The Emporer’s New Genes

Questioning the Evidence Behind DNA Theory – Dr Thomas Cowan – 30 Q&As

Well, well, well. It seems the DNA story isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. What a surprise.

This is critical because, without DNA theory as it’s currently portrayed, you lose genetics, and without genetics, modern virology collapses and the very foundation of vaccination (mass poisoning) crumbles.

The same red flags we’ve seen in other domains are glaring here too: heavy reliance on computer modeling (severing theory from reality), the perpetual hunger for more research funding, the glaring absence of straightforward, unadulterated isolation, and the lack of clear, simple imagery of the so-called double helix. These are just a few of the cracks in this pillar of The Science.

And let’s not overlook the fake holy certainty that is the hallmark of all Cartel Science.

The narrative handed to us is that DNA, which is a chemical, is the library and genes, which are also chemicals, are its books. But if DNA is the repository of information (genes) needed to build me—and greater complexity requires more information—then why does a pufferfish have 22,000 genes while I’ve only got 18,000?

I’m more complex than a pufferfish. No sarcasm intended.

Without DNA Theory you don’t have Evolution Theory either. You can read this to see the gaping holes in the evolution story.

Clearly, there’s much more to this story than they pretend to know.

The following review and Q&A is based on a recent livestream on the Human Genome Project.

With thanks to Dr. Thomas Cowan.

A Look at the Human Genome Project 10/9/24 – Dr. Tom Cowan

Analogy

Imagine you're told there's an invisible book that contains the complete instructions for building and operating a city. Nobody has ever seen this book in its entirety, but scientists claim they can detect fragments of pages scattered throughout the city. To reconstruct the book, they collect these fragments, run them through a computer program that arranges the pieces based on assumed rules about how the text should flow, and then declare they've reconstructed the original book.

When asked to prove the book exists, they show you chemical reactions from burning the paper fragments and grainy photographs of what might be page corners. They explain that while they can't show you the actual book, they know it exists because buildings in the city look similar to buildings in other cities (heredity), and they can use their reconstructed fragments to predict which buildings might be related to each other.

The more you ask questions, the more you realize that no one has ever seen this complete book, yet billions of dollars are spent studying it, and people blame all sorts of city problems on "errors" in this invisible book. When you point out that cities functioned and buildings resembled each other long before anyone proposed the existence of this book, you're told you don't understand the science.

This analogy captures Cowan's central argument: that an entire field of study might be built upon assumptions about something (DNA) that has never been properly isolated or observed, yet has become so fundamental to our thinking that questioning it seems almost unthinkable.

12-point summary

1. Human Genome Project Revelation: The BBC article revealed that no complete human genome had been fully sequenced until 2023, despite previous claims. The 2001-2003 announcements were based on composite DNA from multiple individuals and contained significant gaps.

2. DNA Isolation Challenge: No scientifically rigorous isolation of DNA from living organisms has been achieved. Current methods rely on harsh chemical processes that may create or alter the substances being studied, rather than proving DNA's existence in living tissue.

3. Sequencing Methodology: Both human and viral genome sequencing use the same problematic method: fragmenting samples, then using computer algorithms to reassemble them without a complete reference standard to verify accuracy.

4. Structural Evidence Questions: The foundational evidence for DNA's double helix structure, including Rosalind Franklin's X-ray diffraction pattern, is challenged by the fact that similar patterns can be produced from non-biological materials like ballpoint pen springs.

5. Reference Genome Problems: The human reference genome contained 8-10% gaps in sequencing, raising questions about the validity of genetic research that relies on this incomplete standard for comparison.

6. Visualization Issues: Despite technological advances, attempts to directly visualize DNA structure, including 2012 imaging efforts, have failed to produce clear evidence supporting the double helix model.

7. Gene Count Paradox: The discovery that puffer fish have more genes (22,000-29,000) than humans (18,000) challenges fundamental assumptions about genetic complexity correlating with organism complexity.

8. Heredity vs. DNA: While heredity is observable, Cowan questions whether DNA is necessary to explain inherited traits, suggesting other mechanisms might account for hereditary patterns.

9. Computer Assembly Problems: Without ever having seen a complete genome, there's no way to verify if computer-assembled sequences are accurate or to calculate meaningful error rates.

10. Practical Application Gap: Despite massive investment in DNA research, there's a notable lack of concrete benefits or improvements in people's lives that can be directly attributed to DNA technology.

