..."used the words “suggested,” “assumed,” and “believed"...this is the foundation for 90% of the modern stone age medical mafia. They have built a false doctrine over the last 100-200 years on which the two main prongs of "medicine", vaccination and drugs, rest as the main operatives in the process of providing health. We see its constant failures which they refuse to admit.
DNA is more than likely another false God. Exactly as the government and politicians always do, when threatened by outcomes that deviate from medical gospel, they make exceptions to explain them away. The dogma remains etched in granite. After a time, the failures will not be able to be explained away. Hopefully we are closer to that time.
But the DNA thing is kind of perplexing for my understanding. My brother passed away in 1997 at the age of 45. Then in 2009 my daughter gave birth to her second son. As he was growing up in his first dozen years, he looked more and more like my brother did during his early years.
Now that he is 17, he has deviated from those early similarities, but still some resemblance remains. How this has happened is a mystery and I don't believe it has anything to do with genes. Nothing appears to have passed from me to my daughter to her son.
Silly scientists are far too engrossed in bending their experiments to fit their already forgone conclusions to ever change. The money and fake prestige are too much to give up.
1. Academia within the medical industrial complex is the slowest to admit they were wrong about anything. Genetic testing has become an industry they don't want to lose because it's become so profitable.
3. The "your genes are bad" argument is pharma's explanation for vaccine injury when they're unable to escape culpability for particularly well-documented injuries, i.e., "your genes made you vulnerable to a reaction- the vaccine was only a trigger." This is equivalent to shooting someone in the head and blaming their inferior skull thickness (genes) for the fact they're now dead or close to it.
Thank you for this logical, concise, and fully truthful break down.
Fantastic article. Planck's quote is foundational to the Christian faith.... “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Still have not heard a good explanation of the "evolution" of consciousness.
I read Sagan's 'Dragons of Eden' back in the day and felt it was full of holes. Too many leaps, although it did provide some good conversations with my late cousin, Dr James Braly.
I've been a fan of much of Cowan's stuff for years, and although I don't buy into all of it, his radio and antanae explanation is super interesting.
OMG....thank you. I was at the Jackson laboratory in Bar harbor, Maine on a grant to do research as a student. I made chimeric mice by snapping mouse necks, taking their fallopian tubes out and flushing the eggs out with a hypodermic. Then snipping of testicles to gather sperm. 1973..... the beginning of the mouse genome. No human yet. No stem cells yet. The whole Gestalt never totally made sense to me. My favorite book at the time was Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific revolutions"...when the current paradigm begins to unravel at the edges..... I love love love your scientific explanations that help my "consciousness" ,which is bewildered by the current paradigm, to "open a window" when a particular door remains shut. Education ='to lead out". thanks for educating me.
I think that Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Standard Process, the supplement company, are on to something that we are just beginning to see: resonance fields that can be sensed from some distance away. While Standard Process makes no claim about telepathy, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake does.
Dr. Cowan's analogy of a radio with regards to our DNA may not be the best analogy, but it does bring into the discussion about frequencies. Once you are open to this and the idea of consciousness, then one begins to understand how energy works, whether in telepathy, or in healing modalities like reiki. Acupuncture is an attempt to explain this with structures defined in Western physiology; it isn't the only one. Hopefully, this can be the start of how energetic healing works and branch into a discussion of telepathy.
Excellent! I wish you'd write more on the so-called "breast cancer" diagnosis! I've seen far too many women fall for this & lose their breasts (& uterus). Maybe some really did have "cancer" but far too many fall within the "over 60" age group. Or maybe that's bias on my observation. In any case, far more women really need to be aware that the "results" of biopsies & other invasive techniques (squashing of breasts in those "detection" devices) might not be accurate. The level of fear invoked in them is beyond the pale!
Thanks. I don't need the book. Never believed a word of any of this “cancer “ crap; don't go to “doctors.” But I do intend that more women get the message about all this nonsense.
We always find your articles fascinating and thought provoking, and appreciate the references at the end.
Would it be possible for you to link each reference to its source on the Internet (if available) so each reader doesn’t have to search for what you’ve already found? Providing links would be a huge service to readers who might want to dive into the source material.
