Marc G. Wathelet, who identifies as a molecular biologist, raises points worth engaging directly.
On NMR visualization: NMR spectroscopy measures how nuclei respond to magnetic fields. Computational models interpret those signals into structural representations. The essay's point stands: every verification method detects electrical or magnetic properties and interprets them through frameworks that assume the structure being sought. NMR produces data interpreted as DNA structure—it doesn't image the molecule directly in living systems. The 2012 direct imaging attempts, after seven decades of certainty about DNA's structure, produced images requiring significant interpretation to reconcile with the canonical double helix.
On industry scale as validation: The biotech industry's size demonstrates commercial success, not theoretical accuracy. Empirical trial-and-error produces useful outputs regardless of whether underlying frameworks accurately describe biological mechanisms. Bloodletting persisted for millennia with institutional success and patient testimonials. The relevant question is whether claimed mechanisms survive blind validation. The Dror study says no. The NIST study says no. The German paternity research—95.8% of children matching with known non-fathers under standard protocols—says no.
On PCR specificity: Marc states it "never amplifies something that is not there." Early 2020 primer sets produced positives in negative controls with nuclease-free water. Jamie Andrews' independent testing found positive results from ionic household materials. These results need accounting for.
On ancestry matches: Te Reagan found a half-sister through Ancestry. Pattern recognition can produce correlations that align with known family structures without validating the theoretical mechanism claimed. Ancestry companies have returned specific human ethnic percentages from dog DNA. Pet DNA companies have returned breed percentages from human samples. The tests find patterns. What those patterns measure is the question.
There was a link to this site in Jamie Andrews comments, which covers much of the same science, or lack thereof. It's very well written and referenced (personally I found it easier to follow that J.A.'s articles). There are only a handful of articles on the site, I would suggest checking them all.
As I also noted in October, 2025, the DNA/RNA helix is a theory at best. As it looks like more is going on in practice, chances are it's a cover-up for something else:
🚨SCIENCE BREAKTHROUGH!! 'DNA ISOLATION’ (ORIGINAL 1869 MIESCHER RECIPE) − NOW AVAILABLE IN EXTRA-DEGRADED ‘PURITY’!!🚨
(Brought to you by Circular Reasoning and the Reification Fallacies Brothers - your go-to-team for making everything sound more scientific than it actually is!)
🕺SCIENTISTS HAVE DONE IT AGAIN!! ⚗️
Our brilliant researchers, armed with test tubes, acid flasks, and a reckless disregard for molecular integrity, have 'isolated' 'DNA' 🧬🧬
💥 But how did we achieve this monumental feat? Simple!! By violently obliterating biological material beyond recognition, we have managed to extract what we believe (hope?) to be DNA. 🧬🧬 Using a combination of surgical waste, industrial-strength solvents, and an unshakeable commitment to confirmation bias, we now present to you:
🧬Tortured Precipitate of DNA™ − Now in Historical Accuracy Edition!
🚨 HOW DID WE DO IT? THE FOOLPROOF 1869 METHOD 🚨
✅ Step 1: Visit your nearest clinic and secure the finest pus-soaked surgical bandages. Nothing but the best leukocyte-laden filth will do for our cutting-edge 'science.'
✅ Step 2: Drench those festering bandages in a sodium sulfate solution to ‘gently’ separate the leukocytes (white blood cells).
✅Step 3: Wash the leukocytes several times with hydrochloric acid until the cell walls and cytoplasm give up and dissolve. If your sample still resembles something organic, apply more acid!
✅ Step 4: Next up, Ether!! For any stubborn cytoplasmic leftovers, introduce ether and shake like an unhinged Victorian chemist to remove any leftovers of the cytoplasm.
✅ Step5: Precipitate Mystery Goo – The ‘Eureka’ Moment! Add sodium carbonate (alkali) to your abused nuclei, then drown them in acid. Observe as a mysterious white precipitate emerges—Congratulations! You have officially bullied something into being!!
✅ Step 6: Observe and Take Notes on Your 'Discovery' – Watch as your ‘nuclein’ obediently solidifies in acid and vanishes in alkali, performing a neat chemical trick that proves… something. Convince yourself this is an entirely novel substance and not just the result of aggressive chemistry.
✅ Step 7: Verify ‘Purity’ by Setting It on Fire – Having worked tirelessly to extract this fragile substance, it's now time to destroy it. Burn it to analyze the byproducts! Phosphorus? Check. Nitrogen? Check. Sulfur? No? Great, it must not be protein. Declare the sacred blueprint of life!
✅ Step 8: Ascribe It to Heredity Without Any Real Evidence – Since your unknown substance came from nuclei, it must have something to do with heredity, right?
GENIUS! 🎉 BUT WAIT… IS THIS REALLY DNA? 🤔
🔥 Critics claim that dissolving organic material in acid and setting it on fire may not be the best way to isolate genetic material. Nonsense! We assure you, any 'hereditary substance' that somehow survives our 19th-century chemical gauntlet is 100% legitimate (because we say so).
