➡ In this episode of the True Health Report, Dr. Andy Kaufman and guest Liev Dalton discuss the current understanding of genetics and its fallacies. Dalton, who initially aimed to disprove alternative theories, found inconsistencies and lack of scientific method in mainstream genetics. They discuss the difference between genotype and phenotype, and how observable traits (phenotype) are not always directly linked to our genes (genotype). They also touch on the influence of lifestyle and health on offspring, suggesting that genetics might not be the only determinant of our traits.
➡ The discussion revolves around the concept of heredity and whether DNA is the sole factor responsible for passing traits from parents to offspring. The speakers question the current understanding of genetics, suggesting that there might be other factors at play, such as environment or possibly even non-material elements like consciousness. They also criticize the scientific method for adjusting hypotheses to fit results, rather than the other way around. The conversation ends with a question about whether DNA actually exists in living organisms, hinting at a deeper exploration of molecular biology in the future.
➡ The text discusses the process of scientific experiments, focusing on the discovery of DNA. It highlights the importance of controls in experiments to ensure results are due to the independent variable, not the procedure. The text also questions the methods used in early DNA experiments, such as the addition of chemicals and their potential effects on results. It concludes by suggesting that while these early experiments were foundational, their conclusions were conservative and further research was needed.
➡ The text discusses the methods used to identify molecules like DNA and vitamins in biological organisms. It questions the validity of these methods, suggesting that the harsh chemicals and processes used could alter the original biological material, creating new, human-made compounds. It also highlights that these compounds, often used as pharmaceuticals, are not identical to the natural substances they’re supposed to represent. The text suggests that proper experiments to study naturally produced substances in our bodies are yet to be designed.
➡ Watson and Crick’s DNA double helix model was based on assumptions, not proven facts. They used X-ray crystallography on a crystallized form of DNA, which may not represent its true form in our bodies. The image they used to determine the double helix structure was also non-specific and could be interpreted in different ways. These assumptions and potential errors question the validity of their Nobel prize-winning conclusion.
➡ The text discusses the complex relationship between genetics and environment in causing diseases like cancer and cystic fibrosis. It argues that while genes can play a role, it’s not always a determining factor as people with certain genes may not develop the disease, and vice versa. The text suggests that the environment, including factors like stress, lack of sleep, and poor nutrition, is a more crucial factor in disease development. It also questions the assumption that all cases of a disease with the same symptoms have the same cause, highlighting the need to consider individual circumstances and environmental factors.
➡ The text discusses the validity of DNA testing and genetic determination. It questions the accuracy of popular DNA testing services like 23andMe, suggesting that results may be based on a variety of factors, not just DNA sequences. The text also debates the concept of genetic determination, arguing that even if DNA testing was 100% accurate, it wouldn’t necessarily prove that our genes determine our identities or health outcomes.
➡ The text discusses the importance of basing our lives on reality rather than assumptions, particularly in relation to genetics and health. It suggests that our bodies adapt to their environment, not just over generations but on a daily basis, and that this is a more accurate understanding of health than genetic determinism. The text also criticizes the reliance on technology and AI in health research, arguing that they are as fallible as humans because they are based on our data and assumptions. Finally, it promotes a holistic approach to health, including understanding symptoms, avoiding toxins, and maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

Another one is peptides. There’s a big peptide craze going on. Everyone’s, oh my God, don’t get me started on that, Leo. This is the True Health Report, where critical appraisal fuels true freedom. Hello everyone, and welcome to the True Health Report. I’m your host, Dr. Andy Kaufman. Today we are going to start refuting claims in a new subject area, one that I have recently hinted at and will definitely be getting into in more depth. But for this first main piece of content, I wanted to bring on a young man who’s very enthusiastic in his skepticism and dismantling of various modern biological paradigms.

And I’m referring to none other than Liev Dalton of Beyond Terrain, who has developed an educational curriculum to help people uncover these truths as well. And I saw his recent content about genetic diseases and other fallacies of genetics and found it quite compelling. And it was very consistent with some of the preliminary conclusions that I also reached looking at the tenets of the, you know, I’ll, I’ll say pseudoscience of genetics. So welcome to the stage, Liev, thank you so much for having me. It’s an honor to be here. Well, I’m glad that we can have this kind of high level discussion.

I’m wondering if you could just give the audience a little bit of your background. I know that you definitely studied the mainstream sciences and how you came to, you know, develop this as a alternative career for yourself. Well, it’s been, it’s been quite a journey and quite a meaningful one at that. I did start out studying biochemistry and molecular biology in my undergrad. I thought it was going to be centered largely around metabolism. Funny enough, for our discussion today, it was centered mostly around genetics. So I understand a lot of these concepts from the mainstream perspective quite in depth.

Like, I’m not unfamiliar with the methodologies used, the applied sciences, the lab work, I’ve done a lot of the lab work that we’re probably going to discuss today. So moving away from that, really, it started listening to a few individuals like yourself, Dr. Kaufman, who just, we’re discussing the germ theory, you know, and that’s where it started. And I actually set out to try to disprove the terrain. I wanted to disprove sort of the claims that, that you and Dr. Cowan and Dr. Lando were making. Because, you know, I was, I took a few microbiology courses, I took some virology courses and my, my goal was to disprove it.

And so in doing so I went back and I read the Koch’s Postulate studies. I read the original papers, the contagion studies, right. The foundation of germ theory. And in doing so, obviously it was a complete falsification of the germ theory. And so now we find ourselves discussing genetics and it’s the exact same path. Once we go and read the original papers, we find that there are just tons of confounding variables. There’s a lack of scientific method, just, just a story sort of pulled out of a magician’s hat, you know, and really no foundation and nothing to support it.

Right. And that’s sort of the big problem in modern science is we tell these stories and Thomas Kuhn warned us about this in the structure of scientific revolutions. It’s called theory ladenness. Right. It’s like when we believe something, our preconceived notions, you know, they, we put those onto our observations. And so when we take, you know, dirty bandages as we’ll dive into and you add, you know, phosphoric acid to it and you get a white powder that’s phosphorus based, you say that’s got to be the blueprint of life just because we’re basing it off of our preconceived ideas.

Now there’s truth to heredity and we’re going to dive into these topics more. But just as a little preamble, you know, there’s our, I think what, what, what we want to do is just highlight where there is a lack of the scientific method, where there is a disconnection with reality and trying to find maybe some truth in it at all. But it’s a large field of nonsense. So anyways, that’s what excites me most about this stuff and diving into it. So I’ll throw it back to you if we keep going. Well, liev, I think there’s, there’s some interesting stuff there because one parall between us is the way that I first woke up to some of these scientific truths.

And it was before germ theory actually. It was looking at the climate and the alleged global warming. And I took the same exact tact as you. I set out to try and prove that global warming was a real phenomenon. And of course once I got into the research, I saw that it was also just a story and there were computer models that are easily fudged that were the only, you know, so called evidence really to support it. So I think it’s a very useful approach and it also gives, you know, some internal validity to your opinions on the other end.

And it also quelches some of the criticism that you might face by others because, you know, you were actually on their side and you just couldn’t support the claims. So it’s not like you were coming in as some, you know, opposing force. Now what you said about the stories that are created but are never validated with empirical experiments. When I read Crick’s paper about the central dogma, I thought it represented a fever dream, really. And I’ll give you a little anecdote from when I was in genetic spec in MIT days that we had. I don’t remember if it was a midterm or a final exam, but I stayed up, I wanted to stay up all night cramming for it.