11. Cultural Impact: DNA theory has significantly influenced how people think about health and heredity, potentially preventing consideration of more practical explanations for various phenomena.

12. Scientific Method Concerns: The field of DNA research may have departed from proper scientific methodology by building theoretical frameworks without first establishing basic empirical evidence for its foundational claims.

30 Questions & Answers

1. What are the main revelations about the Human Genome Project according to the BBC article, and why are they significant?

The BBC article reveals that no human genome has ever been read in its entirety before 2023, despite common belief that this was accomplished decades ago. The first draft was released in 2001, with a supposedly "completed" sequence announced in 2003, but this was assembled from chunks of various people's DNA and contained major gaps and errors.

This revelation challenges the foundation of genetic research, as the reference sequence used to compare all other human DNA was incomplete and problematic. The admission that they were working with composites using DNA from multiple individuals, rather than a complete single human genome, raises questions about the validity of genetic comparisons and analysis that have been conducted over the past decades.

Why the human genome was never completed

2. How does Cowan challenge the traditional understanding of DNA isolation and purification?

Cowan argues that true isolation and purification of DNA has never been achieved in the way that analytical chemists would require for characterizing a new chemical compound. Instead of physically isolating and observing DNA in its natural state, researchers use harsh chemicals, acids, alkalines, solvents, centrifugation, and dehydration processes that may fundamentally alter or create the substances they claim to be studying.

The challenge centers on the lack of direct observation and isolation of DNA from living tissue in its natural state. Rather than demonstrating DNA's existence through careful separation and observation, researchers rely on chemical reactions and byproducts, which may not actually prove the existence of DNA as a distinct chemical entity in living organisms.

3. What parallels are drawn between virus genome sequencing and human genome sequencing?

Cowan reveals that the methods used for both virus and human genome sequencing are essentially identical, involving taking multiple samples, chopping them into small pieces, and using computer algorithms to reassemble them. This challenges the previous assumption that human genome sequencing was more reliable because it came from purified, isolated DNA from a proven entity.

The parallel extends to the fundamental problems with both approaches: neither starts with a purified, isolated sample of genetic material that has been read end-to-end. Instead, both rely on computer-based assembly of fragments, creating multiple possible configurations without any way to verify which assembly might be correct against a genuine reference standard.

4. How does Cowan explain the significance of Rosalind Franklin's X-ray photo, and what alternative interpretation is presented?

Franklin's X-ray photo, known as Photo 51, is presented as the foundational evidence for the double helix structure of DNA, which Watson and Crick used to develop their model of DNA structure. However, Cowan challenges this by presenting an undergraduate study where researchers obtained identical X-ray patterns from ballpoint pen springs after subjecting them to the same extraction process and 61 hours of continuous X-ray exposure.

This alternative interpretation suggests that the famous X-ray diffraction pattern might not be unique to DNA or biological materials at all, but could be produced by various helical structures, including simple mechanical springs. This raises questions about whether the entire foundation of DNA structure theory might be based on a misinterpreted artifact of the experimental process.

5. What is the significance of the 8-10% gap in genome sequencing?

The 8-10% gap in genome sequencing represents portions of the alleged human genome that have never been successfully sequenced or assembled, even in the reference genome used as the standard for all genetic research. This gap creates a fundamental problem in genetic research, particularly in viral genome studies, where researchers claim to identify viral sequences by eliminating human sequences from their samples.

The existence of this gap means that when researchers discard genetic sequences that match the human genome reference to identify viral DNA, they cannot be certain that the remaining sequences aren't actually part of the unsequenced human genome. This creates a circular logic problem where sequences might be incorrectly identified as viral simply because they fall within the unknown 8-10% of the human genome.

6. How does Cowan critique the process of DNA visualization, particularly regarding the 2012 direct imaging attempts?

Cowan examines the progression from Franklin's 1951 X-ray diffraction pattern to the 2012 attempts at direct imaging of DNA fibers. The 2012 images, presented as breakthrough direct visualization of DNA, are criticized as showing unclear, grainy structures that bear little resemblance to the widely accepted double helix model.

The contrast between these actual images and the artistic renderings commonly used to represent DNA structure highlights a significant gap between scientific evidence and theoretical models. Cowan suggests that after 70 years of technological advancement, the inability to produce clear, convincing images of DNA structure should raise serious questions about its assumed form and existence.