Many thanks again for your work! We share it often.
I always go here and usually find the book in question. You can choose what format to download. If you use ePub you can download to computer then easily load to Kindle. https://welib.org/
We can find the Unbekoming books without a problem. It’s the many references we were asking about; they do not appear to have live links (did we miss something?)
That heredity blueprint... It's funny how your son can end up looking and maybe behaving like that brother-in-law you don't like very much.
Something that has always interested me is how it seems that certain talents are passed down sporadically. Artistic or musical talents for example. Things that aren't taught, but talents and innate abilities that just show up.
Weston Price consistently showed that people (of the same race) who were not related, but very healthy, looked like they were in the same family when they had healthy food and lifestyles. Then, I believe, people in the same family who deviated from their ancestral diets and lifestyles began looking dissimilar and unrelated.
Bugs:
Who's the daddy? If someone gets a letter from a stranger saying, "I think you're my daddy," and the DNA test confirms it, where does that leave everyone? This has happened to two men I know.
Scientists examine things that are not alive and are not in their natural environment. How does live DNA compare to dead DNA? We have these anthropologists who find skeletons that are supposedly 35.000 years old, and they determine stuff from their DNA, like hair color and eye color and race. Supposed DNA results show that this or that group of people belong to a certain group that migrated from here or there. How do we know? Do we know anything? Is this another layer to our false history?
I believe the whole DNA modification thing is another psyop. I think it is one of the most important issues right now in the Covid DNA/RNA malarky. GMO foods are not modified. They are poisoned. BUT, Electromagnetic Radiation and Directed Energy Warfare... can and does cause damage to whatever DNA is. And that is truly scary.
While we can see strong family resemblance across generations, I have been told on three occasions, including once by my own father, that I could have a twin out there because I resembled someone else they saw or knew.
I think consciousness is the organizing principle, but I don't see how this negates the reality of DNA and its function. If it is only consciousness and water, why mess with DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, metabolism, etc.?
The whole reasoning in your assays is always the same: start by finding flaws in the seminal observation and use them to invalidate whole fields. Rather than understanding that biological life is incredibly complex. Hence the natural progression of understanding a little at first and uncovering more and more of the complexity as investigations become more and more sophisticated.
The whole argument that genetics is irrelevant is falsified by considering fraternal vs. identical twins. You will have no cogent answer to that.
I agree with you that consciousness is primordial and that the scientific establishment is utterly corrupt. This being said, no need to throw the baby with the bath water.
The essay doesn't claim DNA, RNA, proteins, or lipids don't exist. The molecules are real. It claims that the gene-protein principle — that genes code for proteins in a determinative way — was falsified by the Human Genome Project's own data. Twenty thousand genes for two hundred to four hundred thousand proteins isn't a complexity problem to be sorted out by more sophisticated investigation. It's the founding assumption of the field failing on its own flagship project. The rescues invented to absorb the falsification — alternative splicing invoked to generate the missing proteins without a demonstrated mechanism for producing the required diversity, "missing heritability" as the name for the 90 to 95 percent of expected heritability GWAS failed to find — are what unfalsifiable frameworks do.
On twins: identical twins share more DNA than fraternal twins. They also share more developmental environment — same placenta and chorion in monochorionic cases, same maternal nutritional and toxic and EMF state at the same time, often identical treatment through childhood. Shared environment is a confound here, not a control. And identical twins diverge substantially in disease outcomes — concordance for schizophrenia in identical twins is less than 50 percent, for most cancers around 10 to 20 percent. The framework that explains identical-twin similarity by DNA must also explain identical-twin divergence by something else. That something else — environment, terrain, conditions under which the body develops — is what terrain theory has always identified as causal.
Your methodology framing ("find flaws in seminal observations to invalidate whole fields") is one option. Another is: hold foundational claims to the standard the field itself claims to operate by. When Crick and Brenner stated in their 1961 paper that the triplet code was a working assumption rather than a demonstrated finding, and sixty-five years later no direct demonstration has been done, that isn't sophisticated complexity. That's a discipline that built a framework on an assumption and never returned to test it.