And so I drank a 2 liter bottle of Mountain Dew as foolish college students do things like that. And you know, I, I crashed at about 4am and woke up a half hour later in a cold sweat because I had like a fever dream from the, from the Mountain Dew that there was a mute mutating genetic beast inside of me that burst out right through my abdomen just like in the movie Alien. And now I think if I would have just written that down in a scientific paper format, like could that be now the modern prevailing theory there? So liev, we can now get a little bit more serious.

And you know, obviously if we observe biological organisms like, like humans being, you know, the most complex, we can see that the amazing degree of organization and complexity we have of all the processes going on at any given point in time must need a source of information, something akin to a blueprint in order to be able to reproduce this, right? Like every time a new offspring is formed, it is able to do all these things. So it would be great if we could understand exactly where that information comes from and how it’s passed from generation to generation.

And that is really the attractiveness I think of genetics is that it provides a relatively simple way to understand that. But the question we’re going to tackle here today is, you know, is it actually true? So let’s talk about heredity because we can, you know, we know this information, right, is passed down over generations and we can observe heredity, right? That we can observe eye color, hair color, stature, right? Many, many other things, even actually personality traits, right, which we can observe. I don’t know if you have any children, but children, when they’re quite young, you definitely know they have certain personality traits.

Like my three year old, you know, I’ve known this for a while, is quite stubborn and independent. You know, if you want him to do something he doesn’t Want to do it. And now he’s starting to negotiate. Right. Because. Because of language. So. But we certainly don’t have a gene for stubbornness. So tell us about the difference between, you know, about heredity and how it relates to genetic determination. Yeah, great starting point. I do. I have a daughter, she’s about six months, and she’s already very much like her mother, so. And she’s quite young, so hopefully that’s a good thing we have.

It is. It certainly is, yeah. Fantastic. I love the starting point. And I think, you know, it comes. What comes up for me is the genotype versus the phenotype. Right. So the phenotype is sort of the expression of a gene. Right. And it’s the observable characteristics, like you were pointing out, like eye color, like height or hair or skin or whatever it is, even personality. And this is observable. Right. We’re not denying that in any case. And I think that there’s a lot of truth in here. And where my mind goes is Weston A. Price’s work, actually.

And I think that this is really important because I believe too, that the health of the parents can dictate the health of the children. You know, and, and what’s the name? Pray Showed that when you stray from the natural lifestyle, the. The natural foods, the natural habits, movement patterns, rituals, whatever it may be, the. The children of the offspring that moved away from traditional life had dental deformation. Right. Mal. Mal. Male malocclusion. Yeah. Yeah. They had cry. Visible. Exactly. They had visible phenotypic traits that were sort of abnormal, for lack of better terms. And it was based on the health of the parents.

So we could see that, you know, the state of the, the parents. The state of the parents affects the offspring. And I think that’s an important observation too. So it’s, it’s, it’s not absurd to claim these things. Like, it’s not absurd to claim that there’s something inside of us that gets passed down. Right. Is it DNA? That’s sort of the question that we’re going to dive deeper into. Or is it, you know, could it be something else? You know, we’re not going to probably dive too, too deep into positive claims here because then we’re tiptoeing into a little bit of the whole modern problems.

Rather we’re just going to falsify the concept of it being DNA without, you know, denying reality. We don’t want to. Right. Well, I think it’s a good starting point, Leah. A good starting point for us is we realize that there’s information that explains things like heredity and our degree of organization. But we don’t know how the information is stored or passed down or coded if it, if it is. Right, sure. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah. And I mean, listen, Hippocrates discussed this question long time ago. I remember studying Hippocrates in school, actually in my undergrad, and I took a course on the development of modern medicine and stemmed back all the way to his work.

And we studied him quite in depth. And he asked, you know, the information contained in the seed, right. And in the, in the ova, in the egg, it has to contain the entire essence of the being. Like the, the whole oak tree is contained in an acorn. You know, the whole. That’s right. And this, this fits with fractal mathematics and it also fits with the hermetic principle of as above, so below 100. So this is not the claim that we’re refuting, right? It’s just, it’s just whether or not it’s DNA, right? Because DNA comes with that story, comes with all sorts of problems, right? It comes with genetic determinism.

It comes with, you know, it comes with the concept of disease caused by genes that are out of our control. It comes with the pcr. It comes with all of these different stories that also render life meaningless, like Neo Darwinism and random mutation can be the cause of disease or your problems or whatever it is. And it just, it like there’s a certain amount of constitution that’s passed down. And I know that obviously the terrain is something that influences our environment, is something that influences us on a far greater level. And now some geneticists are, you know, they’ll start and they’ll say, oh, well, it’s epigenetics.

And one of the big cop outs that you hear now is there’s a complex interplay between our genes and environment, right? So there’s a certain amount of constitution that we gain. But again, coming to environment, something like height, for example, is it purely a genetic thing? Because I’m taller than both of my parents, I’m maybe the tallest person in my lineage. I am too. How could, how could that be? You know, how could I surpass it just there? Well, yeah, you must be a mutant. You must. That, that’s the, that would be the explanation in the current paradigm, right? Yeah, exactly.

It’s backfill, right. And that’s an important concept that we can understand too, is that when we have observations that don’t fit the theory, we create another story to try to make it fit, right? And we don’t need to, we just write it. Yeah, exactly. We just write it in the discussion section and say, oh, well, this fits because, you know, X, Y, Z and you make it make sense. We see that. So this is basically what, what you’re talking about, Liev is, right, the scientific method. You have to have a hypothesis and then you design an experiment to test the hypothesis.

Right. And then either the hypothesis is true or not true. But when the results don’t support the hypothesis being true, what they do is then go back and change the hypothesis to match the results. Right. That’s the, you know, post hoc revision fallacy, or maybe there’s a slightly different name, but that’s, you know, completely false. That’s rewriting the story. Yeah, exactly. You add in assumptions, you add in, you add in anything that you need to add in after the matter to make it work, to make it fit. That’s the theory ladiness too, that I was referring to earlier.

Right. We have this concept of constitution being passed down to a certain degree. And we’re going to try to, to solidify this in the material world through DNA, through a physical blueprint of light. And from there we have to make every experiment that we do fit this idea that, that we’re discussing right now, that we’re not denying that there’s a certain amount of, of, you know, traits that are passed down. Right. They have to make it fit into their experiments. And that’s where there’s a disconnection with reality because now we’re deep, deep into the test tube, first and foremost.

So there’s initially the Duhem and Quine problem of when we isolate things, do they act like they do in nature? Because there’s no isolation in nature. It’s like the first problem with empiricism. Now that being said, if we’re going to do empiricism, we have to take it serious. We have to use it from a falsification standpoint. And all the confounding variables end up causing us problems down the road and we’ll dive, we’ll dive deeper. Right, right. And that’s important. And I just want to mention, you know, two other things here. One thing is that when we, when we talk about heritable traits, we can all look at certain traits and know that they’re not genetically determined.