7. What comparison is made between puffer fish and human genetic complexity, and why is this significant?

Cowan points out that according to genome sequencing data, puffer fish reportedly have between 22,000 and 29,000 genes, while humans have only 18,000 genes. This would suggest that puffer fish are more genetically complex than humans, challenging the assumption that genetic complexity correlates with organismal complexity.

This comparison is used to highlight the potential absurdity of current genetic theory, as it suggests humans are approximately three-quarters as complex as puffer fish. This discrepancy challenges the fundamental assumption that the number of genes determines an organism's complexity or capabilities.

8. How does Cowan challenge the concept of DNA as the blueprint of life?

Cowan challenges the DNA-as-blueprint concept by questioning whether a chemical called DNA has ever been properly isolated and characterized from living organisms. It argues that rather than having direct evidence of DNA's role, researchers have built an elaborate theoretical framework based on indirect observations and chemical reactions.

Furthermore, Cowan questions how DNA could serve as a stable blueprint when research has shown that it's not even consistent throughout an organism's lifetime or across different tissues in the same body. This inconsistency contradicts the basic premise of DNA serving as a fixed set of instructions for building and maintaining living organisms.

9. What methodology issues are raised regarding the extraction and isolation of DNA?

Cowan criticizes the current methodology of DNA extraction and isolation as being fundamentally flawed because it relies on harsh chemical treatments that could potentially create or alter the very substances being studied. Instead of actual isolation - like physically separating a frog from pond water - the process involves chemical reactions that produce byproducts which are then interpreted as evidence of DNA.

The criticism extends to the lack of proper controls to demonstrate that the extraction process itself isn't creating or modifying the substances being studied. Cowan argues that true isolation would require showing that the extracted substance existed in the original living tissue and remained unchanged through the extraction process.

10. How does Cowan address the relationship between heredity and DNA?

Cowan makes a clear distinction between the observable fact of heredity and the theoretical explanation of DNA as its mechanism. Cowan acknowledges that heredity is real - children look like their parents, share characteristics, and traits are passed down through generations - but questions whether this necessarily proves the existence of DNA as the chemical basis for this inheritance.

The argument suggests that while we can observe and document hereditary patterns, attributing these patterns to DNA might be an unnecessary and unproven theoretical overlay. Cowan implies that other mechanisms might explain heredity without requiring the existence of DNA as currently understood.

11. What concerns are raised about computer-based genome assembly methods?

Computer-based genome assembly relies on taking fragmented pieces of alleged DNA and using programmed rules to reassemble them into a complete sequence. The fundamental problem is that without ever having seen a complete, intact genome as a reference, there's no way to verify if the computer's assembly is correct or to calculate an accurate error rate.

The process generates hundreds of thousands of possible configurations, and researchers have no objective basis for determining which one might be correct. This is particularly problematic because the choice of which assembly to accept as "correct" appears arbitrary without a verified reference standard to compare against.

12. How does the War and Peace analogy explain the problems with genome sequencing?

The analogy compares genome sequencing to attempting to reconstruct War and Peace from millions of random words and phrases without ever having seen the original book. Without access to the complete original text, there would be no way to verify if the reconstructed version accurately represents the actual book, even if the assembled words form coherent sentences.

Just as it would be impossible to calculate an error rate for the reconstructed book without the original for comparison, it's impossible to determine the accuracy of assembled genomes without ever having seen a complete, intact genome. The analogy highlights how the current methods of genome assembly lack a fundamental reference point for validation.

13. What issues are raised about genetic testing services like 23andMe?

Cowan questions the reliability and methodology of genetic testing services through an example where someone submitted a sample claiming to be a dog and received results indicating specific dog breed percentages. This suggests these services may not have reliable methods for distinguishing between human and animal DNA, raising questions about their overall accuracy.

The broader implication is that while these services might be measuring something that correlates with heredity or relationships, there's no clear evidence that what they're measuring is actually DNA as traditionally understood. Cowan suggests that other factors might explain the correlations these services find without necessarily involving DNA.

14. How does Cowan address the stability of DNA over an individual's lifetime?

Cowan challenges the concept of DNA as a stable blueprint by pointing out that research has shown DNA is not consistent throughout an individual's lifetime. This observation contradicts the fundamental premise that DNA serves as a fixed set of instructions for life.