The essay doesn't discard biochemistry. It discards the claim that biochemistry's molecular constituents constitute a master code from which biology proceeds. The molecules are real. Their assigned role is the question.
"It claims that the gene-protein principle — that genes code for proteins in a determinative way — was falsified by the Human Genome Project's own data."
That's not the case at all, your history of the field is inaccurate: one gene -> one protein is an early concept established before genes were even sequenced and generally holds up in simpler organisms such as prokaryotes. The mechanism of alternative splicing in eukaryotes was identified in the mid-80s and led to the recognition that one gene could encode multiple polypeptides. This is well before the human genome project, which started in late 1990. Hence, the Human Genome Project's own data was falsifying nothing at all.
"The rescues invented to absorb the falsification — alternative splicing invoked to generate the missing proteins without a demonstrated mechanism for producing the required diversity"
As is clear from what precedes, alternative splicing was not invented to absorb the non-existent falsification, since it predates it. And the mechanism to produce the diversity is an area of intense study, the RNA sequences involved in differential splicing have been identified, as are the proteins recognizing these sequences and mediating the alternative splicing. These are verifiable facts.
"On twins: identical twins share more DNA than fraternal twins. They also share more developmental environment — same placenta and chorion in monochorionic cases, same maternal nutritional and toxic and EMF state at the same time, often identical treatment through childhood. Shared environment is a confound here, not a control. And identical twins diverge substantially in disease outcomes — concordance for schizophrenia in identical twins is less than 50 percent, for most cancers around 10 to 20 percent. The framework that explains identical-twin similarity by DNA must also explain identical-twin divergence by something else. That something else — environment, terrain, conditions under which the body develops — is what terrain theory has always identified as causal."
In no way would I claim that DNA explains everything, the environment, the terrain, obviously also plays a critical role. Think identical twins separated at birth and reunited 50 years later, the number of traits they share outside of identical physical appearance cannot be accounted for by simply sharing the same placenta. The DNA accounts for the similarities, the life experiences for the differences in disease outcome. In no way do the divergences invalidate the role of DNA, that's indeed throwing the baby with the bath water.
"Your methodology framing ("find flaws in seminal observations to invalidate whole fields") is one option. Another is: hold foundational claims to the standard the field itself claims to operate by. When Crick and Brenner stated in their 1961 paper that the triplet code was a working assumption rather than a demonstrated finding, and sixty-five years later no direct demonstration has been done, that isn't sophisticated complexity. That's a discipline that built a framework on an assumption and never returned to test it."
I don't know on what basis you claim that there is no direct demonstration of the triplet code??? There is only 65 years of molecular biology validating that code... I mean, I am a molecular biologist, I have used it throughout my career without fail. You use the code to substitute one amino acid by another and compare the crystal structure of the native and mutated proteins, and you find that the only amino acid that is changed is the one corresponding to the mutation you introduced, and it is changed to the amino acid expected from the code. For instance, the Spike protein used in the vaccines from hell contains a double proline substitution (to favor the open conformation of the protein). This is now used to determine in patients whether Spike is of viral or vaccine origin, using proteomics, which is able to discriminate the peptide with the two prolines from the native peptide.
I'll give you that the human genome project and GWAS did not deliver what they promised in terms of benefits to humans. This did not surprise me and a number of other scientists: those behind the project overpromised to obtain the funding, as is often the case. It stems from the reductionist approach on which too many scientists exclusively rely. But that does not invalidate the basic function of DNA, which is to encode the proteins on which life depends, and express them when and where is appropriate for sustaining cellular function and the life of an organism.
DNA is a master code from which biology proceeds, and the environment has an equally important role in how biology unfolds, by epigenetic and non-genetic processes. The old nature vs. nurture debate is a futile academic exercice when both are essential.
I am not going to write a textbook on what DNA is, summarising the last 70 years of research. Your commenting here means you have access to the internet: so look it up if you don't know what DNA is. Please understand that I am simply not going to argue with an obvious troll, I have better things to do with my time. Fare well.
The use to which something is put is its actual function, while its stated function can serve a masking social order. It is the latter that I see as driven by rules and filters of narrative dictates. The control mindset is projected by the self to its 'world' as a masking over unhealed conflicts.
