Summary
➡ 23andMe, a company that analyzes DNA, has been questioned for its accuracy and methods. The company uses a questionnaire and a DNA sample to provide information about a person’s heritage. However, the process is not foolproof and may have errors. The article also discusses the Human Genome Project, which aims to read an entire human genome. It reveals that no human genome has been fully read yet, and the process involves taking DNA samples from multiple individuals, leading to potential errors and gaps.
➡ The text discusses the complexity and uncertainty of DNA sequencing and genome assembly. It uses the analogy of assembling a book like War and Peace from millions of words and phrases to explain the process. The text questions the accuracy of this process, as without a complete reference (like the intact book or genome), it’s impossible to know if the assembly is correct or to calculate an error rate. It also highlights that we’ve never fully sequenced or seen the complete genome of any organism, making the process theoretical and potentially flawed.
➡ The text discusses the complexity of genes and proteins, questioning the traditional understanding of DNA. It suggests that the methods used to study DNA, such as chemical isolation, may not provide a true representation of its existence or function. The author calls for more direct methods of studying DNA, like using advanced microscopy, and challenges the belief that DNA is a stable blueprint for life. They request evidence of DNA’s existence and function from a living organism, questioning the validity of current scientific understanding.
➡ The speaker is questioning the validity of a certain claim, stating they see no proof. They hope their words have provoked thought and assigned a task. They look forward to meeting many at the Western Price and plan to return next week.
Transcript
I think it was. So if it wasn’t, in other words, if it’s not live streaming, if you could call us and if it’s fine, you don’t need to call and should be fine. I think it is, but I just wanted to check so upcoming Weston Price Conference. I’ll be there. The whole new biology not the whole, but most of us from the new biology clinic will be there. Most of the people from the who work for Dr. Tom Cowan and Dr. Cowan’s garden will be there. We’d love to meet everybody, say hello and have a great time for a few days.
So hope you can make it. And again, please introduce yourself or re greet us when you when we’re there. So this what I’m going to be talking about today. It seemed like a good opportunity to redo one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite people, which was the introductory quote in the Human Heart Cosmic Heart book, which was now written almost 10 years ago. And this quote keeps coming up for me and I’m sure it came up for him and you’ve heard it before, but it’s worth going over it again. Quote People may say I’m crazy.
Perhaps they are right. In this case it is not so much important if there is one fool more or less in the world. But in case that I am right and science is wrong, Lord have mercy on mankind. And that was from Victor Schauberger, the water wizard. And I got some of that when I originally came out with the heart is no way could it possibly pump the blood. It is not a pressure propulsion device. And then I got more of that with vaccines are neither safe nor effective. That’s been for a long time. And then cancer has nothing to do with genetics.
And that was for a while and then it escalated with there’s no such thing or there’s no evidence that anything called a virus has been ever shown to exist, let alone cause disease. And then got even more with. And the whole germ theory of bacteria, fungi, et cetera causing disease is not ever been shown. There’s a little bit more with what we call parasites, which are meaning protozoa, they probably don’t exist or at least have never been definitively been shown to exist. And helminths, like worms, they actually have a beneficial role in our human ecology. So I’m no stranger to having people wonder if I’m one more foolish.
It seems to be just the natural course. And I can imagine that I will have maybe even the worst escalation after today because even though I’ve been down this road and many in the so called no virus community have been down this road. And by the way, the best article still that I’ve ever read is by the woman named Tam. It’s called Critical check on DNA. And maybe we can put that in the show notes. But this one, an article that I will show you in a minute on the Human Genome Project, provoked me to reevaluate the whole role of DNA.
And when I say the role of DNA, I mean is it really true? In other words, has there been clear scientific evidence, provided that there is such a chemical in living beings like us? And if there is such a chemical engine via natural selection and mutations, process evolution in which we evolved from inorganic chemicals to slime, mold to northeast and then to people, that is the monkey story. So there’s a lot that has to do with this story. And I think in some ways it’s actually a bigger story than the virus story or the germ theory story because.
