Jump to content

Possible Nobel Prizewinning Discovery


Recommended Posts

In 2015, a group of scientists discovered that whether or not we get genetic disorders is determined around five days after conception when our DNA gets its epigenetic profile (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4464629/).

In 2017, I discovered the causes for over seventy of these epigenetic profiles.

In 2019, I realized some of the practical benefits of what I discovered. Then I realized that what I discovered was something much bigger than what I originally thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

In 2015, a group of scientists discovered that whether or not we get genetic disorders is determined around five days after conception when our DNA gets its epigenetic profile (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4464629/).

In 2017, I discovered the causes for over seventy of these epigenetic profiles.

In 2019, I realized some of the practical benefits of what I discovered. Then I realized that what I discovered was something much bigger than what I originally thought.

Seeya in Stockholm! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

In 2017, I discovered the causes for over seventy of these epigenetic profiles.

In 2019, I realized some of the practical benefits of what I discovered. Then I realized that what I discovered was something much bigger than what I originally thought.

Interesting, what were these discoveries?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2021 at 7:58 AM, Bufofrog said:

Interesting, what were these discoveries?

Well, one of the things I discovered is twenty seven epigenetic profiles that are associated with psychiatric disorders (depression, anorexia nervosa, etc.) and their causes.

This discovery explains why individuals with a family history of psychiatric disorders don't express one themselves (they don't have the epigenetic profile). It also explains why people without a family history of psychiatric disorders will get one de novo (they have the epigenetic profile and a mutation).

Another discovery I made is that there is another "critical window of sensitivity" (this is what the scientists who wrote the paper I linked in my first post call the moment when human DNA gets its epigenetic profile).

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

Well, one of the things I discovered is twenty seven epigenetic profiles that are associated with psychiatric disorders (depression, anorexia nervosa, etc.) and their causes.

Could you present the evidence of these associations and/or causes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/15/2021 at 5:16 AM, beecee said:

Seeya in Stockholm! 

It was a long way away from Sidney, last time I took a look at the maps, @beecee. Continental drift is not nearly as quick as it takes. :D 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

Yes, but the presentation would take me at least five months (of doing nothing else but working on it) to put together.

!

Moderator Note

Then you'll need some kind of overview, or I can lock the thread while you put the evidence together. Otherwise, there's no science to discuss. 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

Yes, but the presentation would take me at least five months (of doing nothing else but working on it) to put together.

How about any evidence on one of the 27?  I mean clearly for you to proclaim you have made this discovery you have some level of evidence at the ready. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2021 at 8:56 AM, Bufofrog said:

How about any evidence on one of the 27?  I mean clearly for you to proclaim you have made this discovery you have some level of evidence at the ready. 

You asked me if I could present evidence. To me, this meant making a professional and detailed presentation to a larger group of people. My answer was yes, but that it would take time for me to put it together.

You did not ask me to post evidence on this forum, but that is what other people understood your question to mean (which is understandable).

I have evidence. I have large amounts of evidence (hundreds of pages worth).

Also, the discoveries I mentioned are not the only discoveries I've made. I just mentioned the ones that came to mind.

About seven months after discovering the causes of several epigenetic profiles (that discovery was made in July 2017), I realized that all of the discoveries (the ones made in July 2017, as well as the ones made before that) put together added up to one large discovery. I decided to write about it. After a few days of thinking it over, I decided to write it in a way that simulated my own experience. The reader investigates the same things I investigated and, by doing so, experiences making some of the same discoveries I made. I finished in October of 2018. I've shown it to two people. One person read everything I wrote, did the investigations and was amazed by the discovery. The other person only read the first ten or eleven pages, didn't investigate anything, and has no idea what any of it is about.

To answer your question, to do a presentation on just one profile and its causes would take almost just as long.

My question to you, and to everyone else who see this, is what is the best way to share this discovery?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a discussion forum, so people here would like to discuss things. You have stated you made some discoveries (and briefly and pretty vaguely described those discoveries), but what is there to discuss. I am interested in epigenetics, I would love to see and discuss your research, but then you need to post some of it.
If you have so much evidence, what about sharing some of it HERE. Otherwise what is the point of this thread, without evidence there is nothing for us to discuss, so it seems like you are just (for a lack of a better term) gloating about discoveries made. 

