DNA might turn out to be a hoax too- but denying DNA is a big political mistake. Debunking the notion that PCR can't diagnose a viral infection can easily be done- by simply explaining how PCR allegedly works. (The key point is PCR allegedly replicates only a tiny fragment of a virus- so even if PCR can duplicate DNA/RNA, then it certainly can't diagnose an infection. It would be like assuming "big" and "mistake" are the same word because they both contain the letter "i".)
If you start denying DNA, then everyone will think you're crazy- like a Flat Earther. (I believe the earth is a globe but I'm not 100% certain about that- so no disrespect to FEs.) It's better to assume PCR works as advertised and to use that knowledge to debunk virology.
You have a point here. Existing and existing as advertised may be 2 different things. I don't know actually. The problem is "if PCR could just be done correctly then it could be used to find a virus" is the lingering thought. That's the problem. You may recall RFK likes, "If vaccines could be safe they'd be great"-only there are no germs to make a vaccine for. All germs are either made up like viruses or are illnesses caused by toxic poor sanitation/pollution etc.
They always leave the door open don't they. Does it matter if it's out of ignorance or malice? Perhaps, but they should be rejected regardless, no excuses legitimizing a deception should be made on account of alleged intentions.
It should be obvious that both documents contain many fine details that should take a long time to research and refute. If, however, AFTER READING THEM, you still feel that "denying DNA is a big political mistake" and that "it's better to assume PCR works as advertised", then please feel free to join the comment spaces on those articles at the links I provided above. The author of both documents is very responsive to comments.
Her kids and her "DNA didn't match" until they took multiple samples and some places in her body did match and the DNA was not the same in her body depending on the place because she was a chimera.
I wonder if you have an idea what is going on here with the "test" and what are they finding if not DNA?
It's Ok, but I'm really not the one you need to talk to about this stuff. Do you know Jamie? I would ask him if you have not done so already. Jamie's twitter account is at: https://twitter.com/JamieAA_Again
IMHO and just spit-balling off the top of my head: there MAY be some "sequences" of something, but it MAY be protein-based or amino acids. However, I seriously doubt that such "sequences" "code for" or control ANYTHING and may more likely be the EFFECT of some other processes or entities.
I also think that the redox state may exert an influence on the synthesis of proteins, more so than any involvement by any so-called "genetic" entities. As Dr. Turner of the Perth Group points out:
"...In experiments conducted in the 1960s (upon which present day animal cloning is based) the exchange of cell nuclei proved that the character of a cell is determined by factors outside the nucleus.7-11 That is, factors within the cytoplasm determine what the DNA does – not vice versa. At present there is much evidence that the DNA function is regulated by the cellular redox state and its oscillations….” (from: https://www.theperthgroup.com/EPE/RedoxTheory.pdf ).
Rod, those docs are great really. However, most people can't plow thru so much either because of time or because they are not up on the basics of those topics. Also, you have some unfortunate commenters. I would advise you to make 2 new posts for the short winded that are 1-page summaries and disable comments and can link to the long versions and vice-versa. Did you notice most of my posts are only a few min read? Esp on SS, people only read a few lines and decide to open or delete the mail notice. But personally I think you are onto big fish with them
I fully realize that "most people can't plow thru" these documents. However, I was replying to ONE person in particular who may qualify as one of the "unfortunate commenters" you mention. I tend to reply to those commenters who seem to think (and write) like they are some sort of smarty pants with respect to all of this stuff! LOL! So my comment above was directed at one such commenter.
In fact, my substack and most comments I post here on SS are directed at readers who are NOT just "beginners" with respect to learning the truth about all of these issues. That is no longer MY target audience. It used to be, but, "been there, done that", as the saying goes. If we do NOT slaughter ALL of these frauds: virology, infectious disease, genetics/genomics, etc., the establishment WILL continue to create NEW hoaxes based on them ad infinitum...
Trust me... I speak from experience on these problems....
Have you considered, Rod, that as we slaughter all of those frauds, more will just keep appearing? Not as some sore of evil plan by a few evil people, but rather just by the nature of our "reality"? Notice that no matter how many lies are exposed there are still an endless number. The deeper you go the more you find. The more you find the more appear, whether deep in history, which we have no clue what is accurate and what is not, ( if there even is such a thing as accurate due to the fluid nature of existence), or current day situations. So many subjects seem to appear out of nowhere keeping people engaged trying to learn what is true, what is false, what is planned, what is happenstance, always keeping them from discovering what really is the whole point of being here.
I skimmed both documents which make good points. But there's no definitive proof in either documents- just lots of troubling red flags that PCR and DNA are both bunk, which could certainly be true. My point is 99.9% of people already think the no-virus crowd are lunatics so why make the problem even worse by denying DNA and PCR? It's unnecessary when you can use PCR itself to refute its usage as a viral test. A typical COVID PCR test checks for only 50 bases out of the alleged 30,000 bases in the SARS-COV-2 genome. More sophisticated PCR tests can check for several thousand bases- but so what? That's still only a tiny fraction of the entire genome so PCR can NOT diagnose a viral infection even if it can replicate a DNA strand. Virologists claim our bodies are teeming with trillions of viruses. So any cell culture must contain millions if not billions of viruses. So even if the COVID virus exists- then how can the virologists identify that one particular virus out of millions/billions in the culture? They can't, of course, so the sequenced virus genomes are all fake.
You are mainly correct, it is tangential to the discussion on Mullis, it happened to be in Omar's doc that I quoted so has taken off in the comments. It is ok for us to discuss of course but it was not the purport or plan of the post. If we learn something from it that is positive, a few people on this post discussing it won't change the no-virus image and though you have valid points any rational discussion is fair game when the goal is to get info, learn, and get more info.
Late to this party but I see numerous errors and unreferenced assertions as well as projections in Omars piece. Not to say Mullis is or isn't a psyop, just that Omar's piece is full of holes.
Even if DNA is real and PCR can find fragments that doesn't prove infection. It would just show there was a fragment of something. Anything else would be extrapolation without basis.
That's another part of the hoax "asymptomatic infection"... what bs.
Most Normies will think you are a lunatic for questionin questioning their sacred cows. I don't worry about that becuase I know I have spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours questioning all the fake reality that has been foisted on us. I don't know what the truth us but I for sure no many things that aren't true.
Most Norrnies have never spent even one mnute questioning what they have been told. They are afraid to go outside the Overton windows that have been constructed for them, because monsters., but also because they will be excluded from the herd, a fate worse than death. It' is why Sheeple is such an appropriate term for them.
Ouch. I first heard doubts about DNA in a Tom Cowan interview on The End of Covid https://theendofcovid.com/eoclms/the-new-cell-biology/ He said that organs don't even consist of cells. Cells are debris that organs bundle up and eject. So basically organ excrement.
In other news, I've always wondered how the heart is strong enough to pump blood through the entire body. A "Rising Tide Foundation" lecture by Gerald Pollack sheds some light on this: https://youtu.be/8qqyCA9vz_s?t=2913 It looks like the veins help transport blood with energy absorbed from infrared light. I was happy to feel that not all science is made up!
Cowan talks extensively on the heart. No, it's not a pump in the usual sense, that is quite clear. And it, in itself, is not what keeps the blood circulating. Very enlightening and crucial to health.
If there's no such thing as DNA molecules then it would stand to reason that there's no such thing as 2D graphene sheets. I can buy them on Amazon but they're definitely 3D as I can not only see them but also presumably handle the sheet. I mean if they were missing that 3rd dimension then there would be nothing to handle. Am I missing something?
This is a good point Lisa, but first lets separate Mullis as deception agent/movie star (read all of Omar's like if you wish a deeper dive), from the DNA issue. I'd also like to learn more about the graphene sheet issue, do they mean a bunch of sheets is 3D but each sheet is only 1 atom thick so essentially 2D?
Anyway the DNA issue is separate from Mullis as movie star and the graphene issues. What I think Omar is saying is that they really only have x ray crystallography on DNA as a supposed double helix, and even now as quadruplex, but that the molecule itself is only a model not actually found and isolated. Now, while I've studied a lot of mainstream stuff about DNA, genetics, etc I'm not up on how far the model goes wrt reality.
Sorry, I'm not really answering your question, but I think the idea is that PCR is a model of a model and it may not be anymore than, money, wars, elections, viruses, atom bombs, and other things that are all basically "fake", "ginned up" or "promoted" but have no substance. Clearly even with main stream info, PCR should not have any role in looking at disease or "germs" for any clinical reason, and it should stay in a lab even if there is some amplification of DNA because of misuse (fraud) and it's problems with fake (not false) positives.
DNA theory seems realistic to me. Mutation is real, but how far is DNA manipulation controllable? It looks like relevant experiments have been going on for a lot longer than perceived; possibly as early as the ideas of "natural selection" (Darwinism) "the survival of the fittest" (Spencer's Social Darwinism). With the most recent AI analyses, I assume that the models are becoming quite reliable, as long as the AI is allowed to do its computations, and the outcome might not be intelligible for humans, but it works. For this to work, humans must severely underestimate the capabilities of AI, which seems to me is one of the recent psyops:
"Pseudo-2D" would be accurate. But ..but ..the spaces in between the atomic mesh could theoretically be 2D, so...
Also, a sheet of paper is always used as an example as 2D against a 3D cube by people trying to explain the differences between dimensions. The paper example made my head hurt in 6th grade. Still would if I didn't accept the fact that the paper was merely a model being used for the sake of conversation.
Hey! Maybe viruses are also 2D pathogens, and the in-silico Covid virus is merely a model. That would explain why they have never er been seen or isolated, but instead, imagined.
I am totally ignorant on Science but have I not heard of this crap on TV Forensic Files? If this is a LIE then what of the many people convicted via use of PCR-type tests in evidence, so-called?
Is the money in your pocket an instantiation of efforts of you or your countrymen or a loan made to you and your countrymen out of thin air? Don't mean to be sinde...apologies.
So many controversies, and so little time to read all about all of ‘em, in order to allow for the overload of information to simmer.
It’s really about picking one’s battles, isn’t it?
At what point does an open-minded person simply stop giving a shred of credence to an opinion and call it a crackpot hypothesis? I don’t know. I presume that everyone needs to make this determination for him/herself.