Hello? Yep. Yeah. How is that? Yeah, Is that better? Okay. And it’s streaming on YouTube. Okay. All right, thanks. Sorry. Sorry about that. It’s our amateur hour production studio here. Anyways, there’s a lot riding on this DNA business. It’s there. I don’t know how many trillions of dollars are spent on DNA research and experiments and people working and their livelihoods dependent on things DNA. There’s scare stories about the vaccines modifying our DNA. There’s genetically modified organisms which we all avoid eating, and on and on and on. And I was also just reminded, even just yesterday, how pervasive in our culture and in our minds the whole story of DNA is.
I was talking to somebody who was helping us with one of our goats, Charlie, and he had a little bit of athlete’s foot on his. Or something like athlete’s foot. And the whole conversation not so much from my end. Had to do with whether this was something, A, that was, quote, an infection, or B, had to do with his genetics. And the. The tragedy of this is we never ended up really talking about. Although I certainly wonder whether, you know, it has to do with maybe I’m feeding Charlie too many apples. And Charlie’s not supposed to eat so many apples.
He’s supposed to eat hay and grass and leaves and twigs and all that stuff that normal goats eat. And I like feeding Charlie apples. And so I do. Not a lot, but a little bit. And maybe that’s too much and it’s giving him athlete’s foot. So the repercussion of having one’s mind taken over by only thoughts of it’s got to be a germ that causing an infection, which is why you have symptoms, or it’s his genetics. Nobody knows how that would work. But anyways, that’s what people go to. It leads you to not investigate the factors in his life or your life that actually, in fact, are causing you to be sick or not as healthy as you could be.
So that’s really the tragedy of this. We have been. Our minds essentially have been colonized by this story of DNA, so that that’s become the DNA and its offshoot, which is the germ theory. Essentially, viruses are packages of DNA or RNA that have escaped and are floating through the world, and they run by mutations and variants and the whole story of evolution and the whole CRISPR thinking and the vaccines and et cetera, it’s all a offshoot of this big DNA story. I saw another thing that was just today that had to do with the DNA story, which I’ll show you the ambitious plan to revive the woolly mammoth by 2028, which is only a few years off.
So they’re going to use crispr, which is a genetic technique, so to speak. They’re going to introduce specific genes from mammoths into Asian elephants, which share 95% of their DNA with extinct species. And then they’re going to make this woolly mammoth. And I think this comes under the rubric of they’ve been telling us all kinds of things about the wonders of what’s going to happen when we really understand DNA better than we do now, and none of it seems to come to light. So I also want to ask people, when they’re listening to this at the end and maybe even in the comments.
So here’s one of the challenges, and I’ll give a few more as we go along, if you could send. If you believe in the story. And we’ve been going about this for 50, 70 years or so. Tell me one thing in your life or somebody that you personally know whose life has been improved because we know gene technology or the fact that DNA is the blueprint, the code for life. Now, just to be clear, just like with the, quote, virus story or germ theory story, nobody, not me, is saying that people don’t get sick. We’re talking about the mechanism.
So here nobody is saying that there isn’t heredity. I certainly even say things like my father used to say. It annoys me to no end. And people look like their parents, act like their parents. Pj, who’s apparently Pumpkin Son, looks like peach like Pumpkin, although they have different personalities. And on and on and on. We all see heredity. The question here is this because of a chemical in us called DNA. It’s not a question of heredity. It’s not a question of shared characteristics. The other thing I want to say is I certainly have a lot of holes in my knowledge about this subject.
I want to make that clear. I don’t know nearly as much as I would like to know, or maybe I should know about it. But I can tell you after looking into it pretty seriously over the last weeks and months, it’s pretty hard to find straight answers for things like, so what are they actually doing at 23andMe? What are they measuring? You know, it’s not a matter of even denying that there isn’t the possibility of taking some sample from a person or a dog and finding out some information about that person’s life or heredity or relations or something like that.