Basically give us anything concrete, give us some evidence even if it is just a small part of all the discoveries you made. Or share the first 20(?) pages of your 'book' (not sure what to call it or how long it is). Things like 'causes of several epigenetic profiles' is pretty vague, it doesn't explain much and seems to be refuted by 'no', as that equals the amount of evidence provided. What tests did you to verify your discoveries, what alternatives exist to your explanation, did you test them. What about your general measurement methods, for what cells or organisms does this count? What is the difference between the epigenetic profiles? I assume you will have done some analyses of histone modifications, DNA methylation, residual RNA concentrations, and/or 3D genome structure. Just post any of those results, it could just be a bunch of pictures of Chip-seq analysis or whatever you have as evidence. 

Please note that I am not bashing you or your ideas, instead I hope to make you see why the current way of sharing your ideas may not be suitable for this forum. If you just want to let people know you made some discoveries, I think a profile message would be good. If you want to share your work, please do so! Me and others (probably) are interested in your discoveries, but with that must come the opportunity to review the evidence and doubt it. Right now it is similar to me saying that I have found a unifying theory of physics, or that I found novel protein functions, but that is all I tell anyone.

Hope to hear more about your work soon! 

-Dagl

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

You asked me if I could present evidence. To me, this meant making a professional and detailed presentation to a larger group of people. My answer was yes, but that it would take time for me to put it together.

You did not ask me to post evidence on this forum, but that is what other people understood your question to mean (which is understandable).

!

Moderator Note

Yes. Posting this evidence is required for further discussion.

Otherwise, the response is “good for you” and thread closure, because we’re a science discussion site.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

To answer your question, to do a presentation on just one profile and its causes would take almost just as long.

Hopefully you now understand you don't need a presentation.  All you need to do is present one piece of supporting evidence, just one piece.  It should take one paragraph of less.  That should kick off a discussion, which is kind of the point of this forum.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

It has two lists of people. All the people in the first list share an epigenetic profile.

I have a few questions.  What is the epigenetic profile they share?

1 hour ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

They also share a physical feature.

What is that physical feature?

1 hour ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

All the people in the second list also share an epigenetic profile and a physical feature.

What is their common profile and physical feature?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

How are epigenetic profiles defined, how are they measured or determined, where are there boundaries?

What does this list tell us? Is the frequency at which epigenetic profiles and these features match higher than what would be expected from regular distributions?

How often do these profiles and features match and how often do they not? Are there differences for particular features or profiles? What is the total sample size of the evidence?

How are these features defined, why these features and not other ones?

At the moment, I don't really see any evidence yet, nor explanation of your methods. It would be very useful if you could describe in a few paragraphs what you have done (in this or another particular experiment, you don't have to explain ALL your evidence, just start by explaining a single one very well), and also describe the results. This txt file is literally a bunch of names, there seems to be no evidence yet, nor does it give me any real idea of what the list describes or what we should interpret from it.

I hope you can provide more explanations and answer our questions!

Kind regards,
Dagl

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2021 at 8:27 PM, Bufofrog said:

I have a few questions.  What is the epigenetic profile they share?

I haven't named any of the epigenetic profiles. For now, I've just assigned them numbers. The people in the first list have epigenetic profile 35. The people in the second list have epigenetic profile 67.

On 3/30/2021 at 8:27 PM, Bufofrog said:

What is that physical feature?

The people in the epigenetic profile 35 list have a long neck. The people in the epigenetic profile 67 list have a line in their cheek (or in both cheeks).

On 3/31/2021 at 8:06 AM, Dagl1 said:

How are epigenetic profiles defined, how are they measured or determined, where are there boundaries?

Which genes are expressed and which are silenced. Each profile has its own specific pattern.

On 3/31/2021 at 8:06 AM, Dagl1 said:

What does this list tell us?

The lists are of people who share an epigenetic profile. Different physical phenotypes and different disease phenotypes are associated with each epigenetic profile. Each list has one physical phenotype associated with one epigenetic profile. You can look up the people on each list and see the physical phenotype for yourself (in other words, see evidence).

On 3/31/2021 at 8:06 AM, Dagl1 said:

Is the frequency at which epigenetic profiles and these features match higher than what would be expected from regular distributions?

Yes.

On 3/31/2021 at 8:06 AM, Dagl1 said:

How often do these profiles and features match and how often do they not? Are there differences for particular features or profiles?

They always match, but to different degrees.

On 3/31/2021 at 8:06 AM, Dagl1 said:

What is the total sample size of the evidence?

Over 26,000 individuals.

On 3/31/2021 at 8:06 AM, Dagl1 said:

How are these features defined, why these features and not other ones?

I chose two features (physical phenotypes) at random to share.

On 3/31/2021 at 8:06 AM, Dagl1 said:

This txt file is literally a bunch of names, there seems to be no evidence yet, nor does it give me any real idea of what the list describes or what we should interpret from it.

