Abortion creates bad, bad, BAD Morphic Fields
(saved in the "universal memory bank")
08-24-03

Dear Dr. Sheldrake:

While I have been waiting for your response on my previous email sent about a
month or so ago (re: "skipping intermediate stages of formation") , more issues
have come up and so I am writing to you again.

I heard this news about infants born with Hypoplastic Left Heart Syndrome or
HLHS disease wherein the left side of the heart is underdeveloped or even
unformed.

First thing that came to mind is possible "accident" during pregnancy like
perhaps, the mother bumping her abdomen causing such malformation
in the body; or any chemical/drug side effects, etc.    But if none of these
happened whatsoever, I thought there could be a much better explanation to
this (even though the medical community still says "unknown cause") other
than "a glitch of nature".   As always, in science and engineering we always
say there is a very good explanation why or how things happen.

I read from one of your books about how developing systems "regulate",
whereby even though part of the developing system is removed or if parts
are added - the system continues to develop (based on the usual pattern
of the morphic form field) in such a way that a more or less normal structure
is developed.

So how could it be that even though there exists the "normal morphic field" of
the WHOLE FORM and structure of the heart, AND no "accidents" or drug
side effects happened during pregnancy, why does the HLHS disease occur?
And that this "developing system" did NOT regulate? as to form into a complete
and functional structure (even if smaller version or whatnot)?

My explanation to this is due to fetuses being aborted right while the heart is still
forming inside the womb which upon repetitive procedures all these years have
created an actual BAD morphic field which is what causes HLHS effecting 1-2%
of infants born with congenital heart diseases.

Now I know you have admitted on one of your books that the origin of the
basic, normal existing morphogenetic fields (i.e. whole human form) is unknown.
(Although, as a creationist myself, I attribute these "GOOD" morphic fields to
be from God Himself.)   Yet, its persistence is due to the recurrence of developing
systems, happening over and over again - same human form since the beginning,
still the same now.

However, new and "evolved" morphic fields come about sometimes due to
scientific experiments (i.e. creating mutants, crystals, behavioral tests on lab
rats, etc.) and possibly through what happens in our environment, society and
culture. 

 And you also wrote before that only the first experiment is hard to
successfully accomplish.  But the moment one single successful breakthrough
occurs, the rest become repetitively successful - ala "Eureka"!
That's because a NEW morphic field is created for the "successful" breakthrough
which propagates and resonates throughout making subsequent procedures a
cinch to execute and reproduce anywhere it is done and from thereon - and to
keep in mind that this happens even without the scientists "sharing notes" or
without any knowledge what one has accomplished at another place.

This is where I make the connection between abortion done on fetuses while still
undergoing "system development"  to the HLHS disease.

All these decades that abortion has gone on, all these repetitive procedures
could have created BAD morphic fields.

You probably know that within 22 days after conception, the baby's heart starts
to beat.  Then other parts are still in the "development process". 

Abortionists really do not care what is developing at what point in time during
the pregnancy.   To abort is to abort the life in the womb 

I am afraid that all such missing limbs, missing parts, underdeveloped parts
are not simple glitches of nature.

I believe in morphogenetic fields for formative causation and I believe that
repetitive abortion procedures have now created many such BAD fields that
are in turn propagated in baby's formation inside the womb.   And it is really
unfortunate that some developing babies "resonate" (vibrate and get into the
same wave length) of these BAD fields that they are malformed and born with
such defects (about 1,500-2,000 babies are born per year with congenital
defects).

What do you think?  Do you think this is worthwhile to dig some more into
this possibility in order to prove its importance and bad side effects, therefore,
eliminate the main possible cause  which is abortion?

Okey, I know this could open a new can of worms as why not eliminate
other suspicious activities that could possible be causing such and such
diseases or even behavioral inclinations, i.e. same gender attraction, etc.
because they are creating new morphic fields...Yet, I do think it is very much
worthwhile to study morphic fields effects caused by abortion and prevent
such unfortunate birth defects among the future of  humankind.