Like, for example, you can inherit your religious beliefs, right? If you’re born to Catholic parents, then you’re a Catholic. If you’re born to Jewish parents, you’re Jewish. But no one would make the argument that, you know, Judaism and Catholicism are genetically determined, and I’m sure you could think of many, many other examples like that, you know, poverty would be one. And then I also want to comment on what you were saying about, you know, that we could look at that all the information is contained in the egg, for example, or in the embryo, so that it can become the full organism and have the same features.

Right. As the parents. But I want to caution the audience of the materialism inherent in that statement that we think there’s some physical storage of that information. And that may or may not be true, because we can look at modern technology like our cell phone. Right. Which no one can live without. The information that we utilize on that cell phone doesn’t all come from the cell phone. Right. It comes from magical waves. Right. They’re not really magical, but waves that are not in the material world. Right. They are represented by vibrations in the material world, but they are not material in and of themselves.

They have no substance, and yet they provide all this information. So in nature, we have something called the Schumann resonance, for example, which is just like a cell phone signal, but it comes from the earth or from nature. So, you know, could that contain the information coded. Right. And then the. The egg just has a way to receive that. And like Tom Cowan, for example, has talked about the chromosomes that they resemble antennae in in modern devices. So could it be receiving, you know, a signal of some type of electromagnetic waveform? Now, I’m not saying we have evidence for that or making a claim.

I’m just saying if you think of all the possible ways you could approach this scientifically, I would definitely look in that direction as well. Yeah. And I mean, it’s like a consciousness. Can you find it in the brain? Do you find it in the person even? Right. It’s like there’s something greater at play here. I love that point. Well, if we look at Mark Grover’s work, I think there’s very compelling real scientific evidence that consciousness is not localized to the body at all. Now, you know, of course, how is that possible and all that? We don’t have all the explanations, but it’s been shown in many different experiments to be the case.

So, you know, I think what this tells us more than anything else is that we don’t really know the answers. Agreed. All right, so let’s. Let’s get into the hardcore molecular biology here. Liev. Now, you. And this comes from the 19th century originally, but, you know, tell us about, like, is DNA actually in living organisms at all? Does in other words, does it exist in nature? Exactly. Yeah, that, that’s, that’s the big question. And I think the point of confusion comes again from the true scientific method. And Dr. Kaufman, I know you’re very familiar with that, and I know that your listeners are likely very familiar with how to approach the scientific method.

We need isolation of variables. We need the isolation of methodology as well. So the addition of reagents and chemicals into an experiment must be controlled for. Right. The question is how do we know that the addition of a chemical doesn’t alter the initial substance? So, Right. Originally there’s this guy, but it was eight. Before you go there, let me just, let me just review this point because it’s really important the audience understands this. Right? So we know that to do a scientific experiment we need an independent variable and we need a control. And the reason, especially for the control experiment, is because we know that our experimental procedure itself can affect the outcome.

And we have to show that the results that we’re interpreting didn’t come from the procedure, but it came from the independent variable. And so that we have to have both of those things to know that we’re actually observing something that happens in nature and not something we created in our own laboratory. So, so think of that as you’re des. I mean, the audience think of that while liev. You’re describing the initial experiments that led to the discovery, you know, discovery of DNA. So like I was saying 1869, me originally he discussed nucleon. It wasn’t called DNA, it was called nucleon.

And so what he did, again, sort of with a preconceived idea that there is something physical in our bodies that is the blueprint of life, that is the, the basis of, you know, our existence, of our biological manifestation, our bodies. So he took pus from surgical bandages as his starting material and he precipitated it via chemical treatment. So he used acids, most notably phosphoric acid, which is a very important point, added alkali and he used heat. He used different methodologies in his so called isolation procedure. Right? So he started with, you know, pus from surgical bandage, which is biological material, but then added these chemicals that again, how do we know whether or not they affect the so called nuclein or DNA? We say that DNA is one of the most fragile substances that we know.

Yet the addition of these acids don’t alter the so called DNA. So the big observation here was that rather than it being a nitrogen based white powder that they ended up with at the end, the precipitate was a white powder and it was phosphoric based. It had more phosphorus in it rather than nitrogen. Right. Now, Lev, to get into the methods a little bit more. So now they didn’t have, you know, NMR and mass spec back at the time this experimental research was done. So how did they, when they sort of know. I think what you’re saying here is that they started with pus from surgical wounds.

Yeah. Added a bunch of steps of chemical reactions, maybe solvent extractions, acid base reactions, and at the end ended up with a white powder. But how do they know what the white powder is? I mean this, this is exactly it. That, that’s, that’s a great question, Dr. Kaufman, because I’m not sure how they came to that conclusion exactly. Based off of it was the methodologies and the theory ladenness that led them to, to believe this in the end, right there. Because there was no confirmation. There was no, you know, let’s, let’s confirm that this is nuclear and that this is the starting point of, of something biological.

Right. We don’t have that any comparison to work off of. And was there, it’s called nuclein or nucleon because ostensibly it comes from the nucleus. Right. But was there any experimental procedure to separate the nucleus or extract material only from the nucleus because we would have white blood cells and pus. Right. That you could see under a microscope. I don’t believe in this. In this paper they claim to isolate the nuclei. They claim, I believe in later papers to try to isolate the nucleus. But again, it kind of falls into the same trap of how did we, how are we confirming that we actually isolated nucleic material? Right.

It’s still sort of. We do a step, we say like we write in our paper, this is what’s happening. And then all of a sudden we have the result. Like this is. When you go and read the papers, you realize it’s very much. It’s not also, it’s not written like our modern imrad papers. Introduction, methods, discussion or results. Discussion. Right. It’s a different structure. It’s very much written as in, like this is what’s happening. This step. This, this is what happening. Like we don’t have the confirmation, we don’t have any comparison that the modern literature tries to do.

Right. We say, we kind of ascribe meaning to each step as we’re going. Right. And I imagine as many of the papers that I’ve read of this genre, they don’t actually describe the experiment in any detail such that you could reproduce it, exactly, yeah. The reproducibility. Now one, one interesting point about this is that Hope Sellier actually reproduced the experiment allegedly using the same methodologies. Very. Again, lack of detail in these papers is the biggest problem, as you’re pointing out. Now the interesting thing is when Hope Sellier followed up with these, with these experiments, I think one of the biggest problems was that people viewed that as confirmation.

They viewed the reproduction of these methods as confirmation of the methodology and then the result. Right. But just repeating the same steps and getting the same white phosphoric based precipitate doesn’t necessarily mean that the methodology was correct or adhered to the scientific method, or it doesn’t confirm anything. You’re just doing the same steps over again, getting the same result. Right. So again, an interesting point was one of the main differences of this precipitate versus one that was nitrogen based is they thought that the nitrogen based one would be like a protein material and the phosphorus, phosphorus base was a nucleic material.

That was one of their ways of confirming that this was in fact different than some other biological material. Right. And so the most interesting part about this is that they added phosphorus in the methodology. They added phosphoric acid to the biological material. So of course there was a greater presence of phosphorus in the result, which again, this is the confounding variable, right, of, of the difference in, in their result, in their, their desired outcome. So they put phosphorus in the experiment and then they measured it at the end, but they concluded that it came from the biological tissue rather than what they added.