This instability raises a logical problem: if DNA is constantly changing throughout our lives, how can it function as the reliable blueprint it's claimed to be? This contradiction is presented as another reason to question the entire theoretical framework of DNA as the basis of life.

15. What challenges are presented regarding the base pair assumptions in DNA structure?

Cowan highlights that the existence of base pairs was assumed rather than proven in the original work by Watson and Crick. The interpretation of Franklin's X-ray diffraction pattern relied on assumptions about evenly spaced base pairs, but these base pairs were never directly observed.

The circular logic of this situation is emphasized: the existence of base pairs was assumed to explain the X-ray pattern, then the pattern was used as evidence for the existence of base pairs. This challenges the fundamental basis for our understanding of DNA structure.

16. How does Cowan critique modern imaging techniques for DNA visualization?

Cowan examines the progression from the 1951 Franklin X-ray diffraction to 2012 direct imaging attempts, suggesting that despite 60 years of technological advancement, clear visualization of DNA structure remains elusive. The 2012 images are presented as unclear and inconsistent with the accepted double helix model.

The failure to produce clear, convincing images of DNA structure using modern technology is presented as evidence that might challenge the accepted model of DNA structure. The contrast between actual images and artistic renderings is used to highlight the gap between theory and observable evidence.

17. What concerns are raised about the funding and continued research in DNA studies?

Cowan suggests that trillions of dollars are invested in DNA research, creating a significant economic incentive to maintain the current theoretical framework. The article points out that researchers consistently claim they need more funding because they'll "never be done reading it."

This perpetual need for funding is presented as suspicious, particularly given the lack of concrete benefits from DNA research. Cowan challenges readers to identify any real-world improvements in their lives that have resulted from our understanding of DNA technology.

18. How does Cowan address the relationship between DNA theory and evolution?

Cowan presents DNA theory as fundamentally linked to evolutionary theory, suggesting that DNA serves as the theoretical mechanism for natural selection and mutations. This connection is questioned along with the broader reliability of DNA theory.

The challenge to DNA theory thus extends to questioning the mechanism of evolution, particularly regarding how genetic mutations and variations could drive evolutionary changes if the existence and stability of DNA itself is in doubt.

19. What methodology would Cowan suggest for properly proving DNA existence?

Proper proof would require starting with a living organism and demonstrating the presence of DNA through direct observation and controlled extraction. Each step of the extraction process would need to be verified to ensure the process itself isn't creating or altering the substance being studied.

Cowan suggests that researchers would need to show that the extracted substance is stable, consistent across an organism's tissues, and maintains its structure throughout the organism's lifetime. Additionally, they would need to demonstrate that this substance actually performs the functions attributed to DNA.

20. How does Cowan critique the concept of genetic modification and CRISPR technology?

Cowan uses the example of the wooly mammoth revival project to critique genetic modification claims. It suggests that despite years of promises about the potential of genetic modification, there's little evidence of successful practical applications.

This criticism extends to CRISPR technology and other genetic modification techniques, suggesting that their theoretical foundation might be flawed if the basic premises about DNA are incorrect. Cowan implies that the ambitious claims about genetic modification might be built on fundamentally flawed assumptions about DNA's role and existence.

21. What role do chemical processes play in DNA isolation?

Chemical processes used in DNA isolation are presented as problematic because they involve harsh treatments including acids, alkalines, solvents, centrifugation, and dehydration. These aggressive chemical manipulations raise questions about whether they're actually creating or altering the substances they claim to be isolating.

What biochemists call "isolation" is actually just observing chemical reactions and byproducts, rather than truly isolating a substance as it exists in living tissue. This process is compared unfavorably to physically separating something observable, like removing a frog from water with a net.

22. How does Cowan challenge the concept of gene counting and organism complexity?

Cowan questions the logic of gene counting by highlighting the apparent discrepancy between organism complexity and gene count. The comparison between humans having 18,000 genes while puffer fish have 22,000-29,000 genes serves to challenge the fundamental assumption that gene count correlates with organism complexity.

This challenge extends to questioning whether there's even a clear definition of what constitutes a gene. The inconsistency between gene counts and apparent organism complexity is presented as evidence that the entire framework of genetic theory might be flawed.