Thank you again for your perusal of my emails and I am really looking forward
to your comments and response.

P.S. Skipping Intermediate Stages of Formation (was Re: Tuning Fork - Stem Cell)

June 29, 2003

Dear Dr. Sheldrake:

Thank you for your response to my letter.
I hope you do not mind a few more follow-up questions here.

Firstly, yes I have to correct my improper statement, "morphogenetic fields are not in
any time or space dimension".    What I meant based on my understanding is that
morphogenetic fields are not limited, controlled or governed by time or space because
they actually propagate outside of time or space.
I.e. 
i) (space) distant experimental results at one place are learned by subjects at a far
   distant place, even without any contact with one another.  "Something" got
   transmitted to same-species subjects and they "learned" the same "trick" that was
   taught or trained to others in another part of the world.
ii) (time) likewise, the next generation offsprings of this species already "know" about
    such "trick" without their parents teaching them about it or without being trained to
    do it.  "Something" gets passed onwards from the past to subsequent
    generations.
iii) (time) same human form gets generated over and over again (remembered) since
    the beginning and onwards (bar Darwin's evolution theory)
(reference: "Recovering the Soul, A Scientific and Spiritual Search"
by Larry Dossey, M.D.)

About "intermediate stages" - your book, "The Hypothesis of a New Science of
Life, Morphic Resonance", alluded to it in general under chapter 6, section 6.7,
"A summary of the hypothesis of formative causation", note (vii) "Morphic resonance
from the intermediate stages of previous similar processes of morphogenesis tends
to canalize subsequent similar morphogenetic processes into the same chreodes."
And note (xi) implies the existence of such many stages for each and every
morphic germ/unit, " The morphogenetic fields of morphic units influence
morphogenesis by acting upon the morphogenetic fields of their constituent parts.
Thus, the fields of tissues influence those of cells; those of cells, organelles;
...these actions depend on the influence of higher-level probability structures
on lower-level probability structures and thus inherently probabilistic..."

Again, my main question in lieu of the above-mentioned is:
What occurs if intermediate stages of formation are skipped, i.e. a lower-level
early structure such as embryonic stem cell that is implanted into a fully-formed
organ or human part?

(By the way, I may have an erroneous understanding of "organelle" , that it is 
higher or later stage form than a cell; that it is the unit prior to organ tissue?
Or is it actually a unit below embryonic stem cell?  Thanks for correction or
affirmation.)

Some further questions:
1)  Considering "mechanistic" and "vitalist" views or whatever apply here, do you
     know of any experiment that resulted in a successful "regeneration",
     wherein the  "embryonic" part of species is transplanted into a grown or adult part
     for its repair?  (Thus, skipping intermediate stages of development.)
2) Could you cite more examples of grown/full organism successful experiments
    that are more at the "cellular" level than what I list here?
     i) skin grafting, i.e. burn victims
     ii) hair root transplantation, i.e. from non-bald part to balding part
3)  Do you have any idea or proposal on how to do an experiment that
     distinctively compares embryonic part vs. full-organ part transplantation
     which may further prove existence of "intermediate stages
     morphogenetic fields" of resonance? That using "embryonic" part (regardless of
     its pluripotency to become many things) will never work because it can not
     "resonate" to the morphogenetic field of a full organ/organism?
     
My point in refuting "embryonic stem cell" researches is because of my objection
against human cloning and embryo-killing for stem cell harvest.

In my understanding of morphogenetic field propagation, we get into this form
based on what happened over and over again and it is very cumulatively based
on "influences of the majority" and probabilistic theory and as the same species
"resonate" to the field's propagation.   I have my worries on "repeated" mutations
done by scientists at the embryonic level, even starting at fertilization for human
cloning, and human-killing for embryonic stem-cell harvesting.