The ability to distort, modify or filter communication or energetic exchange is not in itself a control over an environment, but it can and does operate as a social or mutually reinforcing masking defence against reliving conflicts associated with fear, of pain, of loss. The psychic-emotional underbelly to a rationally compartmentalised perception runs dark to the ego of adaptation to its perceived world. Some aspect of it operates as the 'noble lie' - or the use of stories to control a Public by the priesthood of a control class as part of organising the society to serve the core function of the insiders to such control.
The use of sci-models, theories and funded or incentivised narratives is of the same order or function as the Banksters construction of complex financial instruments by which to repackage toxic debt into 'saleable assets' to then dum or socialise to a sacrificial public as virtue.
The scam sets the hype by which to fund and frame the development of a thesis of an incentivised narrative claim. This also operates to starve rival or alternate research.
People live in the cultural framework of their times with only a rare or minimal awareness or interest in questioning what runs be-liveable as a self-evident reality, and persists in many long after its falsification, because it is serving a use in the minds of those who have become stakeholders in its worldview.
I think the baby is safe here, because inheritance is not negated or questioned, but control dynamics have been assumed or projected onto life EXACTLY as was once attributed to God or gods or mysterious powers that could be at some level aligned with and healed by.
Note that your thoughts - which have undercurrent emotional meaning - are part of your field of transmission and reception with a greater life than the limits of your skin - or your conceptions of a limited universe. That thought and emotion are part of your alignment within an energetic medium of exchange called living, is more agency and creativity than under Genetic Control dogmas.
No matter what the structure of your life or situation, you have a capacity to see it or interpret it in ways that serve value fulfilment. But if you set value on control for its own sake, it will NEVER be enough, but will demand all that you give it and more.
I understand we use the term control as shorthand for living relational orientations of willing responsibility. I'm emphasising the use of structure and system as a means to escape responsibility by outsourcing it to external 'authorities'.
The idea of externally authored life has its own priesthood and followers because it separates from a living Covenant or Communion that has become associated with deep fear or terror and intolerable pain and loss.
There is some merit in seeing humankind as suffering an unhealed species trauma from a catastrophic past - so as to release such a past from reiterating as it does through apparently modern and enlightened arenas of materially manipulated 'solutions'.
What we take as our mind is a split consciousness but the split is hidden or protected.
A spotlight conceals more than it reveals. Our Overton Window frames what can be conceived, articulated and recognised.
I don't care to attack it or denigrate it so much as grow perspective from and of an integrality of consciousness.
This is a demanding piece, but the radio metaphor does something useful: it reminds us that taking a thing apart is not always the same as finding where the music comes from.
I’m not ready to throw the whole genetic story out the window. Windows are expensive. But I do like essays that make inherited explanations feel less automatic.
The question underneath this one lingers: when families resemble each other, what exactly is being passed on?
We Americans are way behind the wave. Nothing in the body is ever still. Everything is waving, dancing, lit up and vibrating. Unless, of course, the body is sick.
..."used the words “suggested,” “assumed,” and “believed"...this is the foundation for 90% of the modern stone age medical mafia. They have built a false doctrine over the last 100-200 years on which the two main prongs of "medicine", vaccination and drugs, rest as the main operatives in the process of providing health. We see its constant failures which they refuse to admit.
DNA is more than likely another false God. Exactly as the government and politicians always do, when threatened by outcomes that deviate from medical gospel, they make exceptions to explain them away. The dogma remains etched in granite. After a time, the failures will not be able to be explained away. Hopefully we are closer to that time.
But the DNA thing is kind of perplexing for my understanding. My brother passed away in 1997 at the age of 45. Then in 2009 my daughter gave birth to her second son. As he was growing up in his first dozen years, he looked more and more like my brother did during his early years.
Now that he is 17, he has deviated from those early similarities, but still some resemblance remains. How this has happened is a mystery and I don't believe it has anything to do with genes. Nothing appears to have passed from me to my daughter to her son.
Silly scientists are far too engrossed in bending their experiments to fit their already forgone conclusions to ever change. The money and fake prestige are too much to give up.