You DO have to pick your battles and at some point many will realize, as I have, that none of it matters, not. one. bit. None of it. Our entire existence is essentially fake, as is, not really real as we perceive it, and we are powerful beyond our imagination. We create reality, both individually and collectively. We see what we expect to see. And we can change that. In the big picture one should live wonderfully, happily, lovingly, kindly, enjoying every day in as simple a way as possible, and create the life you want. Your thoughts really are the driving force. If you don't get to that point you will spend your life constantly "learning" new "facts" that prove just how much of a lie you've been living and it has no end. Why spend your days that way? It's a choice. Choose what makes you happyl
I realize that paternity tests are not conclusive. They only deal with probabilities, eg there is a one in one hundred and thirty million chance that man A isn’t the father of child B.
And the term “identical twins” is a euphemism in order to make the distinction between those twins and much more common fraternal twins.
Finding (so-called) “answers” — much like discovering so-called “truths” and so-called “knowledge” — is contained in the philosophical realm named “epistemology” and (arguably) the intersection of epistemology with logic. My understanding (which I don’t trust) is that these two realms deal with so-called “objective reality” while the realms of ethics and metaphysics and aesthetics deal with so-called “subjective reality”. Personally, I have concluded that reality is so sublime that no one understands it. A few people may achieve brief glimpses of it. These people are gifted with the seed of wisdom, and these people are usually rejected as heretics.
So what you're saying is William Shatner has never piloted a starship at warp speed to other planet, never fought Klingons with a phaser, never held a tribble.... because none of those things exist? Like Mullis, and valid PCR test that identifies viruses?
PCR already had credibility from fake HIV viral loads, everyone fell for this, it was well accepted and the testing equipment was all over already. I vote that Theranos was a psyop to get people used to genetic tests that would ALSO test for covid in tandem to PCR and maybe be a gateway for cancer "vaccines" that would just be more graphene vaxes. When Theranos fell they just had to live with that psyop failing but still had their main dig with PCR. Part 2 in that link didnt make a strong case for much besides that Theranos was a DS op. I saw Illumina had a bunch of ex-Theranos staff though, they clearly went from Spook op A to Spook op B. Just the office address is different. What the hell do I know though?
Interesting! I was going to raise the Rosalind Franklin x-ray crystallography 'image 51', which was done below. Nevertheless, DNA (a complex large molecule) may apparently be extracted and may be seen by the naked eye as well. ie. https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/211691/view/extracted-dna
As we move from macro to micro scales, we move progressively in the direction of inference and indirect observation. Simply saying, 'no one has seen it, ipso facto, 'it doesn't', exist is moving from science toward philosophy, for example ~ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/64794.Dancing_Wu_Li_Masters
The bollox of RT-PCR and RAT tests is indisputable, as is 'viruses', and all the other Klingons.
Perceiving The Matrix is becoming a full time preoccupation!! Little wonder then that so many stumble at the first fence.
"...there is no such thing as a “DNA molecule”…because no human…has ever observed one and all…microscopic images are created by computer."
Once again repeating, simply saying, 'no one has seen it, ipso facto, 'it doesn't' exist', is moving (one generous interpretation) from explicit, falsifiable science toward unfalsifiable, generalisable philosophy.
The basic modern procedure outlined here (see WickedPedo of all places) with bibliography:
Cells that are to be studied need to be collected.
Breaking the cell membranes open exposes the DNA along with the cytoplasm within (cell lysis).
Lipids from the cell membrane and the nucleus are broken down with detergents and surfactants.
Breaking down proteins by adding a protease (optional).
Breaking down RNA by adding an RNase (optional).
The solution is treated with a concentrated salt solution (saline) to make debris such as broken proteins, lipids, and RNA clump together.
Centrifugation of the solution, which separates the clumped cellular debris from the DNA.
DNA purification from detergents, proteins, salts, and reagents is used during the cell lysis step. The most commonly used procedures are:
Ethanol precipitation usually by ice-cold ethanol or isopropanol. Since DNA is insoluble in these alcohols, it will aggregate together, giving a pellet upon centrifugation. Precipitation of DNA is improved by increasing ionic strength, usually by adding sodium acetate.
Phenol–chloroform extraction in which phenol denatures proteins in the sample. After centrifugation of the sample, denatured proteins stay in the organic phase while the aqueous phase containing nucleic acid is mixed with chloroform to remove phenol residues from the solution.
Minicolumn purification relies on the fact that the nucleic acids may bind (adsorption) to the solid phase (silica or other) depending on the pH and the salt concentration of the buffer.
Cellular and histone proteins bound to the DNA can be removed either by adding a protease or having precipitated the proteins with sodium or ammonium acetate or extracted them with a phenol-chloroform mixture before the DNA precipitation.
After isolation, the DNA is dissolved in a slightly alkaline buffer, usually in a TE buffer, or in ultra-pure water.
Thanks, yes you can see I pasted that link into a comment above. Look at the discussion of Friedrich's and others' experiments in this link, it becomes a long read and tell us what you think, no rush, but there seems to be multiple serious issues with the whole shebang. Thanks as always.
Thank you for your patience and gentle prod PM! The journey wrought by the instigation of political/medical/scientific over-reach exemplified by the use of fallacious RT-PCR / RAT "tests," "COVID," and "SARs-CoV-2" dropped the scales from one's eyes. This process is on going ;-).
The DNA DISCOVERY, EXTRACTION AND STRUCTURE. A CRITICAL REVIEW article should be part of a compulsory curriculum in critical thinking. It sure exposed a hole in my own knowledge along with a mass of educationally instilled assumptions. Soon they'll be no one left to talk too!
What seems increasingly clear to me is that in life and the complex fluid matrix that surrounds and embodies it, and which also interacts in innumerable ways with the seen and unseen external environment, there is and can be no logical useful relationship to the desiccated, hydrolysed, irradiated, teased, macerated, chemically fixed, tortured exemplars that are thought of as surrogates, theoretical or otherwise. The distinctions imposed by the division of the human corpus into corporeal systems and regions, and wider physiological systems is an academic convenience not borne in and of themselves upon reality.
A more simplistic view, the biomechanical analysis in 3D of motion may be broken down to a variety of reaction forces, moment arms and pivots taken at a given instant, sometimes described hopefully as 'dynamic' (human motion) as opposed to 'static' ie. think bridge or building. The reality of a symphony of centrally orchestrated dynamic living motion over time is of course something altogether quite different.
Reductionism it seems, is a mere crutch of intellectual torpor.
Getting a Nobel, there should be many lab pics. And I used Duck Duck and Yandex too.
I dont think long enough or well enough are much different, but seems he said both in the same sentence but it was about HIV not Corona that is the misquote part. Well who cares really?
"A Jan. 11 Facebook post with more than 300 interactions claims Mullis said, "Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough with PCR if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick."
While Mullis made the statement attributed to him, he was speaking about how he opposed using PCR tests to detect HIV, not COVID-19."
Thanks for the reference. I find that Facebook quote hard to believe as it's almost word for word what he said in the 1997 video with the exclusion of the "if you run it long enough". Seems more like a paraphrase with additions. I have a transcript of the relevent 1997 video. I'll post it here but only if you're interested as it's long enough that most folks won't read past the first line. The context is exactly as you described.
Hey Proton, just IGNORE this guy Kanon! Don't waste your time with him. He is yet another substack "know-it-all/TROLL". Kanon is now trolling ME on old comments I made here on substack. Apparently, Kanon is upset by the well-documented criticisms I and others have made against his "hero" Mullis. As I have repeatedly pointed out on my substack, Mullis was BAD news for us "AIDS" dissidents! I KNOW this partly because I WAS THERE! I met Mullis and was also THERE when Mullis made some crucial comments that have been repeatedly misinterpreted by Kanon and other short-sighted hero worshippers. My bio and bonafides are here again: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about and articles containing my criticisms of Mullis are HERE: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage and HERE: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than
It was just the insult of targeting Trump for ridicule and a few lies that spoilt the Omar Jordan rant.
Pity too about the claim on HIV as Eleni Papadopulos of the Perth Group proved it was a lie and no mention of David Rasnick PhD who actually advised Mbeki. Kary Mullis was invited to Mbeki's advisory panel but did could not attend
Mbeki wasn't under the spell of denialists, he was under the spell of the ANC leadership who was under the spell of the Club of Rome. He relied on expertise but was scared that he would loose his pay check so he followed consensus. He believed what Dr Abdool-Karim advised, unknowingly that Karim was paid by BMGF.
Mullis was right when he said PCR was useless as a diagnostic tool and that it is simply a digital replication tool. Advanced Xerox as such.
Was Michael Smith also not involved with Mullis and PCR? I read this, He earned the prized recognition for his invention (alongside Michael Smith) of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.
- "Mullis was right when he said PCR was useless as a diagnostic tool and that it is simply a digital replication tool..."
Mullis NEVER said THAT! Where did you get THAT??!! I was actually THERE when Mullis made these often-cited, often MISINTERPRETED (and ambiguous) statements to which you're referring! In fact, I helped to produce the very seminar where Mullis made these comments (to my eternal SHAME!!). Listen to this "space" I did on twitter/X recently: https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1ynJOaMYOazKR (the space starts at the 1:33 mark) for my spoken analyses of those comments. (I haven't written anything about those comments specifically.) Plus, you should also read my analyses of Mullis here: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage and here: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than
Also, you may be correct about the political pressures that former South African President Mbeki was facing in South Africa. However, MAN OH MAN you are WAY OFF BASE on the true history of our dear old, now-deceased "AIDS" dissident movement! First, Mbeki was a PERTH GROUP SUPPORTER! In addition, Celia Farber and Davids Rasnick and Crowe were all on the WRONG side, i.e., the BAD side (Duesberg), in our old "AIDS" dissident movement!! You would be well-advised to review the facts presented at this link: https://tig.org.za/RA.htm
The documents linked at that link are an accurate depiction of what actually happened to the "AIDS" dissident movement.
1. You would be well-advised to review the facts presented at this link:
Sound like a threat, so stick it where a monkey sticks it peanuts. I don't care for your advice or threats.
2. Celia Farber and David Rasnick and Crowe were all on the WRONG side.
I suggest your TIG group is on the wrong side and it is simply a political group.
David Rasnick is a highly respected scientist.
Celia Farber is a highly respected Journalist who covered the AID's issue in fine detail as has John Rappoport
3 My comment is inferred from the statement he Mullis made in different interviews, It is my understanding.
4. I have an in depth knowledge on research instruments as it was in my training provided by companies like Thorn EMI who sold these instruments as well as Siemens. So I am familiar with the principals of bioluminescence.
5. I don't rate twatter very highly and have never bothered with it twitter/X, so no I wont listen to it.
6. I have no desire to read you analyses of anything. I can detect by your comments that you are biased and emotional and aggressive. I would go as far as to say unhinged.