Now I do not think your statements here provide a relief on what scientists are
doing at the embryonic stem cell level -
In chapter 7, section 7.3, "Altered pathways of morphogenesis",  I quote:
"... The morphogenetic fields of a species are not fixed, but change as the species
evolves.  The greatest statistical contribution to the most common morphological
types which will also be those  which developed under the most usual environ-
mental conditions..."
Then in section 7.7, "The inheritance of acquired characteristics", at the end of this
chapter, "...Mutilations of fully-formed structures would not alter their pathways of
morphogenesis unless they regenerated.  Hence, mutilations of NON-generating
structures would not be expected to influence the development of subsequent
organisms.  This conclusion is in agreement with the findings that the amputation
of the tails of mice and the circumcision of Jews have no significant hereditary
effects."

4)  Since human embryonic stem cell is "pluripotent" and it is the starting point of
the many human parts and organs, basically the beginning of its "generation", would
not the many experimentations, mutilations, implantations and skipping intermediate
stages of formation contribute to the alteration of the human form's morphogenetic
field?

5) More on my main question about skipping intermediate stages, would you
please share some more insights on this area, even at the biochemical aspect or
whichever contextual area of expertise you prefer - taking embryonic stem cell
and transplanting it to a fully-grown (non-generating) organ in order to find cures
for form-degenerative diseases.

Thank you very much for your time and perusal of this matter.


June 15, 2003

Dear Dr. Sheldrake:

I have read some of your researches, writings and books on morphogenetic field,
morphic resonance, theory of formative causation in the past 7 years or so. 
I  recently bought and started reading, "The Sense of Being Stared At and Other
Aspects of the Extended Mind."

One question that comes to mind the more I learn about morphogenetic field effect is:
     "Can this explain the 'phantom limb' phenomenon?"
You know, how an amputee continues to feel his/her missing arm, leg, hand or foot?
Is it due to the persistent existence of the target/original form field (still with full
arms and legs) even though the physical part is no longer there?

In my limited readings on formative causation, I have not encountered something on
"skipping intermediate stages of formation" and how does this affect the final target 
form (i.e. jumping from embryonic cell into adult organs or full human organism).
And so, I try to tackle this below and your perusal and comments would be very
much appreciated.

Before I proceed to the main topic I would like to discuss with you (i.e. "Nanog",
master gene found in embryonic stem cell and how does this relate to the morphic
resonance of  other non-embryonic stem cell's morphogenetic field), please allow
me to give you the side  where I am coming from.

My background is in Electronics, Electrical and Communications Engineering which
is based a lot on Quantum Theories and the Laws of Thermodynamics and other
physics and chemical laws.   Thus, I am able to follow your scientific researches
at least, in a basic and more practical sense.

I also have some "metaphysical" take on this as I consider myself a Roman Catholic
apologist who have tackled a lot of issues and posted articles on several topis such
as Creation vs. Evolution, Effects of cultures, societies and environment on, as you
term, "physico-chemical morphic units", i.e. gene level.   I have tried to combine
Science and Religion instead of separating them, etc.

Then in the field of  "communication" - somehow, someday, I hope to discover
something more beyond wireline and wireless electromagnetic field types of 
transmission and reception.   (I.e. at the apparition hill in Medjugorje, former
Yugoslavia, tests were done using some radiation equipment that compared
readings when prayers went on vs. when there was none.   This meter actually
 registered significant differences.)

So, I definitely admire your writings and books that tackle and deal with this subject
matter.

I have also tried naively to see how this "great mind" field or such "morphogenetic
form field" may be related to and attributed to God's Omniscience, Omnipresence
and Omnipotence in the questions (again in my lame attempts to join science 
and religion):
- Are these morphogenetic fields that surround us a big part of God's Great Grand
  "Control System" Scheme?  (God knows everything, is everywhere and God does
   and controls everything.)
- Did God create and setup such "field"? Then let everything's morphogenesis take
  place by designing each thing's "tuning fork frequency"?  Thus each thing or
  morphic unit forms into this or that, over and over again, as long as it is tuned it
  to its specific morphogenetic field (based on God's specifications)
- Somehow, bad things like flaws, errors in society, environmental factors, etc.
  could affect (add or subtract) to these form fields.?  And so that explains no one
  is perfect - we form into something imperfect, fallible and prone to illnesses, etc.?