🤔 Since "DNA" has never been proven to exist, "genes" must be the scientific equivalent of imaginary friends. 😄
> "The medium through which the body receives, in this framing, is water."
What is interesting is that "water" is oftentimes code for God's "divine agape love" in the (King James) Bible.
It is God's "divine agape love" that actually runs this universe, if you can believe it.
Cowan is onto something, but he will never get to the real truth without the God factor.
This was an awesome substack post. Thank you.
Beautifully explained. Logical. My conclusions:
1. Academia within the medical industrial complex is the slowest to admit they were wrong about anything. Genetic testing has become an industry they don't want to lose because it's become so profitable.
2. Structured water, standing alone, carries data.
3. The "your genes are bad" argument is pharma's explanation for vaccine injury when they're unable to escape culpability for particularly well-documented injuries, i.e., "your genes made you vulnerable to a reaction- the vaccine was only a trigger." This is equivalent to shooting someone in the head and blaming their inferior skull thickness (genes) for the fact they're now dead or close to it.
Thank you for this logical, concise, and fully truthful break down.
Joy
Again thank you so much for this
I am amazed at the way we are being manipulated and lied to.
I get to the point of « 0 » trust in any establishment. Sad. But I guess all is left is for us to trust the spirit in ourselves
Fantastic article. Planck's quote is foundational to the Christian faith.... “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.” Still have not heard a good explanation of the "evolution" of consciousness.
I read Sagan's 'Dragons of Eden' back in the day and felt it was full of holes. Too many leaps, although it did provide some good conversations with my late cousin, Dr James Braly.
I've been a fan of much of Cowan's stuff for years, and although I don't buy into all of it, his radio and antanae explanation is super interesting.
OMG....thank you. I was at the Jackson laboratory in Bar harbor, Maine on a grant to do research as a student. I made chimeric mice by snapping mouse necks, taking their fallopian tubes out and flushing the eggs out with a hypodermic. Then snipping of testicles to gather sperm. 1973..... the beginning of the mouse genome. No human yet. No stem cells yet. The whole Gestalt never totally made sense to me. My favorite book at the time was Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific revolutions"...when the current paradigm begins to unravel at the edges..... I love love love your scientific explanations that help my "consciousness" ,which is bewildered by the current paradigm, to "open a window" when a particular door remains shut. Education ='to lead out". thanks for educating me.
I think that Dr. Rupert Sheldrake and Standard Process, the supplement company, are on to something that we are just beginning to see: resonance fields that can be sensed from some distance away. While Standard Process makes no claim about telepathy, Dr. Rupert Sheldrake does.
Dr. Cowan's analogy of a radio with regards to our DNA may not be the best analogy, but it does bring into the discussion about frequencies. Once you are open to this and the idea of consciousness, then one begins to understand how energy works, whether in telepathy, or in healing modalities like reiki. Acupuncture is an attempt to explain this with structures defined in Western physiology; it isn't the only one. Hopefully, this can be the start of how energetic healing works and branch into a discussion of telepathy.
Excellent! I wish you'd write more on the so-called "breast cancer" diagnosis! I've seen far too many women fall for this & lose their breasts (& uterus). Maybe some really did have "cancer" but far too many fall within the "over 60" age group. Or maybe that's bias on my observation. In any case, far more women really need to be aware that the "results" of biopsies & other invasive techniques (squashing of breasts in those "detection" devices) might not be accurate. The level of fear invoked in them is beyond the pale!
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/breast-cancer-what-they-didnt-tell
Thanks. I don't need the book. Never believed a word of any of this “cancer “ crap; don't go to “doctors.” But I do intend that more women get the message about all this nonsense.
We always find your articles fascinating and thought provoking, and appreciate the references at the end.
Would it be possible for you to link each reference to its source on the Internet (if available) so each reader doesn’t have to search for what you’ve already found? Providing links would be a huge service to readers who might want to dive into the source material.
Many thanks again for your work! We share it often.
I always go here and usually find the book in question. You can choose what format to download. If you use ePub you can download to computer then easily load to Kindle. https://welib.org/
We can find the Unbekoming books without a problem. It’s the many references we were asking about; they do not appear to have live links (did we miss something?)