7. Can't find anything where Mullis recognised you as such an important fella.
BTW I didn't see you name mentioned in the AIDs Report and I don't really give two hoots about your rant.
First of all, who are YOU??? I'm using my REAL NAME, here, and you appear to be nothing other than a nameless, faceless TROLL on substack! Have YOU ever actually MET or even INTERACTED PRIVATELY with ANY of the people you are claiming are heroes: Mullis, Crowe, Rasnick or Farber?? I HAVE! You've proven repeatedly by your own comments that you are unwilling to read anything that challenges your OWN BIASES. Statements that do not support YOUR biases you label as "rants". Your "understanding" of what Mullis said or didn't say is just that: YOUR "understanding"! And it is STILL WRONG! However, for anyone else who is still actually OPEN to learning more about these issues, my bio and experiences are all detailed here: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about
I will let the reader decide which one of us is behaving irrationally and emotionally. Furthermore, all of the analyses that appear at the link: https://tig.org.za/RA.htm were actually written by my good friend Anthony Brink who is based in South Africa. You would know this if you actually took the time to READ that link which you clearly did not! Contrary to what you may think you know, it is also a fact that South Africa was the scene of tremendous destruction perpetrated on our "AIDS" dissident movement by Rasnick and other diehard Duesberg dittoheads all of whom were continuously supported by the ever clueless Celia Farber. It is actually Farber herself who has repeatedly conceded that she is not smart enough to understand these issues: https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/the-covid-truth-movement-has-probably
If you still think that Celia Farber knows more about these issues than I do, knock yourself out!
Your arrogance is astounding and I don't like arrogant persons.
I don't give two hoots about your dead TIG movement or its opinions or its members opinions.
I also don't give two hoots about anyone that is a BAR associate given the clear fact that they operate as a Private Public Partner of the State. It is covered in a veil of secrecy. That goes for your good friend Anthony Brink too.
As you are a south African, you may be aware of three cases that have exposed the corruption at the highest levels which includes the Judiciary which has been captured and is no longer separated from the state.
These cases being, the LFN Case of Reyno de Beer, the Johann Roodt case and ABSA fraud and the Jeff Koorbanaly case involving theft of pensions and corruption of the banks and the Reserve Bank.
Dude READ MY FREAKIN' BIO!! https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about I am *NOT* a South African for Pete's SAKE!! You are clearly CONFUSED!! I'm an AMERICAN!! I have NEVER even BEEN to South Africa!! I have NO IDEA what you're TALKING ABOUT!! And *YOU* HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT with respect to our old "AIDS" dissident movement!!
I have always heard that Mullis said that PCR should not be used for diagnostics but have never been able to find the direct quote. Are we sure he actually said that?
He said "it cant tell you if you are sick". Even in main stream PCR, you can have a an old infection and lingering nuc acids falsely telling you that you have something. Still test will be positive and clinics will consider you infected(ious)
In short, NO it is not the same as "diagnostics", certainly not with respect to viruses and other "infectious diseases". Mullis did NOT use the word "diagnostics" in those famous spoken comments of his. That is the mistaken interpretation that OTHER people have made of Mullis' comments which were probably purposefully AMBIGUOUS. Remember, I was ACTUALLY THERE when Mullis made these comments way back in 1997! Of course there IS a link to the video of these comments that I COULD post, but I am not going to do so. The comments are silly and meaningless, and this video of Mullis never should have been posted anywhere!
Even in the same comments that Mullis made, he claimed that PCR "CAN FIND this virus in you" and that PCR can do so "down to one molecule"! The distinction that most people are failing to make is between the words "diagnose" and DETECT. So, Mullis believed PCR could certainly DETECT viruses.
However, that was enough for the establishment to continue the FRAUD of virology.
This is all due to the fact that the mythology of virology also claims that, among all the various viruses that the establishment claims exist, there are supposedly "latent" viruses and ones that exist but at "very miniscule amounts" (also Mullis' words). Thus, the "diagnosis" (according to Mullis and the establishment) is that of an "asymptomatic" infectious disease with a pathogen too weak to cause illness. However, the pathogens nevertheless DO EXIST (again, according to BOTH Mullis AND the ESTABLISHMENT), and, again, such existence is absolutely CRUCIAL to the perpetuation of the virus/infectious mythology....Lastly, it is also important to note that, when Mullis made those comments over a quarter century ago, so-called "HIV" was the only pathogen that was purportedly being detected by PCR on a wide-spread basis.....
All the world's a stage and the entire population is being played by the fraudulent, highly paid, polished actors hired by the Jews and Venetian blood line families. We must escape from the Matrix to find sanity, peace and intellectual clarity.
I also did a "space" on twitter/X where I spoke about Mullis which is still available at this link: https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1ynJOaMYOazKR (this "space" starts at 1:33).
Coming round to KM being who he really is I'm reminded of the interview with Jere Van Dyk, alleged adventurer, kidnapped by the Taliban, on the YouTube channel, Soft White Underbelly. I follow this channel and it's obvious that many people interviewed are genuine but Jere is not, nor is the teacher, Kelly, alleged victim of the 2022 school shooting in St Louis, Missouri ("At 9:11 a.m., police received the first call regarding an active shooter threat at the school.")
I was quite intrigued by Jere's story so I started listening with great attention but when he mentioned Osama bin Laden my suspicions rose and then when he said he just happened to be in NYC on 9/11 and saw a woman with black hair in the windows of one of the towers I'm like, "Is nothing sacred? Must you infiltrate every-fricken-where?"
Thanks for this exposure, PM. I like to think my radar is attuned to controlled opposition but obviously it's not entirely reliable. Suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance over Kary. I'll have to revisit his "making rockets in his backyard" story as a child. It does sound rather fanciful on reflection although I think a very basic rocket isn't that big a deal.
One thing that struck me as strange was that his wife defended those trying to say that KM was referring specifically to HIV when he said that the PCR cannot tell you if you're sick when clearly he was talking about it generally even if HIV was the general subject - OK so now it's a psyop within a psyop, however, regardless he wasn't specifically referring to HIV when he said it can't make you sick and I wondered why his wife defended people saying it was. That puzzle is now solved because presumably she's in on it too and is saying whatever she's told to say.
Yes actually the lack of HIV is a bit of a red flag. I have to say I find the scope of fraud a little hard to get my head around. Do you think Peter Duesberg is an agent or just had it wrong?
He's into latent inactive viruses. He should know that a virus would have to replicate thus cause symptoms, he should also know how to purify isolate a particle so it was never done, and he must have known about the Perth group so I vote he is CO, and his fights with Fauci (virus is there but latent) are like Rand Paul vs Fauci (virus is there but a bioweapon).
1) One theory is that PCR comes out of the military (or Dept of Energy which is also very secretive and genome-obsessed) but then "rinsed" through Cetus Corp (Mullis was employee) so as to commercialize the method. Not so farfetched, considering that Mullis' PCR was apparently being ignored until Joshua Lederberg himself happened upon it -
2) Not sure why it matters if the in vivo form of DNA is a double helix or any super duper helix or not even reminiscently hellicle.
3) In fact, I suspect all of this 'revelation' that DNA is all fake - just a product of the extraction method - is a stoopid red-herring. Likewise the other claim (made by "criticalcheck Tam") that specific DNA or RNA strands arise non-specifically as a result of the chemical and temperature changes that comprise the PCR method is a deliberate red-herring. I'm disappointed that Cowan seems to have fell for it.
4) The RT-PCR used to detect 'viruses' is probably detecting real sequences that reflect any number of overlapping physiological states that may or may not be of clinical relevance.
For a movie star he sure was interested in starting up, and being a part of, many companies in the PCR field. When I went looking for his background a few years ago I found probably 20 or so such companies. And he and his wife visited the South Island at one stage as well to speak at a conference relevant to his field (and to take photos of themselves up on one of the glaciers we, still just, have here).
For sure politicians are actors. I'm still unconvinced that Kary Mullis was.
Thanks Rod, I've read but am not fluent in this topic, but since 2020 when I read Fan Wu and got a shiver down my spine whispering, "OMG, it's all fraud", I realize everything must be seen with open eyes.
I suppose that I’m too brainwashed to discard the entirety of DNA being genetic material and cell theory and DNA being the basis of protein synthesis and the development of a mammalian infant from a male’s sperm & a female’s egg and mitochondrial DNA.
The posts read A LOT like denial to me, with a lot of jargon thrown in for good measure.
And I totally understand how denial can be an extremely comforting physiological defense mechanism in these days when virology and epidemiology have pretty much been shot down. And in these days when medical science has been almost totally corrupted by Big Government and Big Pharma.
If the hypothesis “DNA is genetic material and DNA is the key component from fertilization to embryonic development to fetal development in mammals, and is the key component to gene-activation, and is the key components of protein synthesis and mitochondrial DNA is distinct from nuclear DNA” is the null hypothesis attempting to be disproved, then an alternate hypothesis (or alternate hypotheses) had better be presented in order to be tested and falsified and evidenced against the null hypothesis.
Without an alternative hypothesis (or hypotheses), the only strategy imo seems to be denial.
One trap is to accept DNA as the ordinary theory and other theories as extraordinary. But every theory should be evaluated along the same standard.
DNA appeared out of nowhere and was immediately accepted as concensus. I wondered “on what research was the initial acceptance of DNA theory based” and so far I’ve come up empty.
Agree, except I think where we consistently fail is that our "standards" are woefully lacking and still run along the lines mostly of mechanistic materialism and reductionism, with few exceptions. This existence simply cannot be understood and explained in that way. When one really observes nature, plants, insects, and animals, it becomes quite clear who has the upper hand in understanding reality and the mechanisms of all that is.
The initial research into the mechanisms of inheritance (arguably) began with the description of the eukaryotic cell’s nucleus by Edouard Chatton in 1938. There’s been plethora research into molecules and biochemistry prior to the (so-called) “discovery” of the structure of DNA.
I still believe that what’s really going on is ordinary and (so-called) “normal” people surrendering to the temptation to reject all prior scientific knowledge (aka justified belief) in the mega-field of biology. It’s all part of the great delusion. There are mathematical proofs/truths, scientific truths (in the field of materialistic philosophical epistemology) and spiritual truths (in the field of theology) and truths in other philosophical fields — eg aesthetics, logic, metaphysics, ontology, ethics. The great delusion imo… mostly has to do with people who consciously and conscientiously disregard love for the truth.