That could be that. That’s, again, not the question. The question is, is this all based on DNA? And partly that question came up for me because a friend of mine told me that he had gone to 23andMe and they have a questionnaire which of course is big part of the intake. And he filled out the questionnaire saying that he was. He was a dog and he wanted to find out what kind of lineage he was. And then he sent in his sample and apparently he. He is 20% poodle and 40% dachshund and, and 30% shepherd or something like that.
So they’re not foolproof, these things. And we may not even know what kind of error rate they have. So that was sort of the background. So again, there will be a lot of unanswered questions like how. How did they predict this? And how come I share the same thing with, with my brother or my sister or how come they found out certain people in my family have allegedly the same point mutation and et cetera, et cetera. I’m not sure I’m going to be able to answer all those, but I’m going to take a big look at this thing and let’s see what we can find out.
So this is a study that provoked my interest there. There we go. And this was from the BBC, so that means we know it must be true. I think I went off here. Let me see if I can. Yeah, I’m good. So. Yeah, let me make it bigger. Hang on. Okay. This as big as I can make it. Good. So this was an article from the cdc, and there is a little bit that’s different since the end of 2023. So this paper or this article was about things that have happened before 2023, but really not as much has changed as they say.
So this was about the Human Genome Project. And I must say, even as much as I’ve looked into this and supposedly know about this, there were some things that were actually surprising and shocking that I read in this BBC article. So, number one, no human genome has ever been read in its entirety before this year. Scientists expect to pass that milestone for the first time before the end of 2023. You should be able to read something remarkable. The story of a single individual, who they are, where they come from, and et cetera. I won’t go on, but that will be the seminal moment, the publication online of the entire genome of a human being.
End to end with no gaps. At this point, you may feel that you have heard this before. Surely the human genome was published decades ago. Isn’t that all done? And this is the most important paragraph, and I think I’ll probably stop mostly here. It was, in fact, never finished. The first draft of the Human Genome Project was released in 202001 before a consortium of international scientists of the Human Genome Project announced that they had completed the job with a finished sequence in 2003. Assembled from chunks of various people’s DNA, this became the reference sequence against which all other human DNA could be compared.
It was certainly the best that could be done at the time, but had major gaps and errors. Later releases improved upon it. But many of the problems persisted only in the last few years as technology advanced to the point that it is possible to read the entire genome without gaps and minimal errors. But these have all been composites using DNA drawn from multiple individuals. This year, for the first time, the entire genome of a single human being is due to be released. Then they go on to say, this complete single human genome will be a monumental technical achievement.
Only 70 years have passed since the double helix structure of DNA was first revealed, thanks in part to a grainy black and white image taken by Rosalind Franklin, transforming our understanding of how genetic information is stored. Today we have the capability to read the entire genome that makes a person unique. And then they finish by saying, we’ll never be done reading it. So they will always need more money, of course. So then they say, talk about the previously unsequenced sections. So let me just get out of this for a minute. So what was shocking about this for me.
So you may have heard, and I may have said this myself, and many or some of us in the no virus community probably have said this and again, including myself, that the difference between the virus, our confidence that the genome of a virus reflects a real organism versus the genome of a tomato or a frog or a person, is that the genome of a virus, so called, is not taken from a purified, isolated, intact organism, where you take just the DNA or the RNA from a known proven entity that exists, like a frog or like a person, take the DNA only from that person, have only purified DNA, read it from end to end.
And so you know this entire sequence of that DNA, so you’ve proven the person, or the frog or the tulip, or the puffer fish, or whatever it is, exists, that the DNA can only have been taken from that organism, that individual frog or human or tulip, and that it’s been read end to end. So we, meaning, let’s just say me, we kept saying that, and with viruses that’s not the case, they would just take samples that could have human and bacterial and fungal and never actually show that there was a physical particle called the virus, never purified the virus.
