Bacteria

[Telos]

I was just recently astounded to learn from BBC's David Attenborough that 90% of the living cells that make up the human body are not actually human, but bacteria. We all learn in school that we have microorganisms (MO) in our body, but I don't remember that figure  

Since then I've been doing some research, and it appears to me that Kundalini and energy body work function to allow the human body, which is only a small bit human, to act more harmoniously in biological symbiosis. This is significant because bacteria and MO form the basis of the entire planetary ecosystem. And there's so much about bacteria and MO that we don't understand. For instance, it was just recently discovered that bacteria have unique ways of utilizing magnetic fields, and different kinds of magnetic fields are produced by our hearts and brains.

Would it be erroneous to think that the bacteria in our body are affected by our own magnetic fields, when they are already affected by the Earth's? They are already affected by our chemicals.

Bacteria have the most primal form of consciousness. Yoga is said to organize primal consciousness.

I hope others find this elucidating

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1430/is_n1_v16/ai_14372875
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,65252,00.html
http://origin.www.nature.com:80/news/2004/041122/full/041122-13.html

Edit: The description heading originally read "they make up 90% of our body" and has since been edited for clarity

[Tyciol]

Quite interesting indeed, I suppose that's where the ones like Hulda Clark and Alex Chiu get their ideas.

I am having some trouble picturing it. Are they talking volume-wise, mass-wise... while I know there's a lot of bacteria, 80% seems high. I wonder what would happen to all that space were we to rid ourselves of them, would we shrink (other than the obvious dying from losing necessary ones...).

[CaCoDeMoN]

I think that these numbers can be misleading. Even if 90% percent of cells in human body would be bacteria(I think that percentage is much smaller...), the only way to really show how much of human body consists of bacteria is not to give cell count percentage, but mass percentage.

[Telos]

A mass percentage would be way more misleading, as up to 70 percent of the body's mass is water.

Attenborough is an extremely accomplished biologist and, from what I can see, has no need to mislead. The connection to yoga was suggested by me.

Edit: The description heading in my post was misleading, though. I've edited it to be more accurate

[halfphased]

I take hatha yoga classes and my instructer used to work in a research lab and has made it a point to have a thourough working knowledge of the current understandings of how our bodies work and what is contained within them.  

He says that each pour of our body has something like 90million or billion (i can't remember which, but either way it's a heck of a lot) bacterias in them.  

Not to mention all the bacteria and viruses and even worms that are floating around our bodies.

We are hosts for these beings as they have been around a lot longer than we have.

[Telos]

....We are hosts for these beings as they have been around a lot longer than we have.

And we may have evolved from the same microbial ancestors.


I also wanted to add that cell percentage is important because cells are travelling and reproducing masses that communicate with each other through the use of chemicals.

[Wells]

Your quote isn't quite right.

It's not the case that 90% of our cells are bacteria, but that almost every cell in our bodies contains many bacterial cells called mitochondria.  These are the things that produce our energy from glucose - VERY important.

At some point in evolution (very early on, when we were still little bundles of cells in the sea) our cells merged with these bacteria to form a symbiotic relationship.  We feed the mitochondria, they feed us.

So yes it is very interesting stuff, you raise some good points.

[Telos]

Wells, as far as I know mitochondria are not classified as bacteria, but are only said to have evolved from an endosymbiont bacterium. Everything else you said appears to be right. Not to question your authority, but I'm trying to learn more. Are you a biology student?

Here is Attenborough's exact quote, taken out of the context of learning about bacteria (and not necessarily about humans):

If a visitor from another planet were to analyze all the cells that make up my body he or she would come to the conclusion that I am only 10% human. That is because 90% of the living cells in my body are bacteria. Bacteria are the most numerous living organisms on Earth. They're also among the smallest.

So, I did get the quote wrong. He said "living" cells, which I guess is opposed to the dead ones that no longer function. I'll edit the description heading again.