That heredity blueprint... It's funny how your son can end up looking and maybe behaving like that brother-in-law you don't like very much.
Something that has always interested me is how it seems that certain talents are passed down sporadically. Artistic or musical talents for example. Things that aren't taught, but talents and innate abilities that just show up.
Weston Price consistently showed that people (of the same race) who were not related, but very healthy, looked like they were in the same family when they had healthy food and lifestyles. Then, I believe, people in the same family who deviated from their ancestral diets and lifestyles began looking dissimilar and unrelated.
Bugs:
Who's the daddy? If someone gets a letter from a stranger saying, "I think you're my daddy," and the DNA test confirms it, where does that leave everyone? This has happened to two men I know.
Scientists examine things that are not alive and are not in their natural environment. How does live DNA compare to dead DNA? We have these anthropologists who find skeletons that are supposedly 35.000 years old, and they determine stuff from their DNA, like hair color and eye color and race. Supposed DNA results show that this or that group of people belong to a certain group that migrated from here or there. How do we know? Do we know anything? Is this another layer to our false history?
I believe the whole DNA modification thing is another psyop. I think it is one of the most important issues right now in the Covid DNA/RNA malarky. GMO foods are not modified. They are poisoned. BUT, Electromagnetic Radiation and Directed Energy Warfare... can and does cause damage to whatever DNA is. And that is truly scary.
While we can see strong family resemblance across generations, I have been told on three occasions, including once by my own father, that I could have a twin out there because I resembled someone else they saw or knew.
I think consciousness is the organizing principle, but I don't see how this negates the reality of DNA and its function. If it is only consciousness and water, why mess with DNA, RNA, proteins, lipids, metabolism, etc.?
The whole reasoning in your assays is always the same: start by finding flaws in the seminal observation and use them to invalidate whole fields. Rather than understanding that biological life is incredibly complex. Hence the natural progression of understanding a little at first and uncovering more and more of the complexity as investigations become more and more sophisticated.
The whole argument that genetics is irrelevant is falsified by considering fraternal vs. identical twins. You will have no cogent answer to that.
I agree with you that consciousness is primordial and that the scientific establishment is utterly corrupt. This being said, no need to throw the baby with the bath water.
Marc, thanks for engaging.
The essay doesn't claim DNA, RNA, proteins, or lipids don't exist. The molecules are real. It claims that the gene-protein principle — that genes code for proteins in a determinative way — was falsified by the Human Genome Project's own data. Twenty thousand genes for two hundred to four hundred thousand proteins isn't a complexity problem to be sorted out by more sophisticated investigation. It's the founding assumption of the field failing on its own flagship project. The rescues invented to absorb the falsification — alternative splicing invoked to generate the missing proteins without a demonstrated mechanism for producing the required diversity, "missing heritability" as the name for the 90 to 95 percent of expected heritability GWAS failed to find — are what unfalsifiable frameworks do.
On twins: identical twins share more DNA than fraternal twins. They also share more developmental environment — same placenta and chorion in monochorionic cases, same maternal nutritional and toxic and EMF state at the same time, often identical treatment through childhood. Shared environment is a confound here, not a control. And identical twins diverge substantially in disease outcomes — concordance for schizophrenia in identical twins is less than 50 percent, for most cancers around 10 to 20 percent. The framework that explains identical-twin similarity by DNA must also explain identical-twin divergence by something else. That something else — environment, terrain, conditions under which the body develops — is what terrain theory has always identified as causal.
Your methodology framing ("find flaws in seminal observations to invalidate whole fields") is one option. Another is: hold foundational claims to the standard the field itself claims to operate by. When Crick and Brenner stated in their 1961 paper that the triplet code was a working assumption rather than a demonstrated finding, and sixty-five years later no direct demonstration has been done, that isn't sophisticated complexity. That's a discipline that built a framework on an assumption and never returned to test it.
The essay doesn't discard biochemistry. It discards the claim that biochemistry's molecular constituents constitute a master code from which biology proceeds. The molecules are real. Their assigned role is the question.
Thank you for responding.
"It claims that the gene-protein principle — that genes code for proteins in a determinative way — was falsified by the Human Genome Project's own data."