Now, I have something I would like to refute again --- science's attempts on mere
physico-chemical, gene-level, manipulations without regard of the possibilities
beyond merely matter, energy and currently known physical/chemical laws.

So someone discovered "Nanog" - a master gene that is active only in embryonic
stem cell.   (Source: "Master Gene" Could Eliminate Embryonic Stem Cell,
Washington Post, May 30, 2003)   Scientists claim this master gene is
responsible for the cell's "pluripotency" which is a unique ability to become any
type of cell.

Here's a list of  issues I have on embryonic stem cell research:
A.  Human gene vs. mouse gene  -  different folks, different strokes

  The referenced article stated that the scientist took a "human" nanog gene and
  put it into a "mouse" embryonic stem cells.    (Findings: "nanog prevented the
  process that would have converted the cells into specialized tissue, suggesting
  that if the nanog gene in adult stem cells were re-awakened, the gene might
  reprogram the cells to allow them to function as embryonic stem cell.")
  
  In my practical understanding of the theory of formative causation, each morphic
  unit or matter has its own morphogenetic field that it is "programmed" (strengthened
  and "remembered" based on past/previous repetitive formation) to resonate,
  reverberate or tune into in order to "form into being" or for  morphogenesis to take
  place.

  Besides cross-matters', cross-species', or among different matters'  different
  morphogenetic fields, there are also various types for each and every stage of
  development - from sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules,crystals,...organelles,
  cells,tissues,organs, organisms.   Each has its own "target" morphogenetic field
  to form into.

  This means, the organ or organism will get formed (even through regeneration and
  regulation) into its field's "final target" form (regardless if it is smaller or bigger
  version).

  So what about the case of "mutants" - like the experiment above?

  Aren't the results/findings very much inconclusive considering the scientists
  "mixed" human matter with mouse matter?  (This is one main problem with
  reliance merely on the physico-chemical manipulations in order to build forms.)

  Based on your book, "Hypothesis of A New Science of Life Morphic Resonance",
  the "dominant field" would garner more control over the final form.  And this
  may depend on how often the same formation got resonated repeatedly and
  thus its morphogenetic field got strengthened and "remembered".

  In that situation, which morphogenetic field has the dominant field?  Human gene
  or mouse gene?   Considering afterall the same gene line gets formed over and
  over again throughout history.  But since there is no measuring the "morphogenetic
  field" (yet) at this time, it is very hard to tell and make valid, viable conclusions
  with this type of experimentations.

B.  Human embryonic stem cell vs. human non-embryonic stem cell

  Embryonic stem cell research is unjustified considering there are a lot of scientific
  researches on non-embryonic stem cells (i.e. stem cells from new-born's umbilical
  cord and adult's organs) which prove their viability and success in treating medical
  problems like successful regeneration and repair of heart cells to replace its "dead"
  muscles.

  On the other hand, perhaps due to the embryonic stem cell's "pluripotency" itself,
  the cells'  "regeneration" feature  has caused more harm and damage than repair.

  Why is this so?

  In lieu of this, some things to point out from your book are:
  - Morphogenetic fields are not in any time or space dimensions
  - Past morphogenetic fields of the same organism affects the future
    morphogenesis by being added (cumulative) to the "Great Grand Scheme's
    Memory Bank"  (i.e. remembered to get formed into the same form over and
    over again)
  - However, present and future morphogenetic fields do not have effects on
    previous morphogenesis (in IT/engineering terms, "not backwards compatible")
  - Specific matters resonate or reverberate only to its own morphogenetic field,
    thus forming into what it is supposed to be

 1.  To use an analogy to Communications Engineering here, is it possible that
  the embryonic stem cell is at a "front end" stage wherein there is not much
  "filtering" or "fine-tuning" that is ongoing? such that it is receptive to ALL
  different morphogenetic fields as its physico-chemical morphic unit can
  handle?

  However, these morphogenetic fields are exactly the next stage to form into
  such that there can be no big jumps to "adult or backend" stage or no
  skipping intermediate stages.

 2.  This is because there is no route, channel, path or line whatsoever to make
  the big leap as those morphogenetic fields are not available for "access" and
  "resonance" to at this stage.   In short, the embryonic stem cell's physico-
  chemical morphic unit is no "tuning fork" to later stages' morphogenetic fields
  that it can form into that "back end's" target destination form from the frontend
  stage.

 3.  On morphogenesis, let:

 Embryonic stem cell  =  earliest/ frontend stage

 organelle's like beginning of heart, brain, kidney, etc.
                                                 =  intermediate stages

 Non-embryonic stem cells (umbilical cord or adult organ) = backend or target
                                                    last stages reached
 
 Figure 1 shows:
 earliest/frontend form ---> intermediate form ---> backend/final target form




  NOTES (rules?):
  - intermediate form can not be skipped from embryonic stage
  - no access to backend/final target morphogenetic form field from embryonic
    stage

  a.  When embryonic stem cell (which is still at the earliest stage of morphogenesis)
  is introduced into an adult heart organ for its regenerative repair, although the 
  embryonic stem cell is pluripotent to form into many different forms, this adult
  organ is not necessary that "intermediate" form it can become.    This is because
  the many different morphogenetic fields it can resonate to are exactly at earlier
  organelles' stages.   Thus, it may appear that the embryonic stem cell starts to
  regenerate several cells like it is repairing the heart, but it may erroneously be
  forming some prior or intermediate organelle's form, other than an actual final
  stage's full heart parts.

  This may explain why there has not been any concrete evidence of any success
  in embryonic stem cell researches in repairing fully formed organs.

  b.  On the other hand, other stem cells from umbilical cord or other adult organs,
  organs, since these are parts of the "backend", target last stage of the human
  organ or organism, these have "direct access" to this last stage's morphogenetic
  fields (i.e. full heart form, full liver form, full lungs form, etc.) as well as
  anything below or a morphic unit's constituent parts.   This shows the stem cell
  has "direct access" and can resonate to all the  morphogenetic fields in the last
  stage (i.e. "template" of a fully formed heart).

  Thus, when stem cells from these are put in an organ, say to repair the heart,
  these stem cells can very well "tune-in" to a heart organ morphogenetic field's
  morphic resonance and thus "know" to regenerate cells that form into a full heart.
 
  This may explain the success in studies using non-embryonic stem cell to repair 
  already full organs in organisms.

Conclusion:
Based on the above notes, arguments and all the researches on morphogenetic 
and formative causation,  I conclude that the use of embryonic stems cells to
continue to find cures to form-degenerative diseases that occur in fully-formed
and functional organs or organisms seems moot and unfeasible.   This is because
the embryonic stem cell is at the earliest formative stage which does not have any
direct link to the morphogenetic field in the final and target form.   Basically its
morphic unit does not have the basic structure (not valid "tuning fork") that can
resonate to the target form's morphogenetic field.  Its morphic resonance at this
stage is mainly within the "intermediate", pre-mature forms'  morphogenetic field
which is not the final and target form's morphogenetic field. Thus, erroneous
formations occur that cause more damage than repair to the "defective" organ.

That the "pluripotency" of embryonic stems cells are viable only towards intermediate
stages of formation - the next morphic unit it normally forms into, i.e. organelle. 
Taking a big leap from embryonic form towards fully-formed organ's tissue repair is
not possible if the morphic unit's structure and morphogenetic field effect for each
and every stage of formation is considered.


Thank you for reading my very elementary and practical handle on this otherwise
very complex field of science that is way beyond my league and ability.

I am looking forward to any comments or response from you.    Again, thank you
very much for all your contributions to this study which I think can have a great
impact in scientific researches and experimentations.