Besides, if there was no DNA to begin with, how did we find it after chemically forcing it into existence? 🤷♂️ # CheckmateDeniers
FREQUENTLY AVOIDED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
🧐 Q: If DNA is the molecule of life, why does it need to be chemically reconstructed from cellular wreckage?
🔬 A: Silence, please. We are doing science.
🧐 Q: Why don’t we just isolate a fully intact, unmodified DNA molecule?
🔬 A: Because then we wouldn’t need grant money to keep “discovering” it.
🧐 Q: Isn’t this just circular reasoning?
🔬 A: Absolutely not! We assumed DNA exists, looked for DNA, and found what we assumed. That’s called scientific rigor.
LIMITED-TIME OFFER! ORDER YOUR "PURE" DNA TODAY!
🚀 For just $9.99, we’ll send you your very own sample of degraded nucleic acid sludge—freshly extracted from our state-of-the-art boiling vat of molecular destruction. Call now, and we’ll throw in an extra dose of hydrochloric ether —FREE! ⚗️
📞 Call 1-800-DNA-FAKE to claim your personalized double-helix experience! 🧬🕺
💰 Hurry! Supplies are infinite (because we can just dissolve more leukocytes in acid).
🚨 WARNING: MAY CONTAIN ZERO ACTUAL DNA.
☠️ Side effects include: extreme skepticism, spontaneous questioning of mainstream science, and an uncontrollable urge to expose scientific fraud.
Today's sponsor: The Acid Bath Consortium™ – “If It’s Not Chemically Mangled, It’s Not Real!"
Isn't it interesting that this DNA testing crap didn't get big until the invention of the mythical PCR process which claims to copy something before measuring it?
Kary Mullis even said that with enough copies (cycles) you'll get everything... Meaning that it's not a true copy.
Oh boy, so disappointing that you promote Jamie Andrews "work" again, Unbekoming. His arguments are ludicrous but he is gifted in wrapping historical facts in a semi-coherent whole casting doubt on the existence of DNA, for a non scientific audience. As a professional molecular biologist who has worked with DNA everyday in my lab, it is easy to identify the gaping holes in his scientific knowledge. First, the ridiculous insistance on taking a picture of it is beyond grotesque if you think about it for a second: we cannot take pictures of objects that small. Period. Deal with it, we are not an omnipotent species. So come on here Jamie Andrews, debate me. You won't dare. You don't mention NMR as a visualisation technique, we can "see" DNA exceedingly well with it, in complex interactions with DNA binding proteins. Right there in a single frame you have the conformation of a DNA molecule at the instant t, and as you keep getting frames you observe the different conformations that DNA molecule can take, as it is happening in solution. Come here to debate me, Jamie.
A copy of something that even Kary Mullis said after so many cycles will give you everything. He joked that it was like the Buddhist idea that everything contains the universe 😂.
Also, how can we explain that DNA testing is not that accurate. Someone sent their DNA instead of their dog to pet sequencing services and the results were hilarious.
You would think that the matching would have seen the sample as either corrupt or identified as human and not canine.
I cannot comment on specific cases without knowing what method was used, etc.
DNA testing is done by humans, humans make mistakes, so no surprise there.
I can comment on PCR, having done tens of thousands of them. It is the most sensitive technique, it can detect a single molecule in the right condition, which is quite an extraordinary achievement if you think about it. Being so sensitive, the biggest issue is DNA contamination, and appropriate controls must be included to detect such possible contamination. However, it never amplifies something that is not there, it is physically impossible. What Mullis was actually saying is that the detection of a given pathogen should not be equated with the disease, and he was absolutely right about that.
The analogy does not quite work. There is a low error rate for any polymerase and there are many very high fidelity polymerases in use nowadays: 1 error per 1.9 million bases incorporated for the best one. That means, to give you a practical example, you have say a 1000 bp fragment amplified through 25 cycles, you expect one out of a 100 molecules produced to contain an error (verified by deep single-molecule sequencing). Thus 99 digital copies and one analog, mostly correct but with one of its bases off. So the question becomes is that error material to the test being done? In most cases it is simply not. In the cases where it could be material, steps are taken to purify away such errors, usually by cloning.
Obviously you won't take it as evidence, but nucleotides can be purified, the mass precisely measured, elemental composition determined, infrared, visible, UV absorption spectra, NMR, open any biochemistry textbook for all the details.
He is not addressing a non-scientific audience. Many of his subscribers will undoubtedly have a background similar to mine. I have decades of experience working in software design and a degree in Physics with Astrophysics. My qualifications have nothing to do with the validity of any scientific question. Everyone is entitled to question the "science," and there is no such thing as a non-scientific audience. Your qualifications do not make you a scientist, but an adherent of scientism. There is a big difference.
As a matter of fact, I am not an adherent of scientism and I do welcome his scepticism, it is one of the pillars of science, and so is debate, and I just invited Jamie to one. Let's see if he accepts it.