There's that needing an alternative again in order to dismiss one unproven claim. Such a nonsensical idea. There are many hypotheses to consider and when one does extensive reading and contemplation you will see them. Things are a lot bigger than you realize, a lot bigger.
I guess that I’m simply not prepared to accept on faith the premise that “DNA molecules don’t exist as genetic templates” is a proven claim.
If there are many alternate hypotheses to explain genetic inheritance, I haven’t heard of even one which explains what characteristics I listed above.
It’s really okay, though. None of what passes for “human knowledge” really matters. Human knowledge is not salvific. Only divine revealed knowledge and wisdom is.
Do you know if Béchamp had a basic understanding of genetic inheritance? I don’t. Hell, maybe the entirety of the scientific discipline named “genetics” is pseudoscience. “Béchamp claimed to have discovered that the ‘molecular granulations’ in biological fluids were actually the elementary units of life. He named them ‘microzymas’ — that is, ‘tiny enzymes’ — and credited them with producing both enzymes and cells while ‘evolving’ amid favorable conditions into multicellular organisms.” These “microzymas” are still an interesting hypothesis. I am not a STEM-like** thinker, so I am totally ignorant about what the “elementary units of life” actually ARE.
** oriented to think the way scientists and technicians and engineers and mathematicians do
Why don’t you just go ahead and post some relevant quotes, seeing that you are so familiar with what Béchamp knew about genetic inheritance and what the elementary units of life are? It’s relatively easy to comment on my ignorance about (so-called) “Science™️” after I’ve already admitted that I am apathetic about STEM thinkers.
Or don’t provide any information about your knowledge of what Béchamp actually knew. Again, I don’t care.
You still didn’t address genetic inheritance and if DNA doesn’t exist as an organism’s genetic material. Anyway:
Béchamp
Principles of micromorphology
<begin quote> While some of the ideas Bechamp addressed predated him, they had not been so clearly described, fully developed, or strongly supported by experimentation. It is said there is nothing new under the sun. If true, it may be because all things, or situations, exist at once in the Creation. It is a matter of perspective, much like looking at a tapestry. Bechamp’s perspective allows us to step back from tight focus and see the loose threads of the germ theory amidst a harmonious and astounding pattern of the life process. He had his “finger” on the magic of life. According to Hume, (Douglas HE. Bechamp or Pasteur? CW Daniel Co Ltd, England, UK. 1923. ) the essence of what he brought to us was as follows: First, he demonstrated that the air is filled with microscopic organisms capable of fermenting any suitable medium on which they happen to land. He showed that the chemical change is carried out by a soluble ferment produced by the organism, and this ferment is analogous to the digestive juices of the stomach. Thus, he identified fermentation as a digestive process. (Young [RO Young, SR Young. The pH Miracle. Hachette Publishing, New York, USA. 2010] theorizes that all decomposition, even the rusting of steel, is mediated by ferments. It is known, for example that bacteria decompose rock into soil. Microorganisms are at or near the foundation of all life and life processes on Earth. For example, fungal forms are indispensable parts of the roots of most plants, including the largest trees.)
Secondly, the most profound conclusion to which Bechamp’s untiring and painstaking research led him is that there is an independently living micro anatomical element in the cells and fluids of all organisms. This element precedes life at the cellular level, even the genetic level, and is the foundation of all biological organization. What originally piqued Antoine’s procreative curiosity was the discovery, somewhat by accident, that pure chalk from geological deposits at least 11million years old would liquefy starch and ferment sugar solutions, while man-made chalk would not. After years of work tracking down the cause (fermentation was not understood at the time), he attributed the action to the living remains of organisms long dead. He called this tiny living element a “microzyma,” or small ferment.
Thirdly, he claimed that microzymas routinely become forms normally referred to as bacteria, and that bacteria can revert or devolve to the microzymian state. (This is the principle of pleomorphism, which is central to understanding the appearance of “infectious” and degenerative disease symptoms in the body.)
Fourthly, he explained that atmospheric germs are not fundamental species, but are either microzymas, or their evolutionary forms, set free from their former vegetable or animal habitat by the death of that “medium.”
Bechamp explained: “The microzyma is at the beginning and end of all organization. It is the fundamental anatomical element whereby the cellules, the tissues, the organs, the whole of an organism are constituted.” He referred to microzymas as the builders and destroyers of cells. The quotation emphasizes the constructive aspect of microzymian activity and purpose, but it is the destructive aspect, or the “end of all organization,” which concerns us in disease. He always found microzymas remaining after the complete decomposition of a dead organism, and concluded that they are the only non-transitory biological elements. In addition, they carry out the vital function of decomposition, or they are the precursors of beings (bacteria, yeasts and fungi) which do so. Thus, he clearly presented the idea that the physical life of higher biological forms arises from, is dependent upon, and is recycled by, microscopic beings. Simple, immediate proof of dependence is the indispensable bacterial population in the human GI tract. And it adds piquancy to the whole matter to consider that our digestive and metabolic associates are plants. The crucial “catabolic” aspect of microzymian behavior enters the picture when the body becomes diseased, for, according to Bechamp:
In a state of health, the microzymas act harmoniously and our life is, in every meaning of the word, a regular fermentation. ... In a condition of disease, the microzymas which have become morbid determine in the organism special changes . . . which lead alike to the disorganization of the tissues, to the destruction of the cellules and to their vibrionien evolution during life.
The microzyma is an organized (insoluble) ferment: a living element. Controlled fermentation is a vital physiological process. For example, it is utilized as a means of breaking down toxins in intercellular fluid and the lymphatics. Also, some commercial dietary fiber products contain acacia and slippery elm. These soluble fibers ferment in the gut, resulting in short-chain fatty acids such as butyrate and acetate, which are highly beneficial to the colon wall. Bechamp published a paper (still in French) about the role of microzymas in the production of salivary diastase (ptyalin). Since there are microzymas in every cell, in the blood and intercellular milieu, it is likely that many vital substances, mostly enzymes, are produced by them or by their complexes.
Bechamp said that the process of cellular breakdown is mediated by microzymian fermentation-even in a healthy body. Though there is renewal happening as well, breakdown fermentation (aging) eventually takes over, greatly increasing in intensity upon death. When oxidative metabolism ceases and a body dies, negative surface charges are lost and the terrain goes acid. Microzymas respond to biochemical signals, the most important being pH. The condition of disease is a milieu which presents to the microzymas a premature biochemical signal that the organism is dead. They consequently change their function and evolve into forms capable of more vigorous fermentative breakdown-forms that reflect disease-what Bechamp called “morbidly evolved microzymas.” If the host pays no attention while it is still feasible to adjust, s/he will be recycled sooner than would otherwise be the case.<end quote>
DNA might turn out to be a hoax too- but denying DNA is a big political mistake. Debunking the notion that PCR can't diagnose a viral infection can easily be done- by simply explaining how PCR allegedly works. (The key point is PCR allegedly replicates only a tiny fragment of a virus- so even if PCR can duplicate DNA/RNA, then it certainly can't diagnose an infection. It would be like assuming "big" and "mistake" are the same word because they both contain the letter "i".)
If you start denying DNA, then everyone will think you're crazy- like a Flat Earther. (I believe the earth is a globe but I'm not 100% certain about that- so no disrespect to FEs.) It's better to assume PCR works as advertised and to use that knowledge to debunk virology.
You have a point here. Existing and existing as advertised may be 2 different things. I don't know actually. The problem is "if PCR could just be done correctly then it could be used to find a virus" is the lingering thought. That's the problem. You may recall RFK likes, "If vaccines could be safe they'd be great"-only there are no germs to make a vaccine for. All germs are either made up like viruses or are illnesses caused by toxic poor sanitation/pollution etc.
They always leave the door open don't they. Does it matter if it's out of ignorance or malice? Perhaps, but they should be rejected regardless, no excuses legitimizing a deception should be made on account of alleged intentions.
Have you read this document: https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/ ...???.... What about this document: https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/pcr-and-real-time-rt-pcr-under-critical-review/ ....???....
It should be obvious that both documents contain many fine details that should take a long time to research and refute. If, however, AFTER READING THEM, you still feel that "denying DNA is a big political mistake" and that "it's better to assume PCR works as advertised", then please feel free to join the comment spaces on those articles at the links I provided above. The author of both documents is very responsive to comments.
Hi Rod, sorry to bother you, but I read about this today
https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/case-lydia-fairchild-and-her-chimerism-2002
Her kids and her "DNA didn't match" until they took multiple samples and some places in her body did match and the DNA was not the same in her body depending on the place because she was a chimera.
I wonder if you have an idea what is going on here with the "test" and what are they finding if not DNA?
Thanks PM
It's Ok, but I'm really not the one you need to talk to about this stuff. Do you know Jamie? I would ask him if you have not done so already. Jamie's twitter account is at: https://twitter.com/JamieAA_Again
Jamie is actually much more knowledgeable on this topic than I am. Also, see Jamie's articles on DPLs substack: https://dpl003.substack.com/p/the-pcr-gene-sequencing-and-genetics
IMHO and just spit-balling off the top of my head: there MAY be some "sequences" of something, but it MAY be protein-based or amino acids. However, I seriously doubt that such "sequences" "code for" or control ANYTHING and may more likely be the EFFECT of some other processes or entities.
I would again suggest that you post these questions in the comments section of the articles by "TAM" ( https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/ ). "TAM" DOES seem responsive to these comments, but it may take her a little while to reply.
In addition, I would review the Perth Group's old paper on the so-called "isolation" of so-called "HIV" for some insights into the problems with the "central dogma" surrounding "DNA": https://www.theperthgroup.com/CONTINUUM/PapadopolousReallyAchieved1996.pdf and their much more recent update from 2017: https://www.theperthgroup.com/HIV/TPGVirusLikeNoOther.pdf . The data presented in these above articles is more specific to the situation with "HIV", but I think broader applications CAN certainly be implied.
I also think that the redox state may exert an influence on the synthesis of proteins, more so than any involvement by any so-called "genetic" entities. As Dr. Turner of the Perth Group points out:
"...In experiments conducted in the 1960s (upon which present day animal cloning is based) the exchange of cell nuclei proved that the character of a cell is determined by factors outside the nucleus.7-11 That is, factors within the cytoplasm determine what the DNA does – not vice versa. At present there is much evidence that the DNA function is regulated by the cellular redox state and its oscillations….” (from: https://www.theperthgroup.com/EPE/RedoxTheory.pdf ).
Much thanks Rod, I will ask further!