Right. It, it sounds very similar to some of the virology experiments where they take pus, you know, similarly, or lung fluid, and they do a PCR test, say that it has a certain genetic seque, then they put it into an experimental organism and measure it and show the same sequence. Well, it’s like, okay, you detected what you just put in. So what, what conclusions were drawn from this research? The, the, the main purpose of this was sort of the, the isolation of nucleon of some sort of, you know, blueprint of like. Now I don’t think that they called it the blueprint of life at this point.

Some of these old papers were actually quite conservative in their conclusion. I believe that this, it was still quite conservative at this time that when they said we just isolated nucleon and we need more research, like we need to do more at this point. And so interestingly enough, when you go and you read sort of these fundamental papers and you realize by the time Watson And Crick comes around, which we’ll get to that in a moment. You realize that it was all just taken, pieced together and said, here’s the story of DNA. Even though this experiment, you know, we can’t reliably conclude anything from this.

And some of the authors, like even Kossel and even, even, you know, when it comes to the bases, like they were, they were weary about saying like this is the blueprint of life. They were just kind of doing some chemistry on biological material and saying, oh well this is nuclean. And then eventually it developed into the whole DNA double strand. And based on the assumptions and stuff like that. So again, a lot of these conclusions when you read these papers are quite conservative, which is interesting that maybe some of these scientists, I mean at the end of the day, like Meister doesn’t really know what, you know, what happened in 70, 80 years with Watson and Crick.

Right. They just took his paper and said, ah, this is the foundational paper. Let’s assume it’s, you know, the basis of life and keep moving. Right. So. Right. And, and DNA wasn’t really, or new nucleon wasn’t really widely thought to be the genetic determining factor even in the early 20th century. Right. When you had the experiments going on with Mendelian patterns of inheritance and such. But it sounds like the, what they did conclude is that, that this, you know, phosphorus laden genetic material, meaning, you know, DNA, RNA and the nucleotides are present in all life forms.

But did they exhaustively test hundreds of different specimens from hundreds of different species? Well, I mean, I think the interesting point there is that maybe some people did, but even if they did, if you just take biological material and add some acid to it and alkali and form a white precipitate that’s phosphoric based, then you never actually confirm what any sort of molecules are present and what’s actually present in the white substrate. You could probably reliably conclude that this is so called present in all biological organisms just by using the same methodology that goes unconfirmed. Right.

So I do believe maybe Hope Sellier did use, I think he used dog tissue rather than like pus from surgical bandages. And so the idea that it came from a different substance was again confirmatory, that it’s present in all biological organisms. But I think your point is valid. I still think that the problem is that even if they did it on hundreds of different species rather than just two different sources, they probably would have tried to say the exact same thing, that it’s still present in all biological material right now is this problem with these methods.

Does it go beyond DNA and nucleotides? Yeah, of course, the problem with these methods, of course. I mean, this is the, the foundation of the, the research on DNA. Right. So when it comes to Watson, I think you, you might have misunderstood, so. Sorry. Please. That’s okay. No problem. So the way they made claims that, you know, they found DNA in biological tissues, and so it’s a molecule, right, that now is said to be in all biological tissues. Are there other molecules that have similar research methods that they also say are in either all or certain biological tissues? Yeah, yeah.

One I’ve been doing quite a deep dive in is vitamins. Interestingly enough, they actually take like way more steps to get vitamin C and use much harsher chemicals. They add, they add lead acetate, lead citrate, some add, you know, silver nitrates and mercury, petroleum silver nitrate. That’s what they use to cauterize tissue. Right. So just so you know, right. It, it chemically burns tissue. They use it for like nosebleeds that won’t stop, things like that. So adding that to biological material is going to burn the material, so to speak. Exactly, exactly. It’s the same story with vitamins.

And really, any isolated sort of chemical from our biological organism falls into this trap. Because original isolation procedures all rely on this. Right. And then we question, okay, well, vitamin C, you can make it with, you know, two, three steps in the laboratory. But just because you can reproduce the chemical structure again doesn’t mean that it comes from a biological organism that still requires evidence for that claim. Right? Just because we can produce chemicals in the lab, I don’t disagree that we can produce chemicals in the lab. But again, to find these vitamins, it was very pharmaceutical esque like behavior.

You know, they do 20 steps and at the end they would have like a variable 5 or 10 steps that they would take these substances and test it on people and see if they could reduce symptoms. And the end product that reduced the best symptoms, they’d say, all right, well, that’s the vitamin, that must be the vitamin. Even though they would take a bunch of different, you know, substances and say, well, that’s that substance, you know, that derivative of vitamin A, you know, did less for that reduction of that symptom. And it’s the same problem with any isolated, any isolated component, and that’s a big problem in the modern supplement industry is that it’s more pharmaceutical based than we, than we think.

That’s right, because these things are Made, you know, by synthetic chemistry or GMO organisms combined with synthetic chemistry, they, they don’t come from nature. Right. It’s not like eating food, for example. And so what you’re describing here is that all several classes of biomolecules that are claimed to be in organisms like vitamins, you mentioned vitamin C or ascorbic acid specifically. Of course, we’re mainly talking about DNA and related compounds. And I’ve looked at hormones and so has Dr. Cowan. I’ve been looking at thyroid hormone and I’ve also been started looking at neurotransmitters. And it’s the same story in all these cases.

You take a biological material, you add chemical reagents, you subject it to physical stressors like heat and centrifugation and acids and bases, and then at the end you get some kind of white crystalline powder. And then that powder may be physiologically active. Like if you put it in an organism, the organism may respond. And that’s just assumed to represent that in the actual organism that exact substance is produced naturally and has the same or similar physiological effect. Right. But it’s never looked at as well did any of the things we’ve done to this tissue to create this white substance, could it have actually changed the thing? And what I would say we actually have done in these experiments is that we used biological material as a starting material and we synthesized a brand new compound, human made, and it could be used as a pharmaceutical, and it often is.

And in fact, even if we look at the examples of this as a pharmaceutical, like let’s take insulin or let’s say testosterone, right? Both of those are given as pharmaceutical drugs. Well, the pharmaceutical drugs that are made are actually not even identical to what they say testosterone or insulin is. They make modifications of it. Different amino acid sequences for insulin, different side chains or reactive, you know, subgroups for the testosterone drugs versus natural testosterone. So that indicates, you know, really just an extension of what we know, that all of these compounds are synthetic, they don’t actually exist in nature.

We do obviously have substances in our body that have effects that are naturally produced, but we haven’t designed proper experiments to actually study those. Exactly. Another one is peptides. There’s a big peptide craze going on. Everyone’s, oh my gosh, don’t get me started on that, Leo. It’s the same, it’s the same thing that we’re discussing here too, right? Because those are made synthetically on a peptide synthesizer machine, which I had a summer job in college where I ran one of Those making peptides for research at a biotech company. Right. So these things are not what’s in nature.

And you know, you know, by the way it’s synthesized because, you know, they’re attached to a resin. And then you have to use the most acidic acid, dangerous thing there is, is gaseous hydrofluoric acid to get the peptides off the resin and such. And obviously, if that happened inside your body, we’d all be dead. Exactly. So what about the double helix? Yeah, I think. I think even if we take it back, maybe one step too, to the bases. Because there was an interesting point about the bases that Castle actually did this a few years later, maybe 15 years later.