Btw, if someone were to put together something similar to what Jamie Andrews does here in your field, what would be your reaction? Imagine someone saying, there is no picture of electrons, anywhere. Ask physicists, and they cannot really tell you what it is made of, but they have a lot of equations that prove just nothing, and circuit boards are a sham, imagine the insanity of claiming you can make transistors in the nm range, it is physically impossible. What would you say? That's the level of the DNA does not exist meme entertained here. The entire biotechnology industry does not exist, all these buildings with people working in labs, costs billions, is all pretend to make you believe DNA exist when it does not because because, damn, that's hard, because, damn, I give up, maybe Jamie can help.
You may be right. But the electron analogy is not a good one because electronics is a "useful" field and computers and cell phones clearly work. The genetics industry has produced nothing remotely comparable, and we simply have to trust the "experts". Some claim the electron is a wave-particle or it's a fluctuation in an aetheric field- who really knows? But the empirical equations are a "useful model". Even if DNA is real, then the acknowledged limitations of PCR make the entire field of genetics very suspect. Our entire debt-based economy demands constant debt-creation in a never-ending Ponzi scheme, so yes, the biotech industry (as well as the space industry) could all be fake.
Your poopooing of the biotech industry is unjustified, it does not matter if electronics is even more impactful, the question is what the existence of the industry means in terms of validating the underlying technology:
since insulin, the FDA has approved over 300 original biologics, not even counting vaccines and blood products. The global biologics market reached approximately $487 billion in 2025, representing ~40% of the pharmaceutical market and growing at 10-15% annually. Over 350 million patients worldwide have been treated with biologics, leading to improved quality of life and reduced disease burden. At some point, one has to respect the reality principle, nothing of the sort is possible if DNA does not exist. The limitations of PCR, like for every single technology on earth, exist! Stop the press! These limitations are well understood and dealt with through appropriate protocols. Let me clarify that any technology can be abused, and PCR testing in the COVID era is one clear instance, but it says nothing about the underlying technology. Like for voting, it is not who votes for who that matters, but who counts the vote. Same with PCR in a manufactured crisis, but the technology itself is very solid.
The biotech industry exists but what exactly has it given us? We were supposed to get more understanding of life with DNA but all we have are more questions.
At least when it comes to electronics, even if quantum theory is bullshit, it still works and is consistent. (Quantum theory isn't necessary to explain why it works as wave theory explains it already!)
I can't say that about genetics.
Genetics is an attempt to reverse engineer biology. Reverse engineering involves a lot of guesswork, especially when the object being observed is invisible.
The biotech industry has given us useful biologics, the first were molecules like insulin and interferons, there are countless more nowadays.
We were supposed to get more understanding of life with DNA, and we did, much greater understanding, and you are right that it raised even more questions, usually the sign of a fruitful scientific approach.
You can't say that about genetics but it reflects most of all your unfamiliarity with the field: I can say, like you say about electronics, that whatever the theory, DNA is real and can be manipulated in the lab to produced useful biologics. There is nothing mysterious or special about reverse engineering, it is used in many fields, if I give you a circuitboard of a captured drone, you'd be able to reverse engineering it. The ability to reverse engineer is in fact the most powerful demonstration of the validity of a theory, it means it correspond to something rooted in reality, you can reproduce something with the same functionality as the original.
that the dream of curing cancer with genetics has not become reality is not the fault of genetics. It's the fault of the theory of what causes cancer! Cancer is not caused by genetics. So if cancer is not caused by genetics, then how can genetics be used to cure it?
since insulin, the FDA has approved over 300 original biologics, not even counting vaccines and blood products. The global biologics market reached approximately $487 billion in 2025, representing ~40% of the pharmaceutical market and growing at 10-15% annually. Over 350 million patients worldwide have been treated with biologics, leading to improved quality of life and reduced disease burden. At some point, one has to respect the reality principle, nothing of the sort is possible if DNA does not exist. The limitations of PCR, like for every single technology on earth, exist! Stop the press! These limitations are well understood and dealt with through appropriate protocols. Let me clarify that any technology can be abused, and PCR testing in the COVID era is one clear instance, but it says nothing about the underlying technology. Like for voting, it is not who votes for who that matters, but who counts the vote. Same with PCR in a manufactured crisis, but the technology itself is very solid.
It seems you have bought the marketing of various pharma/biotech companies. Cancer is mostly a metabolic disease, genetics could not possibly bring a cure. Any editing has off-target effects so stay away from any gene editing, with the exception of diseases in blood cells, if the treatment is done in vitro, on stem cells, which are fully sequenced before reintroduction in the body. The reverse engineering is straight forward, no mystery, do a little research if you are interested, AI can be useful for exploring unfamiliar fields.