So they could extract the DNA or the RNA only from that virus, never read it end to end. All they could do was take those and do their computer based in silico sequencing where they take little short pieces of all that genetic so called material, that RNA and DNA. And then using these language and models and ways that they program the computer to hook things up end to end, they assemble de novo a genome which provably, arguably never was found, never existed intact in the organism. So there’s no way that that could represent an actual organism.
So that was what we said was the difference. So when I read that and then looked into it, it became clear to me that that is exactly how they did the human genome. Think about that for a minute. They never once took an individual and then extracted, isolated, purified the DNA from that individual and sequenced it end to end. That has never happened with a human, it’s never happened with a tomato, it’s never happened with a frog, it’s never happened with a puffer fish, it’s never happened with any living organism. In every case, as was admitted in this article, they take multiple samples from different people, they chop those so called DNA segments into small pieces.
They didn’t go through this in the article, but if you read the whole thing, they talk about this. And then if you go read how they do it, they take all those different samples, chop them up into little pieces, put in rules into the computer to how to reassemble these little pieces into a entire genome. So in no case ever was a pure person’s DNA extracted and read end to end. And then they say something very interesting in this article, that there are many errors that are made during this process. And they say at best at least until 2023.
And I think their claims that things are different now are wildly exaggerated. They never were able to sequence the entire genome. They always had at least 8 to 10% which was never able to be sequenced, ever. So we have the admission of mistakes and that some parts of it were just too complicated or too repetitive or too something. They didn’t work with the algorithms they plugged into the computer so they couldn’t come out with the entire genome. At best they had 8 to 10% of it which was unable to be read. Now let’s think about that for a minute.
If you never had a DNA extracted, purified from a single individual that you could read end to end, to say this is the reference or the standard genome, if you do it in the way that I just described, which is exactly the way they do it for viruses and they never come out with, so we assemble the genome and this is what we got. As you know, they assemble the genome and they have over 300,000 or so different possibilities and then they take their best guess based on God knows what as to which one is actually the correct genome.
So it turns out it’s exactly the same thing here. They put all these different samples of DNA. I mean, isn’t the DNA supposed to be different from every person? Isn’t that why I’m different than Uncle Harry down the street or the next person down the next block? Isn’t it because we have different DNA? So you mix all those together, you chop them into little pieces, you put rules into the computer and then it assembles a hundred thousand or a million or five hundred thousand different possibilities. How would you ever know which is the right one? And how would you ever know what the error rate is? Now this may be hard for some people to understand, so let me give you an example.
Let’s say you have a book. Let’s just take something like War and Peace. It’s so like 500 pages and it’s got all these sentences and words and paragraphs and chapters, etc. And you give all, you give the computer 100 million different words and then you give it rules to by overlapping letters and words so that it can piece this together and it can do it in various ways, there’s not just one way. So it gives you all these different possibilities, but some don’t seem to work right, so you get gaps. But the important point is you have to realize nobody has ever seen the actual book.
Nobody has. What would be the reference standard? This is the actual War and Peace book, end to end. And so if the, the, this other way of doing it, this so called metagenomics takes these short reads, these short words or sentences, puts them together in various configurations. If you’ve never seen the book, how would you know if it’s correct? How could you ever possibly calculate an error rate? Because unless you at one point have the intact book or the intact genome, everything you make, you have no idea whether it’s actually correctly corresponds to what the actual book was.
Because you’ve never seen the book. You’ve never seen the genome of the human being. You’ve never seen the genome of the tomato or the puffer fish, ever. Nobody has ever done that. It’s completely a theoretical model that such a thing exists. All you are able to do is calc, is chop up what you’re calling little pieces of DNA and then make up rules to assemble them based on overlapping segments into a ver a variety of possible configurations. And on what basis will you choose the one that’s correct? I would contend you have no basis for knowing the error rate, any more than you would know the error rate of a book assembled from a hundred million different letters and paragraph and sentences and short phrases, whether that’s actually War and Peace.