So we’re talking about the four nucleotides that are said to be the building blocks of DNA. Right? That’s what you’re talking about with the basis. Yeah, yeah. It’s confusing because they’re called nucleic acids, but then they’re also called bases. That’s good. That’s good. I actually never thought of that. But it fits really well into, like, feeding into the discussion of the double helix. Because what you realize is Watson and Crick basically just assumed all of the results to be perfectly true. Like, so the base pairs feed into Shagraph’s rule that A pairs with T and G pairs with C.

So with. With ca. You know, rather than finding nucleon, he found the. The base pairs or the, the nucleic acids. Right. Adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine, uracil. And the, the interesting thing, he started with different sources, like guanine came from bird feces from. That’s why he called it guany. And that, by the way, bat feces is called guano. I wonder if it’s the war of origin comes from that. Yeah. The interesting part about getting base pairs versus getting nucleon is that you use a different scientific. Or you use a different method, not a scientific one, use a different methodology.

So they, you still use the heat, they still use, you know, centrifugation, but they actually used mercury chloride, they used phosphotungstic acid, they use silver nitrate again. And using a different methodology, like in these different methodologies, you end up with different results, you end up with different products. Of course, this just makes sense. When you add different products, you get different products. So it’s like the same sort of. It’s just. It’s just again, perpetuating the story. And so once the base pairs were concluded as being, you know, biological material or the biological material of nucleon, which was again the, the greater claim made in, in Castle’s paper.

Shagraph went out and this was sometime later that he, he, he wanted to prove that base pair, they pair together. That bases pair together. Right. That was his, his idea. Right, because you need that to say that there’s a double strand. Right? Exactly, exactly. And so he looked at ratios and the interesting thing about Chagraph’s rule is that if A bears with, if A binds with T and G binds with C, then there’s always going to be an equal amount of A and T and an equal amount of G and C, which surprisingly enough in his paper he did not find those ratios at all.

But I bet he still stuck with his hypothesis. He certainly did. And we’re. So Watson and Crick stuck with that hypothesis to assume that the, that there was a double strand that they were dealing with. Now let me ask you, Liev, if, if they have these matching or complementary bases and it forms a double strand, why doesn’t RNA form a double strand? It’s made of the. Almost the same basis. Yeah, well, well, and that’s the thing. And so interestingly enough, now they will claim that there is double stranded rna. I do believe in certain viruses and.

Well, yes, they do. And they also say that they’re single stranded DNA. Yeah, exactly. Right. But, but how is this possible given this complementarity issue? This is the thing. Exactly. Yeah, exactly. Again, the, the lack of advances, especially in this sort of primitive DNA work, there’s, they don’t, they don’t answer any of these questions, of course. Course. So, so before they actually did the X ray crystallography experiments, you’re saying that they already had this idea of complementarity and of double strands. Yes, that was one of the assumptions that Watson and Crick actually based their structure off of.

That there was a complimentary strand, that it was double stranded. So Watson and Crick, of course, the, the whole double helix and the, you know, photo 51, they use that X ray diffraction pattern of nuclein material. Before we go there, Liev, you just use the word assumption. Now does assumption fit with science? Of course not, Dr. Kaufmann. Of course not. Okay, so I think this is a really important point, is that all the experiments that we are describing, and especially as we get more into the modern genetic experiments, they have assumptions, right? They’re based on assumptions.

So this is of course fraught with error. And in fact, can you even really interpret the results of an experiment when you have assumptions that aren’t proven in the first place? Exactly. Yeah, and I mean, the assumptions go a little bit deeper than that too, than just the complementary strand assumption. Watson and Crick, in looking at the image of the, you know, 62 hours of X ray that it took to get the image, to get photo 51, right. They had to blast DNA again with X ray, which supposedly. Right. But before they even got there. Do you know how they created the sample that they exposed to the X rays? Yeah, I believe they, this was so, this was in the 50s.

I believe that they used a slightly different approach to isolating the DNA. I don’t think that they just did the method that Meister used. They actually added, I think, more chemical reagents from what I found. I think they added things like phenyl chloroform and alcohol precipitation. And they did try to isolate the nucleic material by breaking the cell to access the nucleus. So cell lysis, hydrolysis, they used nucleases, formic acids, they use different chemicals to get the nucleic material. So it wasn’t actually a simple, you know, Meister method, or Hope Sellier method of just adding a few acids and a few, a little bit of alkali and getting a white powder.

It actually added a whole other level of, you know, we’re kind of in a, we could be in a whole different world here for all we know. Right. And, and I would, I would, you know, argue that the reason they did a different preparation is because in order to do, you know, they call, it’s called X ray crystallography. And if you look in the textbooks, you’ll see that every molecule that they can draw a three dimensional structure of and talk about the geometry, they basically found that by this method. And what they need is a very pure crystal to start with.

Right. Which has a. Crystals have a regular structure that’s repeatable and homogeneous throughout the substance. And you can assess that by physical properties of the substance, like optical properties, for example. So it is observable that crystals have a regular structure. I mean, just look at a nice piece of clear quartz, you’ll see that it’s, it’s uniform throughout. Right. So they need that as a starting material. But if we look under the microscope at cells, like we can see the nucleus with a light microscope, it’s a real thing. But are there any crystals in there? Yeah. Interesting observation.

So even if, like the interpretation of the X ray diffraction pattern is accurate, we have this problem that DNA is not in crystals inside of an organism because we can’t observe any crystals. So could it be in A totally different shape. That’s exactly it. Yeah. 100. Again, it’s kind of an assumption within the methodology itself, within the methodology of X ray crystallography, as you’re pointing out. Yeah. Like, we know with, if we look at carbon, for example, Carbon has different forms, right. And they’re very different. They have very different properties from each other. The crystal, the perfect crystalline form of carbon is a diamond, and another form is ash or graphite.

Those are different forms. Now, we know graphite does not have the same properties as diamonds. So even if DNA were a real thing in our bodies, Right. We have a different form of it now that we’re doing this X ray experiment on. So what does it really tell us about, you know, even if, even if it was accurately interpreted as being a double helix, all that tells you is that this crystallized form of this substance has a double helix shape. It doesn’t tell you what shape it is when it’s in an organism, when it’s not crystallized.

Yeah, yeah, very interesting. I mean, it. The funnier part about it, too, is that they also assumed the angle of the double helix. Watson and Crick, they didn’t actually calculate it mathematically, what, what the angle of the, you know, double helix is. So it’s all based. Now, they, they could calculate the angle though, could they not? They didn’t based off the image. They, they couldn’t wrap their head around the image. They had to assume the angle and then look at the image. Because the problem is, is the image is also non specific. And I love the points that you bring up, Dr.

Karf, because it adds layers of, of falsification to this methodology. But there were actually some students that use the same approach, the same X ray diffraction on the springs of ballpoint pens. This happened years later, and they actually saw that with, they ended up with the, with an extremely similar image, a very similar diffraction pattern. Now, ballpoint pen is also not a double helix. That’s right. It’s a single helix. Exactly, exactly. And, and it’s a much different angle, you know, of, of, of the helix than allegedly DNA is. Right. Now we can, we can actually look at this at a more fundamental level because the, the procedure, I’m sure, you know, this, is that they take this crystalline substance that’s a pure crystal, and they put X rays through it.