My spitball is that it has to do with inherited biome
Rod, those docs are great really. However, most people can't plow thru so much either because of time or because they are not up on the basics of those topics. Also, you have some unfortunate commenters. I would advise you to make 2 new posts for the short winded that are 1-page summaries and disable comments and can link to the long versions and vice-versa. Did you notice most of my posts are only a few min read? Esp on SS, people only read a few lines and decide to open or delete the mail notice. But personally I think you are onto big fish with them
I fully realize that "most people can't plow thru" these documents. However, I was replying to ONE person in particular who may qualify as one of the "unfortunate commenters" you mention. I tend to reply to those commenters who seem to think (and write) like they are some sort of smarty pants with respect to all of this stuff! LOL! So my comment above was directed at one such commenter.
In fact, my substack and most comments I post here on SS are directed at readers who are NOT just "beginners" with respect to learning the truth about all of these issues. That is no longer MY target audience. It used to be, but, "been there, done that", as the saying goes. If we do NOT slaughter ALL of these frauds: virology, infectious disease, genetics/genomics, etc., the establishment WILL continue to create NEW hoaxes based on them ad infinitum...
Trust me... I speak from experience on these problems....
Have you considered, Rod, that as we slaughter all of those frauds, more will just keep appearing? Not as some sore of evil plan by a few evil people, but rather just by the nature of our "reality"? Notice that no matter how many lies are exposed there are still an endless number. The deeper you go the more you find. The more you find the more appear, whether deep in history, which we have no clue what is accurate and what is not, ( if there even is such a thing as accurate due to the fluid nature of existence), or current day situations. So many subjects seem to appear out of nowhere keeping people engaged trying to learn what is true, what is false, what is planned, what is happenstance, always keeping them from discovering what really is the whole point of being here.
Just some thoughts.
I skimmed both documents which make good points. But there's no definitive proof in either documents- just lots of troubling red flags that PCR and DNA are both bunk, which could certainly be true. My point is 99.9% of people already think the no-virus crowd are lunatics so why make the problem even worse by denying DNA and PCR? It's unnecessary when you can use PCR itself to refute its usage as a viral test. A typical COVID PCR test checks for only 50 bases out of the alleged 30,000 bases in the SARS-COV-2 genome. More sophisticated PCR tests can check for several thousand bases- but so what? That's still only a tiny fraction of the entire genome so PCR can NOT diagnose a viral infection even if it can replicate a DNA strand. Virologists claim our bodies are teeming with trillions of viruses. So any cell culture must contain millions if not billions of viruses. So even if the COVID virus exists- then how can the virologists identify that one particular virus out of millions/billions in the culture? They can't, of course, so the sequenced virus genomes are all fake.
You are mainly correct, it is tangential to the discussion on Mullis, it happened to be in Omar's doc that I quoted so has taken off in the comments. It is ok for us to discuss of course but it was not the purport or plan of the post. If we learn something from it that is positive, a few people on this post discussing it won't change the no-virus image and though you have valid points any rational discussion is fair game when the goal is to get info, learn, and get more info.
Late to this party but I see numerous errors and unreferenced assertions as well as projections in Omars piece. Not to say Mullis is or isn't a psyop, just that Omar's piece is full of holes.
If you DM @omarj on SS, or you can find a comment he made on my Yeadon post you can contact him and I think he will discuss with you.
Naah it's not that important to me, just for the record. I've outlined elsewhere several of the issues.
Even if DNA is real and PCR can find fragments that doesn't prove infection. It would just show there was a fragment of something. Anything else would be extrapolation without basis.
That's another part of the hoax "asymptomatic infection"... what bs.
My wife doesn't think that I'm a lunatic. It's just she prefers not to discuss it because there be monsters.
Most Normies will think you are a lunatic for questionin questioning their sacred cows. I don't worry about that becuase I know I have spent hundreds, if not thousands of hours questioning all the fake reality that has been foisted on us. I don't know what the truth us but I for sure no many things that aren't true.
Most Norrnies have never spent even one mnute questioning what they have been told. They are afraid to go outside the Overton windows that have been constructed for them, because monsters., but also because they will be excluded from the herd, a fate worse than death. It' is why Sheeple is such an appropriate term for them.
"might" turn out to be a hoax? It's a DEMONSTRABLE FRAUD FROM A-Z! :)
Ouch. I first heard doubts about DNA in a Tom Cowan interview on The End of Covid https://theendofcovid.com/eoclms/the-new-cell-biology/ He said that organs don't even consist of cells. Cells are debris that organs bundle up and eject. So basically organ excrement.
In other news, I've always wondered how the heart is strong enough to pump blood through the entire body. A "Rising Tide Foundation" lecture by Gerald Pollack sheds some light on this: https://youtu.be/8qqyCA9vz_s?t=2913 It looks like the veins help transport blood with energy absorbed from infrared light. I was happy to feel that not all science is made up!
Science up til now could be called SILENCE lolz.
Heart is not a pump. It contracts, kinda like a sponge.
Vortexes.
Cowan talks extensively on the heart. No, it's not a pump in the usual sense, that is quite clear. And it, in itself, is not what keeps the blood circulating. Very enlightening and crucial to health.
Make sure to check https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/.
If there's no such thing as DNA molecules then it would stand to reason that there's no such thing as 2D graphene sheets. I can buy them on Amazon but they're definitely 3D as I can not only see them but also presumably handle the sheet. I mean if they were missing that 3rd dimension then there would be nothing to handle. Am I missing something?
This is a good point Lisa, but first lets separate Mullis as deception agent/movie star (read all of Omar's like if you wish a deeper dive), from the DNA issue. I'd also like to learn more about the graphene sheet issue, do they mean a bunch of sheets is 3D but each sheet is only 1 atom thick so essentially 2D?
Anyway the DNA issue is separate from Mullis as movie star and the graphene issues. What I think Omar is saying is that they really only have x ray crystallography on DNA as a supposed double helix, and even now as quadruplex, but that the molecule itself is only a model not actually found and isolated. Now, while I've studied a lot of mainstream stuff about DNA, genetics, etc I'm not up on how far the model goes wrt reality.
Here even the MSM calls it a model,
https://www.sciencehistory.org/education/scientific-biographies/james-watson-francis-crick-maurice-wilkins-and-rosalind-franklin/ (Crick has some funny things going on that seem Globalist in nature, and F was from banking elites...)
and here that some "discovery" monkey business was going on a long time.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32487691/
Sorry, I'm not really answering your question, but I think the idea is that PCR is a model of a model and it may not be anymore than, money, wars, elections, viruses, atom bombs, and other things that are all basically "fake", "ginned up" or "promoted" but have no substance. Clearly even with main stream info, PCR should not have any role in looking at disease or "germs" for any clinical reason, and it should stay in a lab even if there is some amplification of DNA because of misuse (fraud) and it's problems with fake (not false) positives.
Here, this is the answer: https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
Majority of dogma around DNA is PURE bs. No wonder when one learns how the base of DNA research is done on isolated pea plants.
Science = SILENCE!
I expanded my comment in
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/dna-theory-in-practice
Original comment:
DNA theory seems realistic to me. Mutation is real, but how far is DNA manipulation controllable? It looks like relevant experiments have been going on for a lot longer than perceived; possibly as early as the ideas of "natural selection" (Darwinism) "the survival of the fittest" (Spencer's Social Darwinism). With the most recent AI analyses, I assume that the models are becoming quite reliable, as long as the AI is allowed to do its computations, and the outcome might not be intelligible for humans, but it works. For this to work, humans must severely underestimate the capabilities of AI, which seems to me is one of the recent psyops:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/the-stupidity-of-ai-assists-human
Another is the combination of this projected stupid AI and DNA theory:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/intelligent-trolls-are-now-saying
Mutation is real? Why do you say that and what are you actually calling a "mutation"?
Sorry, I guess I'm getting ahead of myself with the fakery.
The claim of two-dimensional graphene sheets (if I recall correctly) is that they are only one atom thick.
"Pseudo-2D" would be accurate. But ..but ..the spaces in between the atomic mesh could theoretically be 2D, so...
Also, a sheet of paper is always used as an example as 2D against a 3D cube by people trying to explain the differences between dimensions. The paper example made my head hurt in 6th grade. Still would if I didn't accept the fact that the paper was merely a model being used for the sake of conversation.
Hey! Maybe viruses are also 2D pathogens, and the in-silico Covid virus is merely a model. That would explain why they have never er been seen or isolated, but instead, imagined.
It’s the paper cuts that are one of many problems….
I am totally ignorant on Science but have I not heard of this crap on TV Forensic Files? If this is a LIE then what of the many people convicted via use of PCR-type tests in evidence, so-called?
Is the money in your pocket an instantiation of efforts of you or your countrymen or a loan made to you and your countrymen out of thin air? Don't mean to be sinde...apologies.
I guess that all paternity tests are built on pseudoscience too?
And there really isn’t such a biological phenomenon as identical twins?
Oh well. I really ought to stop caring about what others believe and disbelieve.
Just as I ought to stop caring about the difference between justified belief and opinion.
Gary, just stay in the info gathering phase, knowing there is a minefield of fakery, and stop trying to make conclusions in 5 min.
See this
https://www.bitchute.com/video/2UJVwxfbJd4D/?list=notifications&randomize=false
So many controversies, and so little time to read all about all of ‘em, in order to allow for the overload of information to simmer.
It’s really about picking one’s battles, isn’t it?
At what point does an open-minded person simply stop giving a shred of credence to an opinion and call it a crackpot hypothesis? I don’t know. I presume that everyone needs to make this determination for him/herself.
You DO have to pick your battles and at some point many will realize, as I have, that none of it matters, not. one. bit. None of it. Our entire existence is essentially fake, as is, not really real as we perceive it, and we are powerful beyond our imagination. We create reality, both individually and collectively. We see what we expect to see. And we can change that. In the big picture one should live wonderfully, happily, lovingly, kindly, enjoying every day in as simple a way as possible, and create the life you want. Your thoughts really are the driving force. If you don't get to that point you will spend your life constantly "learning" new "facts" that prove just how much of a lie you've been living and it has no end. Why spend your days that way? It's a choice. Choose what makes you happyl
I don't know either, the only thing I came up with was this... https://youtube.com/shorts/8dz--f4GIGY?si=r5aBmvGNugJouULk
Just to answer.....
Paternity tests are not conclusive.
Identical twins are never "identical".
Yes, stop caring about others' beliefs, for sure, but use as a springboard if it feels right to move forward. IF that suits you.