You don’t need an atom to explain the physics behind a transistor. Through experimentation in materials science, scientists have clearly observed effects in various elements that, when combined, produce the desired results. Yet this has nothing to do with describing reality. For example, take Bohr’s paper on the atom. It was discarded not long after with the advent of QM. The model has changed so much over the last 100 years that it is unrecognisable as being related to Bohr’s original concept. Yet events could be predicted using the model, for example, the photoelectric effect. It does not mean the electrons revolving around the nucleus exist as defined by Bohr’s model, as the experts now accept. You are mixing two unrelated topics. To prove that something exists and is observable, it must be observed. The clue is in the noun and the verb.
Computer technology has nothing to do with atomic physics nor with Quantum Mechanics, both of which are based on non-existent models, just like the Gene. The experts even admit it.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Concepts evolve in science as our knowledge deepens, ok. Actually not constantly changing but slowly evolving. So what?
Like 90% of allopathetic medicine, all this is based on inferences, lies, models and guesses. Without all this fundamental poppycock, modern medicine would go up in a puff of smoke.
Can a layman observe a comet. Could they map its trajectory. Could a lay person play with stuff that is generally considered the domain of accredited representatives.
My 3rd Q is that if everything else (other than human) is created holographically, which is found to be perfect. And the entity responsible for same transmits the holo-field from 1 to all adjacent encoders with exacting replication, where said ring encoders derive the blueprints from the aether, would change an otherwise perfect system and adopt an inferior replication scheme. Characteristics such as love of hiking cannot surely be replicated in a mechanical system.
You are telling me that you haven't created life out of nothing..yet !
Mainstream science is still playing with atoms. It's description of water even has no realism. It is very obvious that nobody has studied it. For even at 200x mag, waters code-frags are obvious.
Per ions, obviously nobody has looked.
Out of all you people who imagine things and promote ideas that are based solely on imagination is shame 🫠 For it only takes a modest microscope and ultra simple experiments to demonstrate that the entire foundations of science are total bs.
But, I do get it. The books have been printed. No person is going to lose their bs Nobel prize or gold metal. Nobody's going to willfully admit that "we didn't actually look".
This guy Marc G Whatsisname's circular reasoning reminds me of an old Persian joke featuring a recurring character in Sufi humour; a village idiot who believes himself wise, named Nasiruddin.
One day, Nasiruddin is seen wandering round the village with a large jar of powdered pepper, which he is liberally spreading around. This, of course, is causing all manner of discomfort to his neighbours, so they confront him.
"Nasiruddin, what are you doing?' they ask between sneezes while rubbing their sore red eyes. "Why are you spreading pepper everywhere, can't you see how you are making us all sick."
"Ah", replies Nasiruddin with a wise forbearing smile, "But, it's to keep the tigers away. You wouldn't want your children to be eaten by tigers, would you?".
'No of course not." The villagers agree "But Nasiruddin, there aren't any tigers around these parts."
"Exactly!" exclaims the village idiot triumphantly. "So, as you all admit, it works, doesn't it?"
And then, throwing great clouds of pepper in their faces, adds piously:
"Instead of complaining, you should all be thanking me for keeping your children safe."
Regarding procreation and heredity, there is a biological aspect and an informational aspect. The egg and sperm are the biological mechanisms for the generation of new meat.
DNA is a biological manifestation of the information, a biological resonance, but it is not the source of truth for the information of heredity.
Our sciences today are shaped only by what is observable intellectually. This serves multiple purposes, one of which is to obscure and limit human understanding of this plane.
" The pattern is familiar: when predictions fail, invent rescue devices to explain why the theory is still correct".........That pattern is repeated to 'protect' the complete failures of vaccines, and other allopathic medicines!! One big book of excuses. If you manage to 'research' a new one to help these LIARS/MURDERERS/PUPPETS out, and 'buy' further time for the lie to exist, then a Nobel prize awaits!!
Author's Note on Comments
Marc G. Wathelet, who identifies as a molecular biologist, raises points worth engaging directly.
On NMR visualization: NMR spectroscopy measures how nuclei respond to magnetic fields. Computational models interpret those signals into structural representations. The essay's point stands: every verification method detects electrical or magnetic properties and interprets them through frameworks that assume the structure being sought. NMR produces data interpreted as DNA structure—it doesn't image the molecule directly in living systems. The 2012 direct imaging attempts, after seven decades of certainty about DNA's structure, produced images requiring significant interpretation to reconcile with the canonical double helix.
On industry scale as validation: The biotech industry's size demonstrates commercial success, not theoretical accuracy. Empirical trial-and-error produces useful outputs regardless of whether underlying frameworks accurately describe biological mechanisms. Bloodletting persisted for millennia with institutional success and patient testimonials. The relevant question is whether claimed mechanisms survive blind validation. The Dror study says no. The NIST study says no. The German paternity research—95.8% of children matching with known non-fathers under standard protocols—says no.
On PCR specificity: Marc states it "never amplifies something that is not there." Early 2020 primer sets produced positives in negative controls with nuclease-free water. Jamie Andrews' independent testing found positive results from ionic household materials. These results need accounting for.