And as the X rays pass through the material, there is diffraction of the X rays, and then there is a photographic plate that just can detect this diffraction pattern. Right. Because it Would, it would just have, basically you’d be uniform if there was no diffraction. If you put the X rays just through air, but putting it through this crystalline substance, it diffracts the path of the x rays and then these are detected on a photographic plate and then that pattern is essentially measured. And the coordinates of the, you know, part of the photographic detection are then put into a computer.

Or maybe originally they did these calculations by hand, but they then perform a Fourier transform on that data and then from that they get geometric coordinates. Right, but there are assumptions in that process as well. The assumption is that there are, you know, essentially nuclei of atoms, right, that exist as discrete particles in space and that the crystal is mostly empty space because of the electron clouds. And so they’re saying that basically the diffraction pattern represents the nucleus of the individual atoms making up the molecule of DNA. However, they’ve never actually proven that those atoms exist or that a substance has these, you know, points and empty space.

That’s also just been an interpretation of an experiment that was not really designed to prove that and can have many, many other interpretations. So we have level of assumption upon level of assumption upon level of assumption here to get the result that they say, which is, you know, a Nobel prize winning conclusion. And you know, then it’s almost laughable that we can replicate the experiment with a simple metal spring, which doesn’t even have the same shape, and give us the same results. It’s amazing. Well put. So we’re really skating on thin ice in these topics. What about genetic disease? You know, they, people are getting tested, celebrities have a mutation that confers a quote unquote risk for breast cancer and prophylactically getting a double mastectomy, you know, is that a rational decision? Liev at this point we can assume my answer, but you know, that’s, that’s the main problem is the preemptive, right? It’s that we’re, we’re then causing harm to ourself based on sort of a boogeyman, right? I mean, it’s so easily falsified because people who have the gene also don’t develop cancer.

Some people get the gene, they don’t develop cancer. Some people don’t have the gene and develop breast cancer, right? So again, trying to find a single gene or single nucleotide polymorphism or mutation, it’s kind of like a growing list as well. Because when someone has breast cancer and they do the genetic testing and they come up with this, you know, sequence and they can’t find the Mutation that caused it. They can just add it. Right? They can just add it to the list. I think zooming out a little bit, because some of like those conditions, like the idea that there’s, you know, we can be genetically predisposed to cancers or autoimmune disease or whatever it may be, these things develop later in life.

Right. You know, so at some point it’s. They say it’s triggered maybe by the environment. And again, that there’s a complex interplay between our environment and. And this is again, sort of a backfill statement to say, well, it’s not just the gene, you know, it’s also the environment. But if the environment is a required factor and the gene is not a required factor, which is not because people cannot have the gene and get cancer, or have the gene and get cancer. The required factor is the environment, then our answer kind of lies in. It’s just the environment.

It’s like when we say the germ, you know, you can only get hit with a germ and develop a disease from a germ if you have low immune system. And I don’t like that terminology, but what causes low immune system? Oh, well, it’s stress, lack of sleep, lack of nature, lack of sunlight, lack of nutrition, toxicity. All of these lower your immune system and then the germ attacks you and you get disease. Well, then again, the required factor is still the environment. It’s always, it always comes back to the train in that front. And so generally I hear, okay, well, what about Mendelian disorders? Dwarfism is my favorite because 82%.

This is not my status. This is, this is. Now, how do they say dwarfism is supposed to work according to Mendelian genetics? Is it autosomal or sex link? Do you remember? Remember? I don’t remember, no. But what would be the predicted pattern? Sure. Well, and here, there, there is a pattern. There is a pattern. But the interesting thing about dwarfism is that 82% of dwarves are born de novo from non dwarfs. 82% of dwarves are born from non dwarves. Right. Now, there is a pattern. Once there is dwarfism in the parents, that the children are highly likely to be born as dwarves.

82% of dwarves come from non dwarfs. So again, it comes back to the point of even Mendelian disorders, People born with birth defects, because these are present at birth rather than something developed at age 16, 17 or 50, 60 years old. Right. Something born at, if you can, if it’s visible at birth. We’re kind of in a categorically different space than they say type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and it’s the autoimmune, but it’s caused by genetics, maybe at the basis, or maybe a virus, they try to say sometimes, but it still develops a little bit later in life, like you’re not born.

Similarly, like Huntington’s disease, too, is like that, Right? Exactly. Exactly. So the. The main question is like one, where. Where did it start? Right. It had to have started somewhere like these things haven’t been around for thousands of. Or, you know, thousands of years, maybe dwarfism, they say that there were dwarves, you know, a long time ago. But again, it kind of comes back to the question of is it within the state of health of the parents? Right. And I think that’s what West Knight Price’s observations show us. Really? Well, it’s the state of health of the parents that depict the health of the children.

If there’s birth defects in the children, unfortunately, the reality is that the parents were likely toxic in some capacity or perhaps deficient. Because the interesting part of Weston A. Price’s work is even people with dental deformations, right? Improper facial development. If they return to their natural diet and natural lifestyle, their offspring would have perfect dental development, right? Their faces would develop perfectly pristinely. So it only. It only takes one generation to reverse these things when we return to that baseline where we have, you know, low to no toxicity and we’re properly nourished. So you’re saying that we’re not mutating back to the original genetic sequences, right? We mutate to that and then we mutate back, you know, in such an orderly fashion.

Because all of the, you know, genetic evolutionary theory, right, says that all of the mutations are random. Exactly, exactly. But it’s demonstrably false that it’s random. I mean, that. That there’s just. Even when you go and read Mendel’s work, I mean, it’s. It’s not random. Now, what about, you know, what about a disease like cystic fibrosis now, that may not manifest at birth, but, you know, it’s. It’s said to have a specific gene, the CFTR gene, that there are specific mutations that occur and it changes, you know, chloride channels and the lung cells and the pancreas and such.

So I know you’ve looked at that a little bit. So tell us, is that a real thing? Symptoms are a real thing, right? People experience symptoms. We’re not denying that. Now, chloride channels, I think we get in sort of a questionable world. When we think of Gerald Pollack’s work, we think of Sort of the new biology. I know Dr. Collins discussed this at length. I believe you have as well. Right. We start to talk about, you know, areas of the membrane of the cells and stuff, and we start to fall into a few assumptions and some false science.

Now the symptoms. Sure, sure, absolutely. Now my problem again with cystic fibrosis, again, it’s not necessarily present from birth. The growing. It could be. It could be present from birth, right. In some cases. Sure, sure. The problem with the claim that it’s genetic, in my opinion here, is that we have a large growing list of mutations and SMPs that are continuously growing. So when we test these individuals who have this classification of symptoms, we test them for cystic fibrosis, you know, for the, for the genes. If we don’t find the genes on the list, we can just add another mutation to the list.

Really this is kind of the problem with the whole genetic code thing. This, and this happens across the board too. Sickle cell happens with a lot of these so called Mendelian disorders and other genetic disorders as well. We just grow the list whenever we’re like, well, it’s an emerging science. Right. That’s how we try to justify it. And we just continuously grow the list of new mutations that are allegedly the cause. But again, we get into the claim of the strand of genetic code in the first place and all the assumptions therein that we’re just purely in a computer generated sequence based on all the assumptions that we have just discussed here for the last hour.