Nothing is static so it's pretty difficult to find "the answer" to anything.
I realize that paternity tests are not conclusive. They only deal with probabilities, eg there is a one in one hundred and thirty million chance that man A isn’t the father of child B.
And the term “identical twins” is a euphemism in order to make the distinction between those twins and much more common fraternal twins.
Finding (so-called) “answers” — much like discovering so-called “truths” and so-called “knowledge” — is contained in the philosophical realm named “epistemology” and (arguably) the intersection of epistemology with logic. My understanding (which I don’t trust) is that these two realms deal with so-called “objective reality” while the realms of ethics and metaphysics and aesthetics deal with so-called “subjective reality”. Personally, I have concluded that reality is so sublime that no one understands it. A few people may achieve brief glimpses of it. These people are gifted with the seed of wisdom, and these people are usually rejected as heretics.
adding Mr. & Mrs. Malone to your list
So what you're saying is William Shatner has never piloted a starship at warp speed to other planet, never fought Klingons with a phaser, never held a tribble.... because none of those things exist? Like Mullis, and valid PCR test that identifies viruses?
Possible interesting addendum.
His "PCR invention" may have been the fallback test after the Theranos test went down in flames according to Alex Krainer. https://thenakedhedgie.com/2021/10/03/theranos-scandal-the-real-story-2-3/
PCR already had credibility from fake HIV viral loads, everyone fell for this, it was well accepted and the testing equipment was all over already. I vote that Theranos was a psyop to get people used to genetic tests that would ALSO test for covid in tandem to PCR and maybe be a gateway for cancer "vaccines" that would just be more graphene vaxes. When Theranos fell they just had to live with that psyop failing but still had their main dig with PCR. Part 2 in that link didnt make a strong case for much besides that Theranos was a DS op. I saw Illumina had a bunch of ex-Theranos staff though, they clearly went from Spook op A to Spook op B. Just the office address is different. What the hell do I know though?
Qui bono... there's a "killing" to make in the next big thing and they ain't done yet.
Interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting! I was going to raise the Rosalind Franklin x-ray crystallography 'image 51', which was done below. Nevertheless, DNA (a complex large molecule) may apparently be extracted and may be seen by the naked eye as well. ie. https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/211691/view/extracted-dna
As we move from macro to micro scales, we move progressively in the direction of inference and indirect observation. Simply saying, 'no one has seen it, ipso facto, 'it doesn't', exist is moving from science toward philosophy, for example ~ https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/64794.Dancing_Wu_Li_Masters
The bollox of RT-PCR and RAT tests is indisputable, as is 'viruses', and all the other Klingons.
Perceiving The Matrix is becoming a full time preoccupation!! Little wonder then that so many stumble at the first fence.
Thanks, but I don't see a reference for the extraction, purification, etc for the DNA in the media link.
"...there is no such thing as a “DNA molecule”…because no human…has ever observed one and all…microscopic images are created by computer."
Once again repeating, simply saying, 'no one has seen it, ipso facto, 'it doesn't' exist', is moving (one generous interpretation) from explicit, falsifiable science toward unfalsifiable, generalisable philosophy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6425773/
As you may know, but most will probably not: "Friedrich Miescher in 1869 did DNA isolation for the first time." https://www.genome.gov/25520232/online-education-kit-1869-dna-first-isolated
The basic modern procedure outlined here (see WickedPedo of all places) with bibliography:
Cells that are to be studied need to be collected.
Breaking the cell membranes open exposes the DNA along with the cytoplasm within (cell lysis).
Lipids from the cell membrane and the nucleus are broken down with detergents and surfactants.
Breaking down proteins by adding a protease (optional).
Breaking down RNA by adding an RNase (optional).
The solution is treated with a concentrated salt solution (saline) to make debris such as broken proteins, lipids, and RNA clump together.
Centrifugation of the solution, which separates the clumped cellular debris from the DNA.
DNA purification from detergents, proteins, salts, and reagents is used during the cell lysis step. The most commonly used procedures are:
Ethanol precipitation usually by ice-cold ethanol or isopropanol. Since DNA is insoluble in these alcohols, it will aggregate together, giving a pellet upon centrifugation. Precipitation of DNA is improved by increasing ionic strength, usually by adding sodium acetate.
Phenol–chloroform extraction in which phenol denatures proteins in the sample. After centrifugation of the sample, denatured proteins stay in the organic phase while the aqueous phase containing nucleic acid is mixed with chloroform to remove phenol residues from the solution.
Minicolumn purification relies on the fact that the nucleic acids may bind (adsorption) to the solid phase (silica or other) depending on the pH and the salt concentration of the buffer.
Cellular and histone proteins bound to the DNA can be removed either by adding a protease or having precipitated the proteins with sodium or ammonium acetate or extracted them with a phenol-chloroform mixture before the DNA precipitation.
After isolation, the DNA is dissolved in a slightly alkaline buffer, usually in a TE buffer, or in ultra-pure water.
Thanks, yes you can see I pasted that link into a comment above. Look at the discussion of Friedrich's and others' experiments in this link, it becomes a long read and tell us what you think, no rush, but there seems to be multiple serious issues with the whole shebang. Thanks as always.
Thank you for your patience and gentle prod PM! The journey wrought by the instigation of political/medical/scientific over-reach exemplified by the use of fallacious RT-PCR / RAT "tests," "COVID," and "SARs-CoV-2" dropped the scales from one's eyes. This process is on going ;-).
The DNA DISCOVERY, EXTRACTION AND STRUCTURE. A CRITICAL REVIEW article should be part of a compulsory curriculum in critical thinking. It sure exposed a hole in my own knowledge along with a mass of educationally instilled assumptions. Soon they'll be no one left to talk too!
What seems increasingly clear to me is that in life and the complex fluid matrix that surrounds and embodies it, and which also interacts in innumerable ways with the seen and unseen external environment, there is and can be no logical useful relationship to the desiccated, hydrolysed, irradiated, teased, macerated, chemically fixed, tortured exemplars that are thought of as surrogates, theoretical or otherwise. The distinctions imposed by the division of the human corpus into corporeal systems and regions, and wider physiological systems is an academic convenience not borne in and of themselves upon reality.
A more simplistic view, the biomechanical analysis in 3D of motion may be broken down to a variety of reaction forces, moment arms and pivots taken at a given instant, sometimes described hopefully as 'dynamic' (human motion) as opposed to 'static' ie. think bridge or building. The reality of a symphony of centrally orchestrated dynamic living motion over time is of course something altogether quite different.
Reductionism it seems, is a mere crutch of intellectual torpor.
Well said and appreciated!.
BTW That's a misquote...he never said "if you run it long enough" he actually said "if you run it well enough"
BTW I've worked in a chemistry lab but google sadly failed to keep any photos.
Getting a Nobel, there should be many lab pics. And I used Duck Duck and Yandex too.
I dont think long enough or well enough are much different, but seems he said both in the same sentence but it was about HIV not Corona that is the misquote part. Well who cares really?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/01/14/fact-check-kary-mullis-quote-pcr-tests-outdated-lacks-context/9198197002/
"A Jan. 11 Facebook post with more than 300 interactions claims Mullis said, "Anyone can test positive for practically anything with a PCR test, if you run it long enough with PCR if you do it well, you can find almost anything in anybody. It doesn’t tell you that you’re sick."
While Mullis made the statement attributed to him, he was speaking about how he opposed using PCR tests to detect HIV, not COVID-19."
Thanks for the reference. I find that Facebook quote hard to believe as it's almost word for word what he said in the 1997 video with the exclusion of the "if you run it long enough". Seems more like a paraphrase with additions. I have a transcript of the relevent 1997 video. I'll post it here but only if you're interested as it's long enough that most folks won't read past the first line. The context is exactly as you described.
Thanks Chris but don't think this is a crucial issue!
Hey Proton, just IGNORE this guy Kanon! Don't waste your time with him. He is yet another substack "know-it-all/TROLL". Kanon is now trolling ME on old comments I made here on substack. Apparently, Kanon is upset by the well-documented criticisms I and others have made against his "hero" Mullis. As I have repeatedly pointed out on my substack, Mullis was BAD news for us "AIDS" dissidents! I KNOW this partly because I WAS THERE! I met Mullis and was also THERE when Mullis made some crucial comments that have been repeatedly misinterpreted by Kanon and other short-sighted hero worshippers. My bio and bonafides are here again: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about and articles containing my criticisms of Mullis are HERE: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage and HERE: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than
Do any scientists of any weight have their picture taken in a lab??
For Mullis it's the full story of his not inventing, not having publications or much work history. But for your photographic pleasure
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=niremberg+lab&t=ffab&atb=v272-1&iar=images&iax=images&ia=images
It was just the insult of targeting Trump for ridicule and a few lies that spoilt the Omar Jordan rant.
Pity too about the claim on HIV as Eleni Papadopulos of the Perth Group proved it was a lie and no mention of David Rasnick PhD who actually advised Mbeki. Kary Mullis was invited to Mbeki's advisory panel but did could not attend
Mbeki wasn't under the spell of denialists, he was under the spell of the ANC leadership who was under the spell of the Club of Rome. He relied on expertise but was scared that he would loose his pay check so he followed consensus. He believed what Dr Abdool-Karim advised, unknowingly that Karim was paid by BMGF.
Mullis was right when he said PCR was useless as a diagnostic tool and that it is simply a digital replication tool. Advanced Xerox as such.
Was Michael Smith also not involved with Mullis and PCR? I read this, He earned the prized recognition for his invention (alongside Michael Smith) of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.
My two cents worth.
- "Mullis was right when he said PCR was useless as a diagnostic tool and that it is simply a digital replication tool..."
Mullis NEVER said THAT! Where did you get THAT??!! I was actually THERE when Mullis made these often-cited, often MISINTERPRETED (and ambiguous) statements to which you're referring! In fact, I helped to produce the very seminar where Mullis made these comments (to my eternal SHAME!!). Listen to this "space" I did on twitter/X recently: https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1ynJOaMYOazKR (the space starts at the 1:33 mark) for my spoken analyses of those comments. (I haven't written anything about those comments specifically.) Plus, you should also read my analyses of Mullis here: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage and here: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than
Also, you may be correct about the political pressures that former South African President Mbeki was facing in South Africa. However, MAN OH MAN you are WAY OFF BASE on the true history of our dear old, now-deceased "AIDS" dissident movement! First, Mbeki was a PERTH GROUP SUPPORTER! In addition, Celia Farber and Davids Rasnick and Crowe were all on the WRONG side, i.e., the BAD side (Duesberg), in our old "AIDS" dissident movement!! You would be well-advised to review the facts presented at this link: https://tig.org.za/RA.htm
The documents linked at that link are an accurate depiction of what actually happened to the "AIDS" dissident movement.