That's not the case at all, your history of the field is inaccurate: one gene -> one protein is an early concept established before genes were even sequenced and generally holds up in simpler organisms such as prokaryotes. The mechanism of alternative splicing in eukaryotes was identified in the mid-80s and led to the recognition that one gene could encode multiple polypeptides. This is well before the human genome project, which started in late 1990. Hence, the Human Genome Project's own data was falsifying nothing at all.
"The rescues invented to absorb the falsification — alternative splicing invoked to generate the missing proteins without a demonstrated mechanism for producing the required diversity"
As is clear from what precedes, alternative splicing was not invented to absorb the non-existent falsification, since it predates it. And the mechanism to produce the diversity is an area of intense study, the RNA sequences involved in differential splicing have been identified, as are the proteins recognizing these sequences and mediating the alternative splicing. These are verifiable facts.
"On twins: identical twins share more DNA than fraternal twins. They also share more developmental environment — same placenta and chorion in monochorionic cases, same maternal nutritional and toxic and EMF state at the same time, often identical treatment through childhood. Shared environment is a confound here, not a control. And identical twins diverge substantially in disease outcomes — concordance for schizophrenia in identical twins is less than 50 percent, for most cancers around 10 to 20 percent. The framework that explains identical-twin similarity by DNA must also explain identical-twin divergence by something else. That something else — environment, terrain, conditions under which the body develops — is what terrain theory has always identified as causal."
In no way would I claim that DNA explains everything, the environment, the terrain, obviously also plays a critical role. Think identical twins separated at birth and reunited 50 years later, the number of traits they share outside of identical physical appearance cannot be accounted for by simply sharing the same placenta. The DNA accounts for the similarities, the life experiences for the differences in disease outcome. In no way do the divergences invalidate the role of DNA, that's indeed throwing the baby with the bath water.
"Your methodology framing ("find flaws in seminal observations to invalidate whole fields") is one option. Another is: hold foundational claims to the standard the field itself claims to operate by. When Crick and Brenner stated in their 1961 paper that the triplet code was a working assumption rather than a demonstrated finding, and sixty-five years later no direct demonstration has been done, that isn't sophisticated complexity. That's a discipline that built a framework on an assumption and never returned to test it."
I don't know on what basis you claim that there is no direct demonstration of the triplet code??? There is only 65 years of molecular biology validating that code... I mean, I am a molecular biologist, I have used it throughout my career without fail. You use the code to substitute one amino acid by another and compare the crystal structure of the native and mutated proteins, and you find that the only amino acid that is changed is the one corresponding to the mutation you introduced, and it is changed to the amino acid expected from the code. For instance, the Spike protein used in the vaccines from hell contains a double proline substitution (to favor the open conformation of the protein). This is now used to determine in patients whether Spike is of viral or vaccine origin, using proteomics, which is able to discriminate the peptide with the two prolines from the native peptide.
I'll give you that the human genome project and GWAS did not deliver what they promised in terms of benefits to humans. This did not surprise me and a number of other scientists: those behind the project overpromised to obtain the funding, as is often the case. It stems from the reductionist approach on which too many scientists exclusively rely. But that does not invalidate the basic function of DNA, which is to encode the proteins on which life depends, and express them when and where is appropriate for sustaining cellular function and the life of an organism.
DNA is a master code from which biology proceeds, and the environment has an equally important role in how biology unfolds, by epigenetic and non-genetic processes. The old nature vs. nurture debate is a futile academic exercice when both are essential.
What's DNA?
Oh you are so smart.
What's DNA?
It's one of the molecules that is identical between identical twins and different between every other humans.
I asked what DNA is, and your answer was essentially: "It's the thing that's the thing because it's the thing." 😄🧬
The sort of circular reasoning molecular biologists couldn't function without.
So, Marc, did we manufacture any more laboratory artefacts today—another "DNA," perhaps? 😄
Should be easy work for an angry chemist... apologies, molecular biologist.