Right. So we’re kind of in the world again of we’re not doing a service to any of these individuals because they’re not working with what their bodies are displaying. What are their bodies asking for? What are the meaning of their symptoms? We’re just trying to look for a little boogeyman and blame that rather than maybe their environment or the environment of their parents. Because again, as you’re aware, Dr. Kaufman, like we can have a certain set of symptoms and that can be present in multiple different causes of disease. Right. Like it’s not always the same cause for the same symptoms.

Like we have overlap in symptoms. Like our bodies display a sort of a set number of symptoms and we have many, many root causes. Right. Like the cause of cold and flu symptoms is not always the same thing of toxicity or seasonal adaptation or whatever it may be. Right. So we’re kind of still assuming that everybody who has cystic fibrosis symptoms are the exact same, because there’s likely a distinction between those who are have it present at Birth and those who develop it later in life. Right. So it’s kind of the questions that we have to start asking to depart from that old paradigm as well.

Right. And they certainly aren’t the same, you know, and I have this from some clinical experience that there’s a lot of different variability in the, you know, clinical expression of cystic fibrosis. And also I worked with, at a major tertiary care center taking care of all the, the sickle cell patients in South Carolina. And there was huge variability. And in people like, in fact, I didn’t even realize it at the time, but there were lots of patients who never ended up going into the hospital. They just went to the clinic and, and they were perfectly fine, essentially, even though they had this disease.

And the way they could diagnose these things before any genetic tests. In fact, when I first learned about cystic fibrosis, they hadn’t discovered the alleged mutation yet. So all they knew is that there was an inheritance pattern and they could basically diagnose it because they had pneumonia and pancreatic insufficiency. So it was, you know, their stool would float. Steatorrhea, That’s a pretty simple thing to observe. And in sickle cell anemia, you’d observe anemia. Right. So you can see that they’re pale. Look at the nail beds. And you could see it’s pale. And then you could do a test like a protein electrophoresis of the blood, which, which has way less steps of processing than we described and isolated those materials.

But still, it’s just, it’s like a fingerprint. And in fact, you know, I think it would be good to talk a little bit about fingerprints and how they relate because we even have the term of DNA fingerprinting. Right. Because we have things like 23 and me that have become very trendy and people take the information as valid. But if we look at something like fingerprints, for example, we know that long before DNA was discovered that fingerprints can, you know, lend some degree of proof to our identity that they’re unique. But, and even there’s research that I found that shows that fingerprints of offspring actually resemble the mother especially.

So you can look at fingerprints and you can make. Draw conclusions about if people are related to each other, just like they say you can do with DNA. But does anyone think that fingerprints are the blueprint for all the protein expression in our body? Right. That it’s basically, you know, your certain lines and squiggles represent certain amino acids. We could probably come up with a system like that. And you Know, would it be any more or less valid than, than DNA? I don’t know. I think we, we could probably write a paper on that, maybe get a Nobel Prize.

Well, you know, if we did it seriously enough, it could potentially be accepted for publication. Absolutely. Yeah. Very good point. Yeah. I think that that falls into the whole applied science thing and generally where people’s mind goes here and, and rightfully so, is, you know, what about the paternity testing? What about the 23andMe like you’re bringing up? And again, we always look sort of to confirm our preconceived ideas for some reason rather than trying to falsify them. And we almost have to consciously make that decision to be like, all right, I’m going to try to maybe disprove myself or disprove this or disprove that and look at where there’s discrepancies and look at where there’s contradictions.

Right. So we always look at, oh, well, you know, because I have people in my family, we found a long lost relative through, you know, the whole 23andMe thing. Right. And again, like, first of all, the question is, does this confirm everything that we’ve discussed today? That that means that DNA is real and that the code of DNA on computers is real, or are they collecting a plethora of other information and they’re basing on historical documents of people, people who are, you know, connecting with each other, putting in their own trees and just building a conglomerate of data rather than actual DNA sequences.

And we just use the DNA sequence as the, you know, this is how we do it. Right? But maybe it’s based on different factors, you know, because also, interestingly enough, you can put in false DNA. There’s been people who put in like fake DNA samples and still get, you know, desired results using those 23andMe tests. Additionally, you go to a different brand and you end up being 50% French instead of 50% Scottish. You know, like, you end up with different results based on the different brands. So again, there’s, there’s all these, these contradictions. All we focus on is, oh, yeah, but what about my long lost relative that, that we found? You know, and it’s like, okay, maybe that was just based purely in a birth record from a hospital, you know, maybe that was based purely on that piece of information as confirmation rather than any sort of DNA sequence.

Right. Or could it matching, or could it be that if we, you know, conduct these kind of tests, we take a sample of our biological tissue and, you know, do X and Y and Z, we get a pattern and if we do it for people, you know, related to each other, we get patterns that are more similar. And so we can calculate probabilities, but of course it’s not anywhere close to a one to one correlation. And you know, I thought of another example when you’re describing this, that the MHC or in humans it’s called lha and this is basically the tissue typing system, right.

So they use this to for example, determine organ transplant compatibility, like especially in things like a bone marrow transplant. And it’s on the white blood cells, right. They have a set of antigens and, and by the way, they, they really only know this by how it interacts with different antibodies. Right. But it gives a pattern once again. And the pattern relates to people being similar to each other. Like relatives are going to be closer than non relatives, for example. And they’ve, they’ve used this in research actually to draw conclusions about ancient people and how they immigrated or may have breeded with other people based on looking at their HLA patterns.

But no one has ever made the claim that HLA determines our identity or is a blueprint of life once again. So we can have these things like we can even do it a different way. We can look at facial characteristics like the geometry, right. Like the, the distance between our pupils or from the edge of our nose to the corner of our mouth, the thickness of our lips, and make a composite variable. And we can use that to also make predictions about who’s related to whom. Right. So, but facial characteristics don’t are in our blueprint of life.

So we’re, we can’t validate the theory of genetics at all. Even, even if 23andMe was 100% accurate and infallible and every other brand gave the same exact results, it still would not give evidence to prove that genetic determination is a valid observation or conclusion. Well put. Yeah. And I mean even like paternity tests, they use a slightly different, and I think it fits really well too in this discussion. They use a different methodology than the 23andMe, the hereditary based websites and stuff like that. So like in forensics and, and testing whether or not, you know, two people are related.

Again, it’s not absurd that there are connections between being related, you know, now biological connections, I should say, like it makes a lot of sense that we’re biologically connected. I mean we could kind of see that too. What’s interesting is the development of paternity tests over time is initially they actually used, I believe the more like Antibody or blood type based tests, like they would test whether or not you had the same blood type. Right. And if your blood would coagulate or the certain way that you were related. And then it developed over time to look at the more nucleic material and now it’s developed purely into pcr.

So again, my question is like, have we just put ourselves in a box of assumptions and once was something maybe valuable to test whether or not we’re biologically related is now just giving sort of more random results based on pcr? Because with pcr, of course, we all know that there’s a lot more problems than just the assumption of DNA. I mean we can assume DNA is correct and genetic sequence is correct and PCR is still an extremely problematic methodology used. Right. Because PCR is not, it’s not an analytic technique. It’s, it’s really a manufacturing technique which is, it’s good for research, but it just, it just amplifies a signal.