Unless you have War and Peace at some point, you will never know the error rate and you will never know whether you got all of it. Now you get to the next problem. They say there’s nine or eight. Eight to 10% was the figure they quote that they never were able to assemble in Other words, there’s gaps. So in other words, they left out a number of paragraphs from War. Not paragraphs, chapters two or three of the 20 or so chapters of War and Peace aren’t even in there. Now think about that from the perspective of is.
So you have these if you’re looking for a quote, virus. So you take samples from a human, you chop it up into little pieces and then based on the findings of the Human Genome Project, which has supposedly given you the reference standard for the human genome, you discard all the human segments. What’s left, therefore by definition is something else, therefore viral, because you’ve also discarded the bacteria and the fungus. And so then you can sequence or align, assemble the rest, being confident that those aren’t human. But now remember they just told you that up until 2023, which is way after SARS CoV2, 8 to 10% of it had never been sequenced at all.
So how could you possibly know that that 8 to 10% which was, or that that part of the, of the DNA fragments which was left which didn’t match with the human reference standard from the Human Genome Project isn’t part of that 8 to 10% therefore could be human. But you’re calling that viral because it’s not part of the code, that’s the Human Genome Project standard. Even though then you just turn around and say yeah, but 8 to 10% of it, we don’t even know if it’s there, we don’t even know, we’ve never seen it, we don’t know how to replace, to sequence it, etc.
So you have no idea whether the 8 to 10% that these so called viral sequences might not represent that 8 to 10% which makes it the whole thing becomes frankly ridiculous. Now it then it became clear that we have never taken an individual or a monkey or a tulip, or a ferret or a tomato or a tulip, probably said that. Or any organism extracted, isolated, purified a chemical called DNA from it, proven that that chemical is identical to the chemical that was in that DNA in that organism when the organism was alive. All we did was take organisms, put them, extract different chemicals, sorry, take organisms, use different harsh chemicals, acids, alkaline solvents, ethanol, acetone, centrifuge it, dehydrate it, put it into various other biochemical so called processes, and then we end up with a chemical which is a more or less pure, never actually totally pure, unlike how analytical chemists do who hold themselves to getting pure chemicals to prove that something actually exists and that it can be characterized and studied.
That seems to have never been done from any living being to extract this chemical, which we call DNA, sequence it, characterize it, and find out what it does. Apparently it certainly was never done with the Human Genome Project. And from what I can gather, it’s never been done with any other organism. So then we go back to something that I’ve shared before, which is so. And as you saw from the BBC article, let me say that again, show it again. This complete human genome will be monumental. Seventy years have passed since the double helix structure of DNA was first revealed, thanks in part to a grainy black and white image by Rosalind Franklin, transforming our understanding of how genetic information is stored.
Okay, I’ve shown this before. There’s the picture, Rosalind Franklin’s X ray photo of DNA. And this. And there it is. This was the picture that Watson and Crick based their hypothesis that DNA is a double helix. And the base pairs line up A with T and G with C. And that forms rotational angles which give you the double helix. And you can see it here. It’s all based on this picture. And this was done, I think, in 1951. And I’ve also said that, interestingly, there were some undergraduates who did a study and they started did the entire process of extraction with chemicals and centrifuge and dry.
And this picture was exposed to X rays continuously for 61 hours. And even though DNA is supposedly fragile and no living molecule or living tissue survives intact being exposed to x rays for 61 continuous hours. So they did the whole process, except not from taking anything from a living organism, but with the spring from a ballpoint pen and they got the same image. And so, as I’ve said a few times before, it is equally likely that the code of life is a chemical called DNA. Or it could be the springs from ballpoint pens, which would be odd since ballpoint pens apparently weren’t invented until probably around 1900.
So how did people and other organisms survive before the invention of ballpoint pens? Now, interestingly, it turns out that this is not the only picture. So recently this is, I think, 2012, there have been new images created of what DNA looks like in extracted from living tissues. So we go from 1951, and then we go up till 2012 and we see an article, I think this was 2012, I’m not sure, the journal direct imaging of DNA fibers, the visage of the double Helix. So we go from 1951 until 2012, and finally we’ve improved the technology enough so we can have Direct imaging of DNA.