Oh please get real.
Your statement is fallacious and emotional IMO.
1. You would be well-advised to review the facts presented at this link:
Sound like a threat, so stick it where a monkey sticks it peanuts. I don't care for your advice or threats.
2. Celia Farber and David Rasnick and Crowe were all on the WRONG side.
I suggest your TIG group is on the wrong side and it is simply a political group.
David Rasnick is a highly respected scientist.
Celia Farber is a highly respected Journalist who covered the AID's issue in fine detail as has John Rappoport
3 My comment is inferred from the statement he Mullis made in different interviews, It is my understanding.
4. I have an in depth knowledge on research instruments as it was in my training provided by companies like Thorn EMI who sold these instruments as well as Siemens. So I am familiar with the principals of bioluminescence.
5. I don't rate twatter very highly and have never bothered with it twitter/X, so no I wont listen to it.
6. I have no desire to read you analyses of anything. I can detect by your comments that you are biased and emotional and aggressive. I would go as far as to say unhinged.
7. Can't find anything where Mullis recognised you as such an important fella.
BTW I didn't see you name mentioned in the AIDs Report and I don't really give two hoots about your rant.
First of all, who are YOU??? I'm using my REAL NAME, here, and you appear to be nothing other than a nameless, faceless TROLL on substack! Have YOU ever actually MET or even INTERACTED PRIVATELY with ANY of the people you are claiming are heroes: Mullis, Crowe, Rasnick or Farber?? I HAVE! You've proven repeatedly by your own comments that you are unwilling to read anything that challenges your OWN BIASES. Statements that do not support YOUR biases you label as "rants". Your "understanding" of what Mullis said or didn't say is just that: YOUR "understanding"! And it is STILL WRONG! However, for anyone else who is still actually OPEN to learning more about these issues, my bio and experiences are all detailed here: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about
Also, anyone with half a brain who knows anything about our old "AIDS" dissident movement is VERY aware of how despicable Rasnick, Crowe and Farber were during our movement. Anyone who wants to see how "highly respected" David Rasnick is as a scientist should review this link: http://www.tig.org.za/Is_AZT_a_DNA_chain_terminator.htmI and this link: http://www.tig.org.za/PG_comment_on_Rasnick_and_Geshekter_responses_to_SA_Health_Ministry_with_Rasnick_rebuttal.html
I will let the reader decide which one of us is behaving irrationally and emotionally. Furthermore, all of the analyses that appear at the link: https://tig.org.za/RA.htm were actually written by my good friend Anthony Brink who is based in South Africa. You would know this if you actually took the time to READ that link which you clearly did not! Contrary to what you may think you know, it is also a fact that South Africa was the scene of tremendous destruction perpetrated on our "AIDS" dissident movement by Rasnick and other diehard Duesberg dittoheads all of whom were continuously supported by the ever clueless Celia Farber. It is actually Farber herself who has repeatedly conceded that she is not smart enough to understand these issues: https://celiafarber.substack.com/p/the-covid-truth-movement-has-probably
If you still think that Celia Farber knows more about these issues than I do, knock yourself out!
Go away please.
Your arrogance is astounding and I don't like arrogant persons.
I don't give two hoots about your dead TIG movement or its opinions or its members opinions.
I also don't give two hoots about anyone that is a BAR associate given the clear fact that they operate as a Private Public Partner of the State. It is covered in a veil of secrecy. That goes for your good friend Anthony Brink too.
As you are a south African, you may be aware of three cases that have exposed the corruption at the highest levels which includes the Judiciary which has been captured and is no longer separated from the state.
These cases being, the LFN Case of Reyno de Beer, the Johann Roodt case and ABSA fraud and the Jeff Koorbanaly case involving theft of pensions and corruption of the banks and the Reserve Bank.
Discussion Closed
did he just tell you to go away on your own substack? haha. where would you go? over to his?
Dude READ MY FREAKIN' BIO!! https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about I am *NOT* a South African for Pete's SAKE!! You are clearly CONFUSED!! I'm an AMERICAN!! I have NEVER even BEEN to South Africa!! I have NO IDEA what you're TALKING ABOUT!! And *YOU* HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT with respect to our old "AIDS" dissident movement!!
I have always heard that Mullis said that PCR should not be used for diagnostics but have never been able to find the direct quote. Are we sure he actually said that?
He said "it cant tell you if you are sick". Even in main stream PCR, you can have a an old infection and lingering nuc acids falsely telling you that you have something. Still test will be positive and clinics will consider you infected(ious)
Right, exactly. And is that the same as saying it can't be used for diagnostics?
In short, NO it is not the same as "diagnostics", certainly not with respect to viruses and other "infectious diseases". Mullis did NOT use the word "diagnostics" in those famous spoken comments of his. That is the mistaken interpretation that OTHER people have made of Mullis' comments which were probably purposefully AMBIGUOUS. Remember, I was ACTUALLY THERE when Mullis made these comments way back in 1997! Of course there IS a link to the video of these comments that I COULD post, but I am not going to do so. The comments are silly and meaningless, and this video of Mullis never should have been posted anywhere!
Even in the same comments that Mullis made, he claimed that PCR "CAN FIND this virus in you" and that PCR can do so "down to one molecule"! The distinction that most people are failing to make is between the words "diagnose" and DETECT. So, Mullis believed PCR could certainly DETECT viruses.
However, that was enough for the establishment to continue the FRAUD of virology.
This is all due to the fact that the mythology of virology also claims that, among all the various viruses that the establishment claims exist, there are supposedly "latent" viruses and ones that exist but at "very miniscule amounts" (also Mullis' words). Thus, the "diagnosis" (according to Mullis and the establishment) is that of an "asymptomatic" infectious disease with a pathogen too weak to cause illness. However, the pathogens nevertheless DO EXIST (again, according to BOTH Mullis AND the ESTABLISHMENT), and, again, such existence is absolutely CRUCIAL to the perpetuation of the virus/infectious mythology....Lastly, it is also important to note that, when Mullis made those comments over a quarter century ago, so-called "HIV" was the only pathogen that was purportedly being detected by PCR on a wide-spread basis.....
Thanks Rod, makes total sense when you set it out like that!
I am not sure. I saw an article by Celia Farber for who I have huge respect. It may have been David Crowe. link https://uncoverdc.com/2020/04/07/was-the-covid-19-test-meant-to-detect-a-virus/
All the world's a stage and the entire population is being played by the fraudulent, highly paid, polished actors hired by the Jews and Venetian blood line families. We must escape from the Matrix to find sanity, peace and intellectual clarity.
For my own analyses of how Kary Mullis helped to DERAIL our dear old "AIDS" dissident movement from my perspective as a long-time Perth Group supporter/associate and veteran of that old dissident movement, please see this link: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/the-mullis-mirage and this link: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/p/was-mullis-more-machiavellian-than
I also did a "space" on twitter/X where I spoke about Mullis which is still available at this link: https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1ynJOaMYOazKR (this "space" starts at 1:33).
My bio is here: https://longtimedissident.substack.com/about
Coming round to KM being who he really is I'm reminded of the interview with Jere Van Dyk, alleged adventurer, kidnapped by the Taliban, on the YouTube channel, Soft White Underbelly. I follow this channel and it's obvious that many people interviewed are genuine but Jere is not, nor is the teacher, Kelly, alleged victim of the 2022 school shooting in St Louis, Missouri ("At 9:11 a.m., police received the first call regarding an active shooter threat at the school.")
Jere - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ScTKKk_Myo
Kelly - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7jtydw9OFg
I was quite intrigued by Jere's story so I started listening with great attention but when he mentioned Osama bin Laden my suspicions rose and then when he said he just happened to be in NYC on 9/11 and saw a woman with black hair in the windows of one of the towers I'm like, "Is nothing sacred? Must you infiltrate every-fricken-where?"
Thanks for this exposure, PM. I like to think my radar is attuned to controlled opposition but obviously it's not entirely reliable. Suffering a bit of cognitive dissonance over Kary. I'll have to revisit his "making rockets in his backyard" story as a child. It does sound rather fanciful on reflection although I think a very basic rocket isn't that big a deal.
One thing that struck me as strange was that his wife defended those trying to say that KM was referring specifically to HIV when he said that the PCR cannot tell you if you're sick when clearly he was talking about it generally even if HIV was the general subject - OK so now it's a psyop within a psyop, however, regardless he wasn't specifically referring to HIV when he said it can't make you sick and I wondered why his wife defended people saying it was. That puzzle is now solved because presumably she's in on it too and is saying whatever she's told to say.
There's no HIV virus, so he's pushing the HIV existence because it is there, PCR just can't tell you if your sick with it.
Yes actually the lack of HIV is a bit of a red flag. I have to say I find the scope of fraud a little hard to get my head around. Do you think Peter Duesberg is an agent or just had it wrong?
He's into latent inactive viruses. He should know that a virus would have to replicate thus cause symptoms, he should also know how to purify isolate a particle so it was never done, and he must have known about the Perth group so I vote he is CO, and his fights with Fauci (virus is there but latent) are like Rand Paul vs Fauci (virus is there but a bioweapon).
Doucheberg was an obvious plant after you peel back the first few layers. Just like Mullis, of course!
1) One theory is that PCR comes out of the military (or Dept of Energy which is also very secretive and genome-obsessed) but then "rinsed" through Cetus Corp (Mullis was employee) so as to commercialize the method. Not so farfetched, considering that Mullis' PCR was apparently being ignored until Joshua Lederberg himself happened upon it -
https://sites.google.com/housatonicits.com/home0004/research/kary-banks-mullis-b1944
2) Not sure why it matters if the in vivo form of DNA is a double helix or any super duper helix or not even reminiscently hellicle.
3) In fact, I suspect all of this 'revelation' that DNA is all fake - just a product of the extraction method - is a stoopid red-herring. Likewise the other claim (made by "criticalcheck Tam") that specific DNA or RNA strands arise non-specifically as a result of the chemical and temperature changes that comprise the PCR method is a deliberate red-herring. I'm disappointed that Cowan seems to have fell for it.
4) The RT-PCR used to detect 'viruses' is probably detecting real sequences that reflect any number of overlapping physiological states that may or may not be of clinical relevance.