Because if there's one thing your profession seems to excel at, it's turning artefacts into discoveries and circular reasoning into evidence. 🤣😂👍
I am not going to write a textbook on what DNA is, summarising the last 70 years of research. Your commenting here means you have access to the internet: so look it up if you don't know what DNA is. Please understand that I am simply not going to argue with an obvious troll, I have better things to do with my time. Fare well.
The use to which something is put is its actual function, while its stated function can serve a masking social order. It is the latter that I see as driven by rules and filters of narrative dictates. The control mindset is projected by the self to its 'world' as a masking over unhealed conflicts.
The ability to distort, modify or filter communication or energetic exchange is not in itself a control over an environment, but it can and does operate as a social or mutually reinforcing masking defence against reliving conflicts associated with fear, of pain, of loss. The psychic-emotional underbelly to a rationally compartmentalised perception runs dark to the ego of adaptation to its perceived world. Some aspect of it operates as the 'noble lie' - or the use of stories to control a Public by the priesthood of a control class as part of organising the society to serve the core function of the insiders to such control.
The use of sci-models, theories and funded or incentivised narratives is of the same order or function as the Banksters construction of complex financial instruments by which to repackage toxic debt into 'saleable assets' to then dum or socialise to a sacrificial public as virtue.
The scam sets the hype by which to fund and frame the development of a thesis of an incentivised narrative claim. This also operates to starve rival or alternate research.
People live in the cultural framework of their times with only a rare or minimal awareness or interest in questioning what runs be-liveable as a self-evident reality, and persists in many long after its falsification, because it is serving a use in the minds of those who have become stakeholders in its worldview.
I think the baby is safe here, because inheritance is not negated or questioned, but control dynamics have been assumed or projected onto life EXACTLY as was once attributed to God or gods or mysterious powers that could be at some level aligned with and healed by.
Note that your thoughts - which have undercurrent emotional meaning - are part of your field of transmission and reception with a greater life than the limits of your skin - or your conceptions of a limited universe. That thought and emotion are part of your alignment within an energetic medium of exchange called living, is more agency and creativity than under Genetic Control dogmas.
No matter what the structure of your life or situation, you have a capacity to see it or interpret it in ways that serve value fulfilment. But if you set value on control for its own sake, it will NEVER be enough, but will demand all that you give it and more.
I understand we use the term control as shorthand for living relational orientations of willing responsibility. I'm emphasising the use of structure and system as a means to escape responsibility by outsourcing it to external 'authorities'.
The idea of externally authored life has its own priesthood and followers because it separates from a living Covenant or Communion that has become associated with deep fear or terror and intolerable pain and loss.
There is some merit in seeing humankind as suffering an unhealed species trauma from a catastrophic past - so as to release such a past from reiterating as it does through apparently modern and enlightened arenas of materially manipulated 'solutions'.
What we take as our mind is a split consciousness but the split is hidden or protected.
A spotlight conceals more than it reveals. Our Overton Window frames what can be conceived, articulated and recognised.
I don't care to attack it or denigrate it so much as grow perspective from and of an integrality of consciousness.
This is a demanding piece, but the radio metaphor does something useful: it reminds us that taking a thing apart is not always the same as finding where the music comes from.
I’m not ready to throw the whole genetic story out the window. Windows are expensive. But I do like essays that make inherited explanations feel less automatic.
The question underneath this one lingers: when families resemble each other, what exactly is being passed on?
We Americans are way behind the wave. Nothing in the body is ever still. Everything is waving, dancing, lit up and vibrating. Unless, of course, the body is sick.
More DNA Fun: Wave Genomics and Dancing DNA
Ulrike Granögger
Peter Gariaev
Vladimir Proponin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPtc4QdUgVI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r_yOT0_I0w&t=600s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WobUyOE3x8
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2772228/#:~:text=research%20team%20of,Biology%20of%20Belief
I would like to see Unbekoming write an article reviewing the book “Quantum Consciousness of the Linguistic-Wave Genome”, by Peter Gariaev. A free pdf copy of the book in English can be found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qqtkGdssjnqRV5hhGIay3F1XLrJgciCU/view. The website can be found here: https://wavegenetics.org/en/
Thank you! I like his stuff, too!
Funny. I had just posted my remarks and had not seen yours. Awesome! I think this work is so fascinating.