And what does it look like here? These two pictures are the actual pictures that were shown in the article. And these showed the chemical called DNA extracted from living tissue. And they are double helixes. I don’t know about you, but that doesn’t look like a double helix to me. Then of course you have artists rendering of what these holes look like and these grainy images of something. But these are the two pictures. After 70 years of advancement in technology, we’re finally able to get better images of what DNA looks like. And here they are. And if this convinces you, I have some.
I was going to say swamp land, but now it’s flooded land in Florida to sell you because this is nonsense. And finally, before I go back to this, so here was a recent article I found showing the different organisms that have allegedly been sequenced. So this is a fruit fly, a mosquito and a puffer fish. And remember that one of the hallmarks of DNA is that it is divided up into segments which we call genes. And these genes code for proteins and the proteins form the structure and function of life. And in a sense, our complexity and our intelligence has everything to do with the ability of our genes to be intact and code for the right proteins, which then create the structure and function which we call the organism.
And that all of the proteins are coded for by these genes. And that’s the complexity. If you look down in the column, you see the number of genes that are estimated from this sort of shotgun computer based in silica assembling of genomes never actually an intact. And there’s not even a clear definition of what a gene actually is. But never mind. Fruit flies have 13,000, mosquitoes, 13,000, puffer fish have between 22 and 29,000, and human beings have 18,000, meaning we’re about three quarters as complex and intelligent as puffer fish. Which I can tell you from looking at a lot of politicians and scientists that actually may be correct.
But you know, people have said, tom, you got to stop making denigrating comments about different life forms. It’s just childish and not becoming. And so I promise not to make any degrading comments about pufferfish ever again. They are only slightly more intelligent and complex than your average Homo sapien, according to the Human Genome Project consortium. And so this is starting to look really weird. And finally then, let me just read a few comments from. Like I said, the best article I know about DNA, which is a critical check by tam. I’ve been over this before and just what are we talking about here? Per my understanding, studying either alive or dead matter is to observe it under a microscope, name, label each particle or substance in it and try to identify its role by removing it from the matter for further observation how it acts on its own, and also observe what happens to the rest of the matter without it.
I also would expect whatever is isolated to be compared to particles and substances isolated from other matter. In biochemistry, what we actually see and what biochemists call isolation, and this is so important to this whole question of has there ever been a chemical called DNA actually isolated, meaning separated, observed, visualized, or some sensory observation that it actually exists and then pulled out and studied to see what its constituents are? Does it have base pairs or nucleotides, as we say? Is it in the form of a double helix? Does it code for protein? That’s all based on that, it has been actually proven to be there from examining of living tissue, probably visually, and then pulling it out, purifying it and studying it.
But as she says, what biochemists call isolation is the treatment of dead or living biological matter with chemicals and heat, observation of chemical reaction and documentation of the byproducts generated from these procedures. That is such a key sentence. It is not isolation as in, I went to a pond with a net and I pulled, I saw a frog and I use my net to pull out, isolate the frog from the water. And then I could see that there is a frog. And then if I’m mean, I could find out what it’s made of and what it does.
That never happens. It has never happened with. Well, I don’t know if it ever happens. Has certainly never happened with viruses and it’s never happened with DNA. Instead they use phosphoric acid, sulfur, nitrogen. Isolation of a novel substance will be declared if the substance in the test tube doesn’t react and doesn’t produce the same byproducts in the same quantity with previously identified substances. Basically a byproducts comparison. In other words, if you change the acid from sulfuric to phosphoric or add more phosphoric and you get a different byproduct from the chemical mixture, you call that the isolation and you claim you found a new substance.
Nothing could be further from being the truth or being scientific or logically valid. All you’ve done is make a different brew of chemicals and gotten a different byproduct. Exactly like she says. Personally, I would accept the chemical way to study matter if there were no microscopes available. And taking into account that during those times microscopes weren’t that powerful as today. That’s when they found the DNA. Allegedly. But with today’s technology and the existence of the electron microscope that can observe atoms. I don’t understand why scientists keep doing these chemical isolation extraction experiments and they don’t just show us here is an intact organism here with controlling for every step of the way.