For a movie star he sure was interested in starting up, and being a part of, many companies in the PCR field. When I went looking for his background a few years ago I found probably 20 or so such companies. And he and his wife visited the South Island at one stage as well to speak at a conference relevant to his field (and to take photos of themselves up on one of the glaciers we, still just, have here).
For sure politicians are actors. I'm still unconvinced that Kary Mullis was.
It’s pretty ridiculous to assert that molecules of deoxyribonucleic acids don’t exist.
I appreciate SOME of the offerings of the Omar Jordan-types and even the offerings of flat earth proponents, but not ALL of their ideas.
See this reply I just made
https://protonmagic.substack.com/p/mullis-the-movie-star/comment/43056035
Please review the article at the following link: https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/ Feel free to post any comments there; the author is very responsive to comments on her articles. She also wrote another article critical of the PCR which is at this link: https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2022/05/08/pcr-and-real-time-rt-pcr-under-critical-review/ The author is still accepting comments on that article as well...
Thanks Rod, I've read but am not fluent in this topic, but since 2020 when I read Fan Wu and got a shiver down my spine whispering, "OMG, it's all fraud", I realize everything must be seen with open eyes.
I suppose that I’m too brainwashed to discard the entirety of DNA being genetic material and cell theory and DNA being the basis of protein synthesis and the development of a mammalian infant from a male’s sperm & a female’s egg and mitochondrial DNA.
Read the posts you were sent and just let it simmer slowly.
The posts read A LOT like denial to me, with a lot of jargon thrown in for good measure.
And I totally understand how denial can be an extremely comforting physiological defense mechanism in these days when virology and epidemiology have pretty much been shot down. And in these days when medical science has been almost totally corrupted by Big Government and Big Pharma.
If the hypothesis “DNA is genetic material and DNA is the key component from fertilization to embryonic development to fetal development in mammals, and is the key component to gene-activation, and is the key components of protein synthesis and mitochondrial DNA is distinct from nuclear DNA” is the null hypothesis attempting to be disproved, then an alternate hypothesis (or alternate hypotheses) had better be presented in order to be tested and falsified and evidenced against the null hypothesis.
Without an alternative hypothesis (or hypotheses), the only strategy imo seems to be denial.
One trap is to accept DNA as the ordinary theory and other theories as extraordinary. But every theory should be evaluated along the same standard.
DNA appeared out of nowhere and was immediately accepted as concensus. I wondered “on what research was the initial acceptance of DNA theory based” and so far I’ve come up empty.
Agree, except I think where we consistently fail is that our "standards" are woefully lacking and still run along the lines mostly of mechanistic materialism and reductionism, with few exceptions. This existence simply cannot be understood and explained in that way. When one really observes nature, plants, insects, and animals, it becomes quite clear who has the upper hand in understanding reality and the mechanisms of all that is.
The initial research into the mechanisms of inheritance (arguably) began with the description of the eukaryotic cell’s nucleus by Edouard Chatton in 1938. There’s been plethora research into molecules and biochemistry prior to the (so-called) “discovery” of the structure of DNA.
I still believe that what’s really going on is ordinary and (so-called) “normal” people surrendering to the temptation to reject all prior scientific knowledge (aka justified belief) in the mega-field of biology. It’s all part of the great delusion. There are mathematical proofs/truths, scientific truths (in the field of materialistic philosophical epistemology) and spiritual truths (in the field of theology) and truths in other philosophical fields — eg aesthetics, logic, metaphysics, ontology, ethics. The great delusion imo… mostly has to do with people who consciously and conscientiously disregard love for the truth.
There's that needing an alternative again in order to dismiss one unproven claim. Such a nonsensical idea. There are many hypotheses to consider and when one does extensive reading and contemplation you will see them. Things are a lot bigger than you realize, a lot bigger.
I guess that I’m simply not prepared to accept on faith the premise that “DNA molecules don’t exist as genetic templates” is a proven claim.
If there are many alternate hypotheses to explain genetic inheritance, I haven’t heard of even one which explains what characteristics I listed above.
It’s really okay, though. None of what passes for “human knowledge” really matters. Human knowledge is not salvific. Only divine revealed knowledge and wisdom is.
sounds like a whole lot of people here have never studied Bechamp!
Do you know if Béchamp had a basic understanding of genetic inheritance? I don’t. Hell, maybe the entirety of the scientific discipline named “genetics” is pseudoscience. “Béchamp claimed to have discovered that the ‘molecular granulations’ in biological fluids were actually the elementary units of life. He named them ‘microzymas’ — that is, ‘tiny enzymes’ — and credited them with producing both enzymes and cells while ‘evolving’ amid favorable conditions into multicellular organisms.” These “microzymas” are still an interesting hypothesis. I am not a STEM-like** thinker, so I am totally ignorant about what the “elementary units of life” actually ARE.
** oriented to think the way scientists and technicians and engineers and mathematicians do
HAVE YOU STUDIED HIS WORK? READ HIS BOOKS?
Because it really sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about.
Why don’t you just go ahead and post some relevant quotes, seeing that you are so familiar with what Béchamp knew about genetic inheritance and what the elementary units of life are? It’s relatively easy to comment on my ignorance about (so-called) “Science™️” after I’ve already admitted that I am apathetic about STEM thinkers.
Or don’t provide any information about your knowledge of what Béchamp actually knew. Again, I don’t care.
My best advice to you is to read his work. Good Luck!
You still didn’t address genetic inheritance and if DNA doesn’t exist as an organism’s genetic material. Anyway:
Béchamp
Principles of micromorphology
<begin quote> While some of the ideas Bechamp addressed predated him, they had not been so clearly described, fully developed, or strongly supported by experimentation. It is said there is nothing new under the sun. If true, it may be because all things, or situations, exist at once in the Creation. It is a matter of perspective, much like looking at a tapestry. Bechamp’s perspective allows us to step back from tight focus and see the loose threads of the germ theory amidst a harmonious and astounding pattern of the life process. He had his “finger” on the magic of life. According to Hume, (Douglas HE. Bechamp or Pasteur? CW Daniel Co Ltd, England, UK. 1923. ) the essence of what he brought to us was as follows: First, he demonstrated that the air is filled with microscopic organisms capable of fermenting any suitable medium on which they happen to land. He showed that the chemical change is carried out by a soluble ferment produced by the organism, and this ferment is analogous to the digestive juices of the stomach. Thus, he identified fermentation as a digestive process. (Young [RO Young, SR Young. The pH Miracle. Hachette Publishing, New York, USA. 2010] theorizes that all decomposition, even the rusting of steel, is mediated by ferments. It is known, for example that bacteria decompose rock into soil. Microorganisms are at or near the foundation of all life and life processes on Earth. For example, fungal forms are indispensable parts of the roots of most plants, including the largest trees.)
Secondly, the most profound conclusion to which Bechamp’s untiring and painstaking research led him is that there is an independently living micro anatomical element in the cells and fluids of all organisms. This element precedes life at the cellular level, even the genetic level, and is the foundation of all biological organization. What originally piqued Antoine’s procreative curiosity was the discovery, somewhat by accident, that pure chalk from geological deposits at least 11million years old would liquefy starch and ferment sugar solutions, while man-made chalk would not. After years of work tracking down the cause (fermentation was not understood at the time), he attributed the action to the living remains of organisms long dead. He called this tiny living element a “microzyma,” or small ferment.
Thirdly, he claimed that microzymas routinely become forms normally referred to as bacteria, and that bacteria can revert or devolve to the microzymian state. (This is the principle of pleomorphism, which is central to understanding the appearance of “infectious” and degenerative disease symptoms in the body.)
Fourthly, he explained that atmospheric germs are not fundamental species, but are either microzymas, or their evolutionary forms, set free from their former vegetable or animal habitat by the death of that “medium.”
Bechamp explained: “The microzyma is at the beginning and end of all organization. It is the fundamental anatomical element whereby the cellules, the tissues, the organs, the whole of an organism are constituted.” He referred to microzymas as the builders and destroyers of cells. The quotation emphasizes the constructive aspect of microzymian activity and purpose, but it is the destructive aspect, or the “end of all organization,” which concerns us in disease. He always found microzymas remaining after the complete decomposition of a dead organism, and concluded that they are the only non-transitory biological elements. In addition, they carry out the vital function of decomposition, or they are the precursors of beings (bacteria, yeasts and fungi) which do so. Thus, he clearly presented the idea that the physical life of higher biological forms arises from, is dependent upon, and is recycled by, microscopic beings. Simple, immediate proof of dependence is the indispensable bacterial population in the human GI tract. And it adds piquancy to the whole matter to consider that our digestive and metabolic associates are plants. The crucial “catabolic” aspect of microzymian behavior enters the picture when the body becomes diseased, for, according to Bechamp:
In a state of health, the microzymas act harmoniously and our life is, in every meaning of the word, a regular fermentation. ... In a condition of disease, the microzymas which have become morbid determine in the organism special changes . . . which lead alike to the disorganization of the tissues, to the destruction of the cellules and to their vibrionien evolution during life.
The microzyma is an organized (insoluble) ferment: a living element. Controlled fermentation is a vital physiological process. For example, it is utilized as a means of breaking down toxins in intercellular fluid and the lymphatics. Also, some commercial dietary fiber products contain acacia and slippery elm. These soluble fibers ferment in the gut, resulting in short-chain fatty acids such as butyrate and acetate, which are highly beneficial to the colon wall. Bechamp published a paper (still in French) about the role of microzymas in the production of salivary diastase (ptyalin). Since there are microzymas in every cell, in the blood and intercellular milieu, it is likely that many vital substances, mostly enzymes, are produced by them or by their complexes.
Bechamp said that the process of cellular breakdown is mediated by microzymian fermentation-even in a healthy body. Though there is renewal happening as well, breakdown fermentation (aging) eventually takes over, greatly increasing in intensity upon death. When oxidative metabolism ceases and a body dies, negative surface charges are lost and the terrain goes acid. Microzymas respond to biochemical signals, the most important being pH. The condition of disease is a milieu which presents to the microzymas a premature biochemical signal that the organism is dead. They consequently change their function and evolve into forms capable of more vigorous fermentative breakdown-forms that reflect disease-what Bechamp called “morbidly evolved microzymas.” If the host pays no attention while it is still feasible to adjust, s/he will be recycled sooner than would otherwise be the case.<end quote>
Source: https://medcraveonline.com/IJVV/who-had-their-finger-on-the-magic-of-life---antoine-bechamp-or-louis-pasteur.html