On ancestry matches: Te Reagan found a half-sister through Ancestry. Pattern recognition can produce correlations that align with known family structures without validating the theoretical mechanism claimed. Ancestry companies have returned specific human ethnic percentages from dog DNA. Pet DNA companies have returned breed percentages from human samples. The tests find patterns. What those patterns measure is the question.
There was a link to this site in Jamie Andrews comments, which covers much of the same science, or lack thereof. It's very well written and referenced (personally I found it easier to follow that J.A.'s articles). There are only a handful of articles on the site, I would suggest checking them all.
https://criticalcheck.wordpress.com/2021/12/15/dna-discovery-extraction-and-structure-a-critical-review/
As I also noted in October, 2025, the DNA/RNA helix is a theory at best. As it looks like more is going on in practice, chances are it's a cover-up for something else:
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/how-is-life-encoded
🚨SCIENCE BREAKTHROUGH!! 'DNA ISOLATION’ (ORIGINAL 1869 MIESCHER RECIPE) − NOW AVAILABLE IN EXTRA-DEGRADED ‘PURITY’!!🚨
(Brought to you by Circular Reasoning and the Reification Fallacies Brothers - your go-to-team for making everything sound more scientific than it actually is!)
🕺SCIENTISTS HAVE DONE IT AGAIN!! ⚗️
Our brilliant researchers, armed with test tubes, acid flasks, and a reckless disregard for molecular integrity, have 'isolated' 'DNA' 🧬🧬
💥 But how did we achieve this monumental feat? Simple!! By violently obliterating biological material beyond recognition, we have managed to extract what we believe (hope?) to be DNA. 🧬🧬 Using a combination of surgical waste, industrial-strength solvents, and an unshakeable commitment to confirmation bias, we now present to you:
🧬Tortured Precipitate of DNA™ − Now in Historical Accuracy Edition!
🚨 HOW DID WE DO IT? THE FOOLPROOF 1869 METHOD 🚨
✅ Step 1: Visit your nearest clinic and secure the finest pus-soaked surgical bandages. Nothing but the best leukocyte-laden filth will do for our cutting-edge 'science.'
✅ Step 2: Drench those festering bandages in a sodium sulfate solution to ‘gently’ separate the leukocytes (white blood cells).
✅Step 3: Wash the leukocytes several times with hydrochloric acid until the cell walls and cytoplasm give up and dissolve. If your sample still resembles something organic, apply more acid!
✅ Step 4: Next up, Ether!! For any stubborn cytoplasmic leftovers, introduce ether and shake like an unhinged Victorian chemist to remove any leftovers of the cytoplasm.
✅ Step5: Precipitate Mystery Goo – The ‘Eureka’ Moment! Add sodium carbonate (alkali) to your abused nuclei, then drown them in acid. Observe as a mysterious white precipitate emerges—Congratulations! You have officially bullied something into being!!
✅ Step 6: Observe and Take Notes on Your 'Discovery' – Watch as your ‘nuclein’ obediently solidifies in acid and vanishes in alkali, performing a neat chemical trick that proves… something. Convince yourself this is an entirely novel substance and not just the result of aggressive chemistry.
✅ Step 7: Verify ‘Purity’ by Setting It on Fire – Having worked tirelessly to extract this fragile substance, it's now time to destroy it. Burn it to analyze the byproducts! Phosphorus? Check. Nitrogen? Check. Sulfur? No? Great, it must not be protein. Declare the sacred blueprint of life!
✅ Step 8: Ascribe It to Heredity Without Any Real Evidence – Since your unknown substance came from nuclei, it must have something to do with heredity, right?
GENIUS! 🎉 BUT WAIT… IS THIS REALLY DNA? 🤔
🔥 Critics claim that dissolving organic material in acid and setting it on fire may not be the best way to isolate genetic material. Nonsense! We assure you, any 'hereditary substance' that somehow survives our 19th-century chemical gauntlet is 100% legitimate (because we say so).
Besides, if there was no DNA to begin with, how did we find it after chemically forcing it into existence? 🤷♂️ # CheckmateDeniers
FREQUENTLY AVOIDED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
🧐 Q: If DNA is the molecule of life, why does it need to be chemically reconstructed from cellular wreckage?
🔬 A: Silence, please. We are doing science.
🧐 Q: Why don’t we just isolate a fully intact, unmodified DNA molecule?
🔬 A: Because then we wouldn’t need grant money to keep “discovering” it.
🧐 Q: Isn’t this just circular reasoning?
🔬 A: Absolutely not! We assumed DNA exists, looked for DNA, and found what we assumed. That’s called scientific rigor.
LIMITED-TIME OFFER! ORDER YOUR "PURE" DNA TODAY!