Wikipeida has some numbers in its bacteria articles:

Overall, there are about ten times as many bacteria as human cells in the body, 1 quadrillion (10^15) versus 100 trillion (10^14), with bacterial cells being much smaller than human cells.

Most of the bacteria live in the digestive system or on the exposed surfaces of the body, including the skin and eyes, in the mouth, nose, and ears.

[Tyciol]

Wait, aren't mitochondria those things in the Phantom Menace that they say makes the force, or am I thinking of something else? I think I have heard the term used scientifically to do with eyes... so I'm likely wrong.

Cell count is indeed misleading, since, after all, a lot of human tissue cells may be larger than bacterial cells.

To also be fair, they're also not necessarily part of our body, just guys hitching a ride.

Do you think we'll get to the point where we'll no longer need bacteria in us?

Also, has anyone seen Naruto with that bug guy? I forget his name at the moment, but he's bloody awesome. He's the only thing that makes me like bugs. Him, and the need to make peace with spiders.

[Telos]

Midichloreans are in Star Wars, supposedly inspired by mitochondria.

Human tissue cells are larger. So, what you're saying is, "size matters?" They'd beg to differ.

Reasons why bacterial size doesn't matter to their importance.

1) mobility
2) structural integrity
3) function
4) diversity
5) communication networks

They alter our bodies all the time. Left unchecked by subtle energies, could they turn against us and cause disease? I mean, all this energy body work has to make contact with the human body somehow, and why would we need to do it if it didn't concern organisms that weren't of our body, but foreign?

They're not part of our human body. A lot of them do specific tasks that we need them to do. "Hitching a ride" means that they're looking to get off. What about the ones that stay? Could they not also benefit us, and us them, like the ancient mitochondria?

I don't think the entire basis of yoga revolves around bacteria. But symbiont MO in the human body is a direct connection to the larger planetary symbionce. I see it as a theory.

[CaCoDeMoN]

Mitochondria is not a bacterial cell at all. It is a part of cell(human, bacteria or other). What you are saying is like saying that "liver is a separate organism inside human body". Do you know that mitochondria are built using the same genetical material that is used to build cells? This is why they don't match the definition of an separate organism.

[Tyciol]

I think size does matter, and would like to see a new % based on size, or mass, not molecules. It is misleading.

[Telos]

In that case Tyciol, it's most likely <1%

Sorry if I mislead you.

[Mister Anjilek]

I think in the context it is used it is misleading.  If we were "10% not human", I would assume it related to mass.

However, I think the idea that we are in fact so much bacteria is astonishing. It actually makes me think about another thread on breatharians. While it seems like a long stretch to assume that the human body could change it's daily functions over a year or 2 to not need food, it seems like a lot less of a stretch to think that a bacteria's by-products could be altered. And through that alteration the bacteria could create a by-product to sustain human life.

[CaCoDeMoN]

However, I think the idea that we are in fact so much bacteria is astonishing. It actually makes me think about another thread on breatharians. While it seems like a long stretch to assume that the human body could change it's daily functions over a year or 2 to not need food, it seems like a lot less of a stretch to think that a bacteria's by-products could be altered. And through that alteration the bacteria could create a by-product to sustain human life.

Breatharianism is biologically impossible(I don't say it's impossible at all..). Every living organism needs energy to live. From where would bacteria take energy to sustain human life?

[Telos]

Alright - I'll change the description heading once again and take out the quote and replace it with my real question.

Bacteria have successfully been used to treat cancer by injecting them into the tumors directly. This method is not widely used, however, because the tumors usually grow back.

People speak of curing themselves of cancer or HIV by leading a healthy and highly spiritual life with meditation, visualization and energy work. What's the biological connection?

Making the immune system stronger? In the case of cancer, that's unlikely. Cancer is an enormous killer because it circumvents immune responses by posing as healthy cells. Perhaps the bacteria within us are influenced by the magnetic fields created by the brain and heart during visualization exercises. If everyday the patient focused positive thoughts on a particular area of the body, the bacteria might follow this direction in the field and consume the cancer cells. It's more complex in the case of HIV, so I won't venture to theorize.