It doesn’t give you any analytical results. You, you have to just interpret it that way to, to draw that conclusion. But it’s not, it’s not in the procedure itself. Like it’s not testing any unique property of a material. Yeah, exactly. So can you, you know, just maybe kind of draw some general conclusions about, you know, what, what have you determined based on your study and analysis of all the body of research that we’ve discussed today? And I know it’s, we, we, we didn’t get into, you know, super detail on anything, but we definitely covered enough to, to, to throw some doubt into this matter.

Sure. I mean what, what this work has really led me to, to understand about life is that it’s important to look at reality. Right. Obviously we could draw conclusions about the scientific method, that we must adhere to the scientific method. If we’re going to do science, if we’re going to do empiricism, we have to understand what Popper was talking about. Now I think we can all be on the same page there, but from a greater level we have to base ourselves in reality. We have to look at, at what’s real. So I mentioned initially genotype versus phenotype.

Right. When we’re talking about disease, that there’s genetic diseases if people have the genes and they never develop an illness. It’s like the asymptomatic argument, just with a different boogeyman. Right. So we have to base our lives in reality. And now I personally take this to a level now of I just don’t worry about it. Like if I worry, I would be more concerned with what worry would do to your offspring than anything related to genetic. You know, if you really worry that your kid’s going to develop a genetic disease because Aunt Betty had allegedly a genetic disease, that’s, that’s more worrisome.

And my mind goes to how to Become a Schizophrenic by John Mojrow. Right. And the. And I know that this might seem, you know, like off topic, but many people claim that schizophrenia is genetic, right? And so when we treat someone as if they are psychotic or schizophrenic, that’s part of the recipe of creating someone who develops psychosis fragment their reality. Right? And Theodore Lids talks about that. And there’s more literature on that than, than we understand. And Theodore Lids understood very clearly that schizophrenia was not genetic. So that’s an interesting point. Well, it’s, it’s only an assumption.

They don’t have any actual genes that they can conclusively make any opinions about. Right. It’s just assumed to. To be genetic because everything they don’t understand, they make that assumption. Exactly. Exactly. So, I mean, really, where this, where this leaves us is as what I’m trying to do right now is, is, is try to draw some lines of, of what, what’s true in all of this. Like, what’s based in reality and all this. Like, we can observe that. You know, we adapt to our environments quite readily. Not even over years and time or mutations randomly through our offspring.

But when you go out into the sun and you get. You become tanned, like, that’s your body adapting, right? And so we adapt. If you drink beer over time, you can drink more without getting drunk, right? That’s your body adapting. Not recommending that, but it’s observable. That is true. That is the truth. Right. But. But this is it, right? Like, so, so trying to come back to something that’s more practical. It’s like even I think we, we can become more tolerant to toxicity over time as well and maybe put off the symptoms. So if you eat McDonald’s every day, your.

Your body will eventually build up a tolerance to that toxicity and maybe it’ll manifest this chronic illness down the road and less so as acute now. But I know if I were to eat McDonald’s at this point in my life because I’ve. I’ve kicked that addiction, and it is an addiction I kicked out a long time ago, but if I eat it now, I get sick instantly, right? Like instantly sick. Right. So our bodies adapt to its environment. That is a truth that we can, that we can see it happens not just over generations, but it happens on a, even like a week to week, month to month, day to day basis in some capacity.

Right. Like when I work as a surf guard in the summertime when I was a, a teenager, you know, every day I’d be out in the sun for eight hours and that eventually made my skin extremely tan. Right. So was it, was it a genetic mutation? Was it because of xyz? That’s the far fetched claim that’s not based in reality. We’re so deep not only in the test tube, in lab science, with genetics, we’re so deep in the computers in silico. Right. We’ve taken it another level that we’re out of just problematic lab methodology. We’re in complete assumption probability land in, in these devices and what we program.

Like these devices are as fallible as we are because we program them so they’re laden with our assumptions. You know, they’re not our God and they’re not smarter than us like AI. Everyone’s like, oh, AI is so smart. It’s just as valuable as human beings because it’s completely based off of our data. Like we feed it all the data. So basing our lives more than just research in genetics and research in general, but basing our lives in reality is extremely important. Extremely important. There are major consequences for making decisions based on false paradigms. So I just want to thank you Leah, for coming and sharing this research and I love your enthusiasm on the topic.

You also are teaching some of these methods. Can you just mention. And of course we’ll have it below in the show notes, but mention what you have available and where people can learn more. Sure, yeah. So there’s content out on Instagram and YouTube all @Beyond Train and I do run a little Beyond Train academy if you want to support me and my work, my family as well, where we do dive into these topics. I have a full classroom built out on vitamins. I have one on symptoms and nosology. Going over what symptoms truly mean. Going over, you know, the, the complete falsehood of nosology of, of disease characteristics and trying to diagnose people.

We discuss movement, we discuss parasites. Was a big one that we’ve done. Parasites not being the root cause. I have quite a large body of work on parasites actually. And now genetics is a big endeavor. We talk about the internal world, our relationship with our thoughts, our mind. So it’s quite an interesting place if you, if you want to dive deeper. But listen, there’s some amazing content out there on, on YouTube, on Instagram. So make sure you go and consume that and I’ll continuously upload, upload that there and, and keep putting out good, good information, the best of my abilities.

I won’t lie to you all, I’ll do my very best to try to tell the truth. But listen, my mind changes as well as, as new information comes and I think that avoiding dogma is probably just the best thing that we can do in this world right now. So. Well, I really love that message, Lev. And people, if you go on the YouTube channel, for example, Beyond Terrain and look at Liev’s material, it’s a great introduction to these concepts and then I’m sure that you go into a much deeper dive to get into the nitty gritty in your courses.

So I think that’s great. And many people still come to me assuming that parasites are a real problem and want to ask me if I think fenbendazole and ivermectin are a good idea. Which of course I don’t. So now I’m going to be directing people to you to learn all the details that parasites are not our enemy either. Just like other small organisms, they’re actually working for us. So everyone, I look forward to seeing you back for another true health report. But this has really been a treat today and I know it’s going to be controversial, but I’m going to be talking more about the scam of genetics over time.

And I’m sure Liev is too. So until then, even if you’re doing your best to live clean, you’re still being exposed from off gassing furniture and plastics in your food, to synthetic fibers, personal care products and even medical imaging procedures, especially fat soluble chemicals. These toxins don’t respond to your average detox. They settle deep in your tissues and you need the right tools to clear them out. That’s why I created the ultimate detox protocol. A free 30 day roadmap that teaches you a serious nature based detox using pine targeted nutrition and a focused daily plan. You’ll choose the cleansing diet that fits your needs, support your elimination pathways and take action against the toxin load that’s been holding you back.

Many people who’ve done this protocol have reported major improvements in energy focus, digestion and even longstanding symptoms they thought they’d have to live with forever. Unfortunately, I can’t share the full scope of results people have experienced using this protocol, not on this platform. If I did, the video would surely be taken down. But trust me, it is incredibly powerful. Download it for free at the link in the show notes. Your health is your responsibility and this is the best place to start. Thanks for listening and I’ll see you in the next Truhealth report.
[tr:tra].

See more of Andrew Kaufman, M.D. on their Public Channel and the MPN Andrew Kaufman, M.D. channel.