🚀 For just $9.99, we’ll send you your very own sample of degraded nucleic acid sludge—freshly extracted from our state-of-the-art boiling vat of molecular destruction. Call now, and we’ll throw in an extra dose of hydrochloric ether —FREE! ⚗️
📞 Call 1-800-DNA-FAKE to claim your personalized double-helix experience! 🧬🕺
💰 Hurry! Supplies are infinite (because we can just dissolve more leukocytes in acid).
🚨 WARNING: MAY CONTAIN ZERO ACTUAL DNA.
☠️ Side effects include: extreme skepticism, spontaneous questioning of mainstream science, and an uncontrollable urge to expose scientific fraud.
Today's sponsor: The Acid Bath Consortium™ – “If It’s Not Chemically Mangled, It’s Not Real!"
So, what you are saying is, "It's ALL a lie -- in a perpetual state of '(un)be.Koming.'
Flippin Awesome 👌 I wish I could share your comment. Ps. When do you think is a good time to drop "THE" bomb 💣
Isn't it interesting that this DNA testing crap didn't get big until the invention of the mythical PCR process which claims to copy something before measuring it?
Kary Mullis even said that with enough copies (cycles) you'll get everything... Meaning that it's not a true copy.
https://robc137.substack.com/p/pcr-fails-logic-from-the-start-sorry
Oh boy, so disappointing that you promote Jamie Andrews "work" again, Unbekoming. His arguments are ludicrous but he is gifted in wrapping historical facts in a semi-coherent whole casting doubt on the existence of DNA, for a non scientific audience. As a professional molecular biologist who has worked with DNA everyday in my lab, it is easy to identify the gaping holes in his scientific knowledge. First, the ridiculous insistance on taking a picture of it is beyond grotesque if you think about it for a second: we cannot take pictures of objects that small. Period. Deal with it, we are not an omnipotent species. So come on here Jamie Andrews, debate me. You won't dare. You don't mention NMR as a visualisation technique, we can "see" DNA exceedingly well with it, in complex interactions with DNA binding proteins. Right there in a single frame you have the conformation of a DNA molecule at the instant t, and as you keep getting frames you observe the different conformations that DNA molecule can take, as it is happening in solution. Come here to debate me, Jamie.
Perhaps you can help me understand PCR then.
A copy of something that even Kary Mullis said after so many cycles will give you everything. He joked that it was like the Buddhist idea that everything contains the universe 😂.
That doesn't sound like a true copy to me.
https://robc137.substack.com/p/pcr-fails-logic-from-the-start-sorry
Also, how can we explain that DNA testing is not that accurate. Someone sent their DNA instead of their dog to pet sequencing services and the results were hilarious.
You would think that the matching would have seen the sample as either corrupt or identified as human and not canine.
I cannot comment on specific cases without knowing what method was used, etc.
DNA testing is done by humans, humans make mistakes, so no surprise there.
I can comment on PCR, having done tens of thousands of them. It is the most sensitive technique, it can detect a single molecule in the right condition, which is quite an extraordinary achievement if you think about it. Being so sensitive, the biggest issue is DNA contamination, and appropriate controls must be included to detect such possible contamination. However, it never amplifies something that is not there, it is physically impossible. What Mullis was actually saying is that the detection of a given pathogen should not be equated with the disease, and he was absolutely right about that.
DNA contamination happens with PCR itself.
It's an analog copy treated like a digital copy.
Digital copy is bit for bit identical while analog copies have noise.
That's why if you copy a copy of a VHS or audio tape over and over you get white noise eventually.
How did Mullis and geneticists not know this?
The analogy does not quite work. There is a low error rate for any polymerase and there are many very high fidelity polymerases in use nowadays: 1 error per 1.9 million bases incorporated for the best one. That means, to give you a practical example, you have say a 1000 bp fragment amplified through 25 cycles, you expect one out of a 100 molecules produced to contain an error (verified by deep single-molecule sequencing). Thus 99 digital copies and one analog, mostly correct but with one of its bases off. So the question becomes is that error material to the test being done? In most cases it is simply not. In the cases where it could be material, steps are taken to purify away such errors, usually by cloning.
Can you provide me valid evidence (logical observations or scientific experiment) of any alleged nucleotide?
If there is not such evidence, then this means there is no foundation for genetics. Thus genetics is pseudoscience.
BTW I can easily challenge you on alleged viruses, molecules, immune system and other things which are not on perceivable scale too.
Obviously you won't take it as evidence, but nucleotides can be purified, the mass precisely measured, elemental composition determined, infrared, visible, UV absorption spectra, NMR, open any biochemistry textbook for all the details.
He is not addressing a non-scientific audience. Many of his subscribers will undoubtedly have a background similar to mine. I have decades of experience working in software design and a degree in Physics with Astrophysics. My qualifications have nothing to do with the validity of any scientific question. Everyone is entitled to question the "science," and there is no such thing as a non-scientific audience. Your qualifications do not make you a scientist, but an adherent of scientism. There is a big difference.
As a matter of fact, I am not an adherent of scientism and I do welcome his scepticism, it is one of the pillars of science, and so is debate, and I just invited Jamie to one. Let's see if he accepts it.