I visualize, observe this chemical in this organism. Here’s what it looks like. I pull it out, purify it, characterize it, find out what it does that’s never done with DNA. And then when you get into the base pairs, which is the basis of the sequence and the basis of the theory of evolution, that there is a mutation in these base pairs. She says these base pairs were assumed to exist. And this is a quote from the Watson and Crick article Franklin and Gosling. Franklin is the 51 picture account for the presence of the base pair of the DNA.
Bases in the molecule affect the X ray diffraction pattern. They assume that the bases are evenly spaced apart. Using their equation and that assumption, Franklin and Gosling account for the features they Observe in photo 51. Basically, the interpretation of the diffraction pattern and the suggestion of the helical structure takes into account the invisible actually assumed base pairs. It should be stressed that the components of the base pairs had been isolated by Kassel. I’m not sure how someone can extract and isolate something invisible. So we have even doubts as to whether the constituents. I mean, how do you know something has constituents if you’ve never visualized it and proven it to exist in the first place? Okay, so with that, I must say, and getting back to the quote from Schauberger, at this point, I think it is fair to say we need to look for the evidence that there is an actual chemical called DNA that is found in living organisms.
In order for me to admit that that or to accept that that is true, I would really like somebody who’s interested in this subject to send me or show me a method section of a paper that took a living organism and show me how they extracted, purified, isolated this chemical, showed me that every step that they used in the extraction isolation of this chemical didn’t somehow make this chemical appear when it wasn’t actually there in the living organism. That’s what I need to see. Then once we have the chemical intact, then we can do visualization techniques to find out what the shape of this chemical is.
As far as I can see, that has never been done to show that there is such a thing as a double helix, which is necessary for the whole model of how the whole thing unwinds and by the way, has had a huge impact even on metaphysical and spiritual and esoteric knowledge about the DNA is Jacob’s Ladder. And the aliens came and merged with our DNA and did hybridized our DNA and mixed it with other spirals. And in the spiral of life is recreated down to the nano level with the DNA. And once we understand the spiral of life which is in the DNA, we can put different segments in it and create genetically modified organisms which will crank out all these proteins and make wooly mammoths magically appear from normal elephants on the earth.
And I think the whole thing is a load of hooey. That’s my conclusion right now. Again, I’m happy to be shown that I’m wrong. And that’s how I would like to be shown again. I want somebody to start with a living intact organism and using controlled every step of the way steps. Pull out the chemical from that, show that it’s made from these base pairs of nucleotides, show that each of us has a certain sequence. The sequence is the same in every tissue and cell of our body. Even though that’s been proven to not be true.
And even though and prove that it’s stable over our lifetime, which has, by the way, been proven not to be true. But how could it be the blueprint of our life which if it’s not even stable over our one lifetime. So those are what I would like to be shown not. Well, Tom, how do you explain that, you know, so and so was caught robbing a bank by his DNA? First of all, I’m not sure exactly what they’re doing there. I’m not saying that there aren’t chemicals or substances or even frequencies that you can pull off from living beings to identify them or even make inferences or questions about their heredity or find out something about them.
And again, as I said in the beginning, I have a lot of holes in my knowledge about how these techniques actually work. But that’s not what I’m looking for. There is heredity. There probably are ways we can identify people, maybe even identify people in lineages or families. What I’m looking for is the proof that there is a chemical called DNA in living beings and that it does what we say it does and looks like what we say it is and is made of what we say it is. Because at this point I don’t see the evidence.
Okay, I think that should bring us to the end here. And I hope I gave you something to think about and I gave people their homework assignment again. I hope to see as many people as possible at the Western Price. And in the meantime, I will see you next week.
[tr:tra].
See more of DrTomCowan on their Public Channel and the MPN DrTomCowan channel.
Author
