/intelligent-design-anthropic-hypothesis_19.html
27 Dec 2010
881
Share Video

9:37
first in a two part series with rob Williams of psych-k. (if anyone has the part with R. williams please post it!) 'the bottom line is, genes do NOT control our biology, that an assumption made years ago that was never even proven scientifically - it just seemed so correct that we bought the story ... if the mechanism actually worked according to the textbooks, ie. if the genes control biology, then at least 120,000 genes would be required to make a human. but when the human genome projects results were in, ... it was discovered that 2/3rds of the genes (needed to support their model) were missing. Its not that the genes were missing, it was the understanding that was wrong. "We have to come to a new way of understanding biology. This 'new' understanding has actually already been in the leading edge of science for 10 years now. It takes at least 10 or 15 years for science to take a fact from its first inception and get it out into the public so that the people can understand it. That means anything in current textbooks is at least 10 or 15 years old. what your going to hear tonight is whats going to be the future textbooks. " -Bruce Lipton in the Biology of Perception [ www.brucelipton.com ] see also: rob williams intro to psych-k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHjomkUzh9A more audio/video at http://channelzero.multiply.com
4 Dec 2010
1659
Share Video

50:57
Bruce Lipton - 'The Power Of Consciousness' - Interview by Iain McNay Bruce is a cellular biologist who is the author of "The Biology Of Belief" and "Spontaneous Evolution". He talks about his life, his work, and how he sees the predicament of the human race.
24 Jan 2013
4149
Share Video

9:57
quello che non ci insegnano a scuola..
6 Nov 2008
305
Share Video

7:36
Dr. Bruce Lipton explains how the New Biology will take you from a world of crisis and ill health to another level of masterful control.
6 Apr 2009
1314
Share Video