Btw, if someone were to put together something similar to what Jamie Andrews does here in your field, what would be your reaction? Imagine someone saying, there is no picture of electrons, anywhere. Ask physicists, and they cannot really tell you what it is made of, but they have a lot of equations that prove just nothing, and circuit boards are a sham, imagine the insanity of claiming you can make transistors in the nm range, it is physically impossible. What would you say? That's the level of the DNA does not exist meme entertained here. The entire biotechnology industry does not exist, all these buildings with people working in labs, costs billions, is all pretend to make you believe DNA exist when it does not because because, damn, that's hard, because, damn, I give up, maybe Jamie can help.
You may be right. But the electron analogy is not a good one because electronics is a "useful" field and computers and cell phones clearly work. The genetics industry has produced nothing remotely comparable, and we simply have to trust the "experts". Some claim the electron is a wave-particle or it's a fluctuation in an aetheric field- who really knows? But the empirical equations are a "useful model". Even if DNA is real, then the acknowledged limitations of PCR make the entire field of genetics very suspect. Our entire debt-based economy demands constant debt-creation in a never-ending Ponzi scheme, so yes, the biotech industry (as well as the space industry) could all be fake.
Your poopooing of the biotech industry is unjustified, it does not matter if electronics is even more impactful, the question is what the existence of the industry means in terms of validating the underlying technology:
since insulin, the FDA has approved over 300 original biologics, not even counting vaccines and blood products. The global biologics market reached approximately $487 billion in 2025, representing ~40% of the pharmaceutical market and growing at 10-15% annually. Over 350 million patients worldwide have been treated with biologics, leading to improved quality of life and reduced disease burden. At some point, one has to respect the reality principle, nothing of the sort is possible if DNA does not exist. The limitations of PCR, like for every single technology on earth, exist! Stop the press! These limitations are well understood and dealt with through appropriate protocols. Let me clarify that any technology can be abused, and PCR testing in the COVID era is one clear instance, but it says nothing about the underlying technology. Like for voting, it is not who votes for who that matters, but who counts the vote. Same with PCR in a manufactured crisis, but the technology itself is very solid.
PCR is a fraud as it is not based on nucleotides.
The biotech industry exists but what exactly has it given us? We were supposed to get more understanding of life with DNA but all we have are more questions.
At least when it comes to electronics, even if quantum theory is bullshit, it still works and is consistent. (Quantum theory isn't necessary to explain why it works as wave theory explains it already!)
I can't say that about genetics.
Genetics is an attempt to reverse engineer biology. Reverse engineering involves a lot of guesswork, especially when the object being observed is invisible.
The biotech industry has given us useful biologics, the first were molecules like insulin and interferons, there are countless more nowadays.
We were supposed to get more understanding of life with DNA, and we did, much greater understanding, and you are right that it raised even more questions, usually the sign of a fruitful scientific approach.
You can't say that about genetics but it reflects most of all your unfamiliarity with the field: I can say, like you say about electronics, that whatever the theory, DNA is real and can be manipulated in the lab to produced useful biologics. There is nothing mysterious or special about reverse engineering, it is used in many fields, if I give you a circuitboard of a captured drone, you'd be able to reverse engineering it. The ability to reverse engineer is in fact the most powerful demonstration of the validity of a theory, it means it correspond to something rooted in reality, you can reproduce something with the same functionality as the original.
What useful biologics have we got from DNA?
I recall the big dream of curing cancer with genetics.
I recall the promise of crispr gene editing.
So far we got some supposed cloned sheep that died and glow in the dark animals (but they forget that a part of what was injected in them glows).
What if the reverse engineering was incomplete or on the wrong track?
We should always question things. That's how science works.
I'm not saying DNA doesn't exist but I'm not seeing the promise of the application.
Meanwhile, even if we don't know how transistors really work, we can construct circuits that behave consistently.
that the dream of curing cancer with genetics has not become reality is not the fault of genetics. It's the fault of the theory of what causes cancer! Cancer is not caused by genetics. So if cancer is not caused by genetics, then how can genetics be used to cure it?
I'll repeat my response to CK_:
since insulin, the FDA has approved over 300 original biologics, not even counting vaccines and blood products. The global biologics market reached approximately $487 billion in 2025, representing ~40% of the pharmaceutical market and growing at 10-15% annually. Over 350 million patients worldwide have been treated with biologics, leading to improved quality of life and reduced disease burden. At some point, one has to respect the reality principle, nothing of the sort is possible if DNA does not exist. The limitations of PCR, like for every single technology on earth, exist! Stop the press! These limitations are well understood and dealt with through appropriate protocols. Let me clarify that any technology can be abused, and PCR testing in the COVID era is one clear instance, but it says nothing about the underlying technology. Like for voting, it is not who votes for who that matters, but who counts the vote. Same with PCR in a manufactured crisis, but the technology itself is very solid.