23. What evidence standards does Cowan suggest for proving DNA existence?

Cowan calls for rigorous scientific standards similar to those used in analytical chemistry, where new chemicals must be properly isolated, purified, and characterized. This would require direct observation of DNA in living tissue, followed by careful extraction that preserves its natural state.

The proposed standard would require demonstrating that the extraction process itself isn't creating or altering the substance, and that the extracted material actually performs the functions attributed to DNA. This would need to include proof of consistency across tissues and stability over time.

24. How does Cowan address the practical applications of DNA technology?

Cowan challenges readers to identify any concrete benefits that DNA technology has provided in their personal lives. Despite trillions of dollars invested in research and decades of promises about potential applications, Cowan suggests there's little evidence of practical improvements in people's lives.

This criticism extends to various applications like genetic testing, forensics, and genetic modification. While acknowledging that these technologies might measure or detect something, Cowan questions whether what they're measuring is actually DNA as traditionally understood.

25. What alternative explanations for heredity are suggested or implied?

Cowan acknowledges the reality of heredity as an observable phenomenon while questioning whether DNA is necessary to explain it. It suggests that other mechanisms might account for the passing of traits between generations without requiring the existence of DNA as currently understood.

While specific alternative mechanisms aren't fully detailed, Cowan implies that the observation of hereditary patterns doesn't necessarily require DNA as an explanation, just as other natural phenomena might have simpler explanations than current theoretical frameworks suggest.

26. How does Cowan critique the metaphysical interpretations of DNA?

Cowan criticizes how DNA theory has influenced metaphysical and spiritual thinking, including concepts like DNA as "Jacob's Ladder" and theories about alien DNA hybridization. These interpretations are presented as examples of how deeply DNA theory has penetrated cultural and spiritual thought.

This cultural impact is presented as problematic because it's based on a potentially flawed scientific premise. Cowan suggests that these metaphysical interpretations have contributed to the uncritical acceptance of DNA theory without proper scientific verification.

27. What technological limitations in DNA research are highlighted?

Cowan points out that despite significant technological advances, including electron microscopes capable of observing atoms, researchers haven't produced clear, convincing images of DNA structure. This limitation is presented as particularly significant given the claims made about DNA's importance.

The contrast between available technology and the quality of evidence for DNA structure is used to question why researchers continue to rely on indirect chemical extraction methods rather than direct observation and isolation techniques.

28. How does Cowan address the cultural impact of DNA theory?

DNA theory is presented as having colonized people's minds, leading them to interpret health and heredity primarily through a genetic lens. Cowan illustrates this through a personal example of his goat Charlie, who developed something resembling athlete's foot. During discussions about Charlie's condition, people immediately jumped to two explanations: either it was an infection or it was genetic. However, Cowan suggests a much simpler explanation - he had been feeding Charlie apples, which goats aren't naturally supposed to eat in large quantities. Goats should primarily consume hay, grass, leaves, and twigs.

This cultural impact is portrayed as harmful because it prevents people from investigating practical factors that actually affect health and well-being. Instead of considering that Charlie's condition might be due to an improper diet - too many apples - people defaulted to complex explanations involving genetics or infections. This mindset shift has fundamentally altered how people approach problems, leading them away from simple, observable causes that could be easily addressed (like dietary changes) in favor of invisible, theoretical causes (like genetic predispositions or infections) that offer no practical solutions. The example demonstrates how deeply DNA theory has influenced everyday thinking, even in situations where simpler explanations might be more useful and accurate.

29. What concerns are raised about the reference genome concept?

Cowan challenges the validity of using a reference genome assembled from multiple individuals as a standard for comparison. The admission that this reference contains significant gaps and errors raises questions about its reliability as a basis for genetic research.

The problem is compounded by the circular logic of using an incomplete, potentially flawed reference to identify and classify other genetic sequences. This creates a situation where errors in the reference genome could propagate through all subsequent genetic analyses.

30. How does Cowan challenge conventional scientific methodology in DNA research?

Cowan argues that DNA research has departed from proper scientific methodology by failing to establish the basic existence and characteristics of its subject through direct observation and isolation. Instead, researchers have built an elaborate theoretical framework based on indirect evidence and assumptions.

This critique extends to the acceptance of computer-based analysis and reconstruction methods without proper validation against known standards. Cowan suggests that the field has become self-referential, validating new findings against potentially flawed earlier assumptions rather than direct empirical evidence.

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.