[CaCoDeMoN]

Making the immune system stronger? In the case of cancer, that's unlikely. Cancer is an enormous killer because it circumvents immune responses by posing as healthy cells. Perhaps the bacteria within us are influenced by the magnetic fields created by the brain and heart during visualization exercises. If everyday the patient focused positive thoughts on a particular area of the body, the bacteria might follow this direction in the field and consume the cancer cells. It's more complex in the case of HIV, so I won't venture to theorize.

It is impossible that bacteria could distinguish cancer cells from normal cells. I think that more realistic is that from energy work cancer cells just self-destruct. There is a self-destruction mechanism in every cell, that should work when cell is mutated/damaged, but it does not always work, and if it will not work in one cell, it's enough to start a cancer. About HIV: I think that immune system can be only help when fighting HIV. Viruses are not alive, and need other cells to reproduce.

[Mister Anjilek]

However, I think the idea that we are in fact so much bacteria is astonishing. It actually makes me think about another thread on breatharians. While it seems like a long stretch to assume that the human body could change it's daily functions over a year or 2 to not need food, it seems like a lot less of a stretch to think that a bacteria's by-products could be altered. And through that alteration the bacteria could create a by-product to sustain human life.

Breatharianism is biologically impossible(I don't say it's impossible at all..). Every living organism needs energy to live. From where would bacteria take energy to sustain human life?

Sunlight and osmosis through the elements in the air. I am still not sure I buy it either, but the idea of a bacteria using water and sunlight to produce proteins and minerals to support life, seems like less of a stretch than the simple," I can live on water" theory.

[CaCoDeMoN]

Sunlight and osmosis? I think that breatharian people would become green then(I could explain this in details from chemical side, but I don't know english names for substances involved). Also surface of human body is too small to provide necessary amount of energy this way. There's an animal that can use photosynthesis, but it goes into offline mode then. It is called euglena.

[Wells]

Mitochondria is not a bacterial cell at all. It is a part of cell(human, bacteria or other). What you are saying is like saying that "liver is a separate organism inside human body". Do you know that mitochondria are built using the same genetical material that is used to build cells? This is why they don't match the definition of an separate organism.

OK Mitochondria aren't techinically bacteria, but they are Prokaryotes which are less evolved cells than Eukaryotes which is what a normal human cell is.

It's widely believed that the mitochondria did evolve from bacteria and merged with our cells a long time ago.

Our cells have their DNA, and mitochondria have their own set of DNA.  They replicate independant of our cells - so our DNA has no code that says how to make them.  So in actual fact they are seperate organisms, just under this symbiotic relationship as I said before.

I did take biology years ago, unfortunately I've forgotten a lot of it (!), hence my slight mistake with the bacteria.

[Mister Anjilek]

I was watching the Discovery Science channel the other night and an interesting bit on Quantum Physics came up, which led to my mind thinking along these lines.

There are bacteria (or were, I can't remember exactly) which were able to take in hydrogen, and depending on their environment, create any number of other substances. I believe they said Carbon as one of the elements produced.

This is relevant to both this discussion and quantum physics because of the ability for a single celled organism to change the atomic structure of a substance. Being able to add or subtract electrons would make for endless possibilities for the production of elements. And if they could alter atoms, then it would not be to far of a stretch to assume that a bacteria could also combine atoms to create and number of things which the body needs to survive.

Just speculation and theorizing, but I believe a time will come when all things "spiritual" will be proven with science.

[CaCoDeMoN]

There are bacteria (or were, I can't remember exactly) which were able to take in hydrogen, and depending on their environment, create any number of other substances. I believe they said Carbon as one of the elements produced.

I think that this is impossible. Please try to find how that bacteria was called, it's really interesting.