It seems you have bought the marketing of various pharma/biotech companies. Cancer is mostly a metabolic disease, genetics could not possibly bring a cure. Any editing has off-target effects so stay away from any gene editing, with the exception of diseases in blood cells, if the treatment is done in vitro, on stem cells, which are fully sequenced before reintroduction in the body. The reverse engineering is straight forward, no mystery, do a little research if you are interested, AI can be useful for exploring unfamiliar fields.
Electrons are only mental constructs. Never proven in reality.
You don’t need an atom to explain the physics behind a transistor. Through experimentation in materials science, scientists have clearly observed effects in various elements that, when combined, produce the desired results. Yet this has nothing to do with describing reality. For example, take Bohr’s paper on the atom. It was discarded not long after with the advent of QM. The model has changed so much over the last 100 years that it is unrecognisable as being related to Bohr’s original concept. Yet events could be predicted using the model, for example, the photoelectric effect. It does not mean the electrons revolving around the nucleus exist as defined by Bohr’s model, as the experts now accept. You are mixing two unrelated topics. To prove that something exists and is observable, it must be observed. The clue is in the noun and the verb.
Computer technology has nothing to do with atomic physics nor with Quantum Mechanics, both of which are based on non-existent models, just like the Gene. The experts even admit it.
The evolving definition of the term Gene
https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/205/4/1353/6066400?login=false
In fact, even the experts tell us that the actual definition of a Gene is constantly changing! Just like the Bohr atom!
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Concepts evolve in science as our knowledge deepens, ok. Actually not constantly changing but slowly evolving. So what?
I am following Jamie Andrews, what a eye opening research he is showing to the public!
Thank you for all the interesting postings!
Can we believe 2 different dna company tests that came up with the same results: siblings with different paternity but the same mother?
Like 90% of allopathetic medicine, all this is based on inferences, lies, models and guesses. Without all this fundamental poppycock, modern medicine would go up in a puff of smoke.
There's no icon to post pictures. 😔
How can any point be proven without any supporting pictures.
Can a layman observe a comet. Could they map its trajectory. Could a lay person play with stuff that is generally considered the domain of accredited representatives.
My 3rd Q is that if everything else (other than human) is created holographically, which is found to be perfect. And the entity responsible for same transmits the holo-field from 1 to all adjacent encoders with exacting replication, where said ring encoders derive the blueprints from the aether, would change an otherwise perfect system and adopt an inferior replication scheme. Characteristics such as love of hiking cannot surely be replicated in a mechanical system.
You are telling me that you haven't created life out of nothing..yet !
Mainstream science is still playing with atoms. It's description of water even has no realism. It is very obvious that nobody has studied it. For even at 200x mag, waters code-frags are obvious.
Per ions, obviously nobody has looked.
Out of all you people who imagine things and promote ideas that are based solely on imagination is shame 🫠 For it only takes a modest microscope and ultra simple experiments to demonstrate that the entire foundations of science are total bs.
But, I do get it. The books have been printed. No person is going to lose their bs Nobel prize or gold metal. Nobody's going to willfully admit that "we didn't actually look".
"The gold standard was always fool’s gold." They kill a lot of people with that standard.... 🙏
This guy Marc G Whatsisname's circular reasoning reminds me of an old Persian joke featuring a recurring character in Sufi humour; a village idiot who believes himself wise, named Nasiruddin.
One day, Nasiruddin is seen wandering round the village with a large jar of powdered pepper, which he is liberally spreading around. This, of course, is causing all manner of discomfort to his neighbours, so they confront him.
"Nasiruddin, what are you doing?' they ask between sneezes while rubbing their sore red eyes. "Why are you spreading pepper everywhere, can't you see how you are making us all sick."
"Ah", replies Nasiruddin with a wise forbearing smile, "But, it's to keep the tigers away. You wouldn't want your children to be eaten by tigers, would you?".
'No of course not." The villagers agree "But Nasiruddin, there aren't any tigers around these parts."
"Exactly!" exclaims the village idiot triumphantly. "So, as you all admit, it works, doesn't it?"
And then, throwing great clouds of pepper in their faces, adds piously:
"Instead of complaining, you should all be thanking me for keeping your children safe."
Appreciation and blessings from Sydney Australia.
Regarding procreation and heredity, there is a biological aspect and an informational aspect. The egg and sperm are the biological mechanisms for the generation of new meat.
DNA is a biological manifestation of the information, a biological resonance, but it is not the source of truth for the information of heredity.
Our sciences today are shaped only by what is observable intellectually. This serves multiple purposes, one of which is to obscure and limit human understanding of this plane.
" The pattern is familiar: when predictions fail, invent rescue devices to explain why the theory is still correct".........That pattern is repeated to 'protect' the complete failures of vaccines, and other allopathic medicines!! One big book of excuses. If you manage to 'research' a new one to help these LIARS/MURDERERS/PUPPETS out, and 'buy' further time for the lie to exist, then a Nobel prize awaits!!