You didn't look up any of the people on the list to see the physical phenotypes for yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

You didn't look up any of the people on the list to see the physical phenotypes for yourself.

You are expecting us to go look for the evidence? You don't seem to know how this works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, zapatos said:

You are expecting us to go look for the evidence? You don't seem to know how this works.

Not to mention the insane level of HIPAA/IRB violation publicly posting your research subject's names on a public forum, then suggesting people dox them to verify the research. 

OP - Delete the file. Learn to anonymize data. Get an IRB approval for human subjects research. Posting first and last names with morphometric data is probably illegal where you live, and no one in their right mind will publish it, let alone give you a prize. 

Edit: I quarantined the post. This is a textbook example of why human subjects research requires ethics approval. 

Edited by Arete
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

I haven't named any of the epigenetic profiles. For now, I've just assigned them numbers.

I was asking what the profile was, not what it's name was.  It doesn't matter at this point I suppose.

9 hours ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

The people in the epigenetic profile 35 list have a long neck.

How were the lengths measured?  Were the neck lengths normalized for age, height, gender, etc.  What is the average normalized neck length?  How much does the neck length for profile 35 deviate from the average?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

Which genes are expressed and which are silenced. Each profile has its own specific pattern.

They always match, but to different degrees.

Over 26,000 individuals.

I chose two features (physical phenotypes) at random to share.

You didn't look up any of the people on the list to see the physical phenotypes for yourself.

I quoted only the relevant responses I want to discuss:

1. You say that each profile has its own specific pattern, and then you talk about gene expression and silencing, but that doesn't really answer my question:
How did you determine what the boundaries are of 1 profile versus the next, if 2 people have the exact same gene expression except for 1 gene, are they the same profile? If so, at how much deviation do we find ourselves in another profile? How did you determine these boundaries? Have you considered alternatives?

2. So your profiles always match a trait, it never is wrong? What does 'to different degrees' mean when we are talking about matching. Either a profile associates with it or not right? Or have you scaled all the physical traits, so that one can get a score of 0 to x for 'long neckedness'? 
Please elaborate how they are matched, how things can be partially matched, and how is it possible that it matches always, you realise this is very unlikely with 26000 samples... 

3. I am asking about how you chose to determine what physical phenotypes there were, you say it always matches, so how did you determine what a specific trait is. I don't care about why you chose these two to share, I am wondering about how you generated your list of total physical phenotypes, how you determined the boundaries and why not alternatives.

4. A list of people that I have to look up is not evidence, A I am a person, I can't quantify physical traits without significant amounts of bias, instead a computer should do this or a panel of people with very clear instruction. B Your list is going to be the definition of confirmation bias, I don't particularly doubt that these people from your dataset, for which you have produced epigenetic pattern definitions and physical trait definitions and which you then matched, will show the association that you are trying to tell us about. However, that doesn't mean anything; if I show you a bunch of pingpong balls that are all red, and I then tell you that I found red to be associated with pingpong balls, because, look all of the red pingpong balls that I am showing are red. Then this doesn't hold up. This is why we need frequency tables of the epigenetic patterns and of the physical traits, I would also love to actually see the statistics and the tests you have done to confirm your finding (again, you don't have to go showing everything, just of this one experiment). 

At the moment, I find it hard to believe that you have discovered anything, let alone came across an Nobel prize-winning discovery. This has little to do with the evidence, but a lot with your presentation and communication (skills). You might have discovered something really cool, but so far you have not provided evidence yet, and the lack in scientific rigour and the ease at which you apparently accept something to be evidence, makes it very hard for me to believe that you did actually find something. I think that regardless of what you have found, this is something you can improve on a lot!

I am looking forward to hearing and seeing a bit more of the more methodical, quantitative and statistical side, since that is eventually how we can falsify information.
Goodluck! 

Edited by Dagl1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP reminds me of a hypothesis (or, crazy idea) on another (alleged) science forum, a decade or more ago, by a member called Hoppi, or Happi, or something similar. The essence of that hypothesis was that one could identify individuals who practiced frequent masturbation (and the extent of this masturbation) by the slight angle at which they held their head away from the vertical. Posts were accompanied by numerous photographs of famous people along with an assessment of their onanistic habits. The current proposals on this thread, while supposedly more substantive, seem equally devoid of evidence. Quite bizarre and not even entertaining.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Non-AcademicMadeADiscovery said:

I haven't named any of the epigenetic profiles. 

!

Moderator Note

But you named people, which doesn’t seem consistent with ethical standards and medical privacy laws.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.