American biochemist
Missing: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Present digits repeat to show how many times they occur.
Three is the number of expression — the point at which a thing becomes shareable. Tradition links it to language, humour, performance and the ability to make an idea land. It is generally read as the most immediately likeable number, and the reading usually adds a warning in the same breath: fluency can outrun substance, and 3 is described as capable of talking its way past work it has not actually done.
A complete line in the grid.
Concentrated self-direction. Read as conviction that does not need external agreement — and does not always seek it.
Concentrated sensitivity. Read as perception so continuous it becomes hard to switch off.
Concentrated expression. Read as a voice that arrives before the edit does.
Read as impatience with structure and maintenance. Associated with starting well and leaving the scaffolding to someone else.
The centre of the grid, so its absence is weighted heavily. Read as difficulty adapting mid-course — a preference for the plan already chosen over the plan now indicated.
Read as a complicated relationship with obligation — either avoiding it or over-shouldering it, rarely a settled middle.
Read as reluctance to sit with an unresolved question. Associated with wanting the working answer rather than the true one.
Read as discomfort with power and money — not incapacity, but an unwillingness to claim authority openly.
Moolank 3 comes from the day of the month alone; Bhagyank 3 from the whole date. They coincide here, which happens for about 11% of this database and is read as root and destiny pointing the same way.
Jupiter. Expansion, teaching, counsel. Read as the most benefic assignment in the set.
Bhagyank uses the same arithmetic as the Western life path, so the two will always agree. That is not two traditions confirming each other — it is one calculation under two names.
The community as a whole doesn't listen patiently to critics who adopt alternative viewpoints. Although the great lesson of history is that knowledge develops through the conflict of viewpoints. If you simply have a consensus, it generally stultifies. It fails to see the problems of that consensus and it depends on the existence of critics to break up that iceberg and permit knowledge to develop. This is in fact one of the underpinnings of democratic theory. It is one of the reasons why we believe in notions of free speech and it's one of the great forces in terms of intellectual development.
I would not be surprised if there were another cause of AIDS and even that HIV is not involved.
I am afraid that those comments go back to the late 80's. At that time I was a skeptic — the argument based on Koch's postulates to try to distinguish between cause and association. … Today I would regard the success of the many antiviral agents which lower the virus titers (to be expected) and also resolve the failure of the immune system (only expected if the virus is the cause of the failure) as a reasonable proof of the causation argument
Sourced from Wikiquote, restricted to the subject’